Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Pfui-- Another free will non-sequitur
Message-ID: <1275@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 17:16:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1275
Posted: Fri Aug 16 17:16:18 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 03:51:10 EDT
References: <1499@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 23

In article <1499@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>All you've shown is that you have to power to want to condition yourself not
>to do something.  That happens to be great, and one of the best and most
>useful things about being human.  I wouldn't call it "free will" though.
>The fact that it took time to squelch the desires and recondition
>yourself proves my point:  you cannot simply will a desire (!) into or
>out of existence.

I have to disagree with both sides here; Rich is certainly correct that this
ability doesn't "prove" free will (in any of the forms any of us have
proposed), but it simply doesn't follow to say that you can't will a desire.
Since no one seems to be able to say what the will is like, whether or not
it takes time to accomplish the action of its choice is irrelevant.  I don't
see any scientific evidence forthcoming that actions of the will must be
instantaneous, so I have to assume RIch has intuited this conclusion.

It seems to me that as far as free will is concerned, this ability doesn't
offer conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Charley Wingate

  "I'll simulate the lightning."