On 30 September 2013 16:18, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/29/2013 6:03 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 30 September 2013 13:58, Russell Standish <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The reason it doesn't make the will a slave to randomness, is that the >> will is random in its essence. There is no self-other distinction >> between the will and the random source. >> > > I don't see this. The random source here is the laws of physics, surely? > So unless you identify your will with physical law, > > Why not?...with the physical function of your brain and body. What about > the deterministic part...it's also from the laws physics. > > I may not have put that very well, but what I want to know is, how is this supposed to stop the will being "A slave to randomness" ? It seems to me that Russell is saying that if you throw dice, you're a slave to randomness, while if you move the dsce inside your head (so to speak) you aren't. I suspect I'm missing something obvious here, it wouldn't be the first time.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
