Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2021 sci.philosophy.tech:677
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!ns!ddb
From: ddb@ns.ns.com (David Dyer-Bennet)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: How to dispose of the free will issue (long)
Summary: What does this have to do with free will?
Keywords: free will architecture terminology
Message-ID: <406@ns.ns.com>
Date: 11 Jul 88 19:16:19 GMT
References: <483@cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk> <794@l.cc.purdue.edu> <488@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <445@proxftl.UUCP>
Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN
Lines: 16

In article <445@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
> For example, my own definition of free will has consequences
> that,.... This means
> that I can test the validity of my definition of free will by
> normal scientific means and thus takes the problem of free will
> out of the religious and into the practical.
  Yep, that's what you'd need to have to take the debate out of the
religious and into the practical.  Not meaning to sound sarcastic, but
this is a monumental philosophical breathrough.  But could you exhibit
some of the difficult pieces of this theory; in particular, what is
the measurable difference between an action taken freely, and one that
was pre-determined by other forces?
-- 
	-- David Dyer-Bennet
	...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb
	ddb@viper.Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb
	Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 hst/2400/1200/300