On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson <[email protected]> wrote: > The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that > "Free will" is not meaningless. "Free will" has to mean something before > it can be attacked.
But I'm not saying "free will" does not exist, and I'm not attacking it because there is nothing to attack, it would be like attacking a duck's "quack". I'm saying I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you type the ASCII characters "free will" and neither do you. I'm not saying the idea is wrong, I'm saying there is no idea there. How do I know this? Because whenever anybody talks about "free will" the resulting verbiage is ALWAYS a blizzard of contradictory statements, circular definitions, vague illusions, pious speeches, and just plain old idiocy; there is never any substance there. Never. 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
