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 email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.