On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> In addition to approving of one presented option and disapproving of
Approved for a reason or approved for no reason.
> free will allows us to nominate our own option for approval.
Nominated for a reason or nominated for no reason.
> I don't see much of a difference between 'will' and 'free will'.
The meaning of will is clear and its existence beyond dispute, I want to do
some things and don't want to do other things. But free will "means" that
simultaneously something happened for no reason and that same something did
not happened for no reason; this is not even nonsense because there is no
sense for it to be opposite to. The stories of Lewis Carroll are nonsense
but they are not gibberish, the "free will" noise is gibberish.
>They are both colloquial
Translation: Shallow. Not thought through. Vague. Ignorant.
> terms that don't need to be put under a microscope.
Philosophers have been studying these terms for thousands of years without
the use of modern tools like microscopes and logic and the scientific
method, and that is why they have made precisely ZERO progress in all that
time. All your posts could have been written by any philosophically minded
well educated man living in 1000BC, but the thing is the human race has
learned far more good philosophy since then, but not from philosophers.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at