Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site frog.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!tdh From: tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Redefining free will Message-ID: <159@frog.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 19:56:46 EST Article-I.D.: frog.159 Posted: Thu Mar 7 19:56:46 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 04:44:36 EST References: <627@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA Lines: 22 I presume that the original argument on free will came from the hypostasization of cause and effect in some alleged deity and the question of that deity's control over human actions. Then it is consistent, denying the existence of any such deity, to claim that free will can exist and that nothing is outside of cause and effect. To argue that there might be something outside of cause and effect that is somehow related to our conciousness is so far from the common understanding of the word "free" that the expression "free will" as it is commonly interpreted in philosophy should be replaced with something suitable to what is being discussed. The discussion of free will could then return to the question of the existence of some superbeing controlling human beings, if it were worthwhile, or of some being controlling another's mind (to distinguish free will from freedom). I'd also like to see the range of will discussed separately from its freedom, except where there are controlling agents within the range. The future is what we make it. David Hudson