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