Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: A New Theory of Free Will -- continuation of an Open Letter to Professor Penrose
Message-ID: <jqbDMoA84.I41@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <jqbDLr3LD.CG4@netcom.com> <4f8onj$4mr@bud.shadow.net> <DMF7qu.EMv@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <4fbcht$ne2@bud.shadow.net>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:07:16 GMT
Lines: 14
Sender: jqb@netcom15.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:170822 comp.ai:36960 comp.ai.philosophy:37658 sci.philosophy.meta:24625

In article <4fbcht$ne2@bud.shadow.net>,
Michael Cervantes  <cervante@shadow.net> wrote:
>
>>Not everyone accepts that "human volition" in your sense is a fact.
>>
>The fact of their ability to choose to accept my definition of volition 
>or not proves my point implicitly.

My fortune cookie program has this ability too.

I hope such an impoverished notion of proof is not widely held in these groups.
-- 
<J Q B>

