Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!laura From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Re: Re: Rosen on reason, etc. Message-ID: <5207@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 14:16:18 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.5207 Posted: Mon Mar 11 14:16:18 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 14:16:18 EST References: <153@ISM780B.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 12 No, the position that I was contrasting with Rich Rosen's is that free will is self-evident. If this is correct then it is falacy to go looking for an external ``cause'' for free will when it is not ``caused'' but simply *is*, in the same way that Plank's constant is. By making the assumption that free will has to be caused you will make one of 2 very great misses -- you will either invent a God or a soul which is responsible for the existence of free will, or you will say that because there is no God or soul then there is no free will. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura