On Apr 2, 5:28 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 2, 10:38 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Craig, > > > What is the definition of free will you are applying here? Please be as > > specific as possible. > > > Thanks, > > > Jason > > Since free will is primitive, it is not possible to define it in terms > other than its own. That is the problem. It is the epistemological > bedrock upon which all meaningful definitions rely. Meaning itself is > a word which reiterates this by equating intention with sense. 'What > do you mean?' = 'What do you intend for me to understand?'.
Where's the "free" in that? > Intention > is part of understanding (which is why a machine can't have either > one). > > The good news is that there is no need to define it because it is > inescapably obvious. So what's wrong with determinists? We use it to participate in any way with our own > experience. We use it to control and define how we move our body and > appendages. We use it to determine what it is we pay attention to, > what we accept or emulate vs what we reject. > > Craig -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
