On Feb 8, 4:27 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012  <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Since it is predictable, it is deterministic
> Yes.
> > since it is determiniistic it is no free.
> Cannot comment because your definition of free will was nonsensical and the
> problem seems to be more with the "free" part than the "will" part. I have
> no problem with "will", it's a perfectly clear concept, but whenever
> somebody hooks it up with the F word things turn into gibberish.
> > Feeling free is not being free. That was bait and switch.
> I know what it means to feel free, not knowing what I will do next; but I
> don't know what you mean by "being free".

It means your actions are not determined by external forces
(and a few other conditions).

> >>  To have any hope of free will making any sense you've got to turn
> >> around our definition by 180 degrees.
> > You are confusing makign sense with agreeing with your prejudices.
> No, I'm talking about the difference between being self contradictory and
> not being self contradictory.
> It's not as if I disagree with your definition, it's not good enough to
> allow disagreement, its gibberish.

What is my defintion, IYO? I don't believe I've
offered one in the current discussion.

> > Indeterminism is compatible with doing things for reasons
> Bullshit.

I can argue my point, not just swear.

> > because reasons are final causes
> OK, but that "final cause" happened for a reason or it did not happen for a
> reason a

Meaning it was caused or uncased. But an uncaused aim or
goal still counts as a reason, because it is an answer
to the question "what did you do that for". However, only
a very select group of entities can answer such questions.
so most causes are not reasons.

>and if the name is appropriate and it really is final

That's not what "final" means in context. Read
yer Aristotle.

> then there are
> no more causes in the chain and the final cause happened for no reason. In
> other words the final cause was random.
> >whereas indeterminism only means lack of efficient causes.
> All that means is that the efficient cause and the final cause are the same
> thing;

Nope. You have misunderstood "final cause".

> if the chain of "what causes that?" is not infinite (and there is no
> logical reason it couldn't be) then eventually you will always find a case
> where the efficient cause is the final cause.
> > Causes are not reasons.
> Yes, one has 6 letters and the other has 7.
>  John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to