Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion Subject: Re: Pfui Message-ID: <1581@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 24-Aug-85 14:40:43 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1581 Posted: Sat Aug 24 14:40:43 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 03:28:42 EDT References: <1276@pyuxd.UUCP> <2145@pucc-h> <1313@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 24 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2416 net.religion:7470 >>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. > Well, here is the main difference between us, that is > *exactly* what I call free will. I do not remember any proponent of > free will ever claiming the ability to magically will a result > instantly. That is totally irrelevent to free will as far as I am > concerned. Why should my inability to do something I never claimed was > possible have any bearing on the existence of free will? Because that's the definition. What you call free will is hardly free. If you cannot will your desires (and thus your actions) into or out of existence, you are dependent upon the way your brain happens to be at that time, and thus you are not free. If it's NOT predisposed to doing what you describe, due to not having learned it or other possibilities, then it won't happen. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr