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?
> is part of understanding (which is why a machine can't have either
> 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.
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
For more options, visit this group at