On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It [being free] means your actions are not determined by external forces

So a external force like light that has reflected off a wall does not
effect your actions and you crash into the wall. If that's what being free
means then I don't want to be free.

> What is my defintion, IYO?

You're asking me??! You want me to tell you what you're talking about?

> I don't believe I've offered one in the current discussion.

As you've been arguing passionately that free will exist and even claim to
have proven it I think its odd that now you refuse to even say what the
hell it is. Before you can prove something you must know what the hell
you're trying to prove. First tell me what "free will" means and only then
we can debate if human beings have this property or not.

> Meaning it was caused or uncased.

Meaning it was deterministic or random.

> an uncaused aim or goal still counts as a reason,

Yes certainly, in that case you did X because of goal Y and so X was
deterministic. But what caused goal Y? Nothing caused goal Y, it was

> 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.

But human beings don't seem to be members of that "very select group"
because very soon after you start firing off a chain of "what did you do
that for" questions at them all they can do is come up with a standard
rubber stamp reply of "I don't know, I just wanted to".

>> and if the name is appropriate and it really is final
> That's not what "final" means in context.


> > Read yer Aristotle.

Actually I have read Aristotle when I was young and foolish and it was a
complete waste of time. Unlike Plato his literary style was really bad, and
even by the standards of the day Aristotle was a dreadful physicist, just
awful, a good high school physics student today knows far more philosophy
than Aristotle did. Progress has been made in the last 2500 years. And I've
got to tell you that just dropping the name of a ancient Greek philosopher
doesn't impress me very much, especially when there is no evidence you know
a damn thing about him.

> > Nope. You have misunderstood "final cause".

I'm curious, does anybody think that the above is a satisfactory rebuttal
to my argument, or to any argument for that matter? I think if he knew of a
more compelling thing to say he would state it without hesitation. I think
that's just the best he can do.

 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