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