On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:32:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>> If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be not 
>> much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a simple 
>> propensity to cause harm.
> Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible 
> way, neither determined nor random.

Think of it this way. Determined and random are the two unintentional 
vectors which oppose the single intentional vector. Why is that so hard to 
conceptualize? You are using it right now to do the conceptualizing... 

This is why our brains don't give a rat's ass whether physical causes are 
ultimately random or determined, but discerning whether physical causes are 
intentional or unintentional us a matter of *the highest possible 

Can you see what I mean? Because I understand what you mean completely and 
see clearly that you have one eye shut and one hand tied behind your back.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
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