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