On 30 September 2013 16:18, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 9/29/2013 6:03 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 30 September 2013 13:58, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.