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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to