Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics,alt.extropians
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!psuvax1!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!utcsri!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: A New Theory of Free Will -- continuation of an Open Letter to Professor Penrose
Message-ID: <DnG6xD.DH0@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <4el6ee$4t6@brtph500.bnr.ca> <4gkl2l$gr9@amenti.rutgers.edu> <DnEKBp.C0G@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <4gussj$nt9@hahn.informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 18:48:49 GMT
Lines: 47
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:173507 comp.ai:37361 comp.ai.philosophy:38264 sci.philosophy.meta:25145

In article <4gussj$nt9@hahn.informatik.hu-berlin.de>,
Matthew Scott <scott@informatik.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
............
>    God created man in his own image.  Part of this image is the ability
>to assimilate new, complex decision routines.  God gave his children
>this capability because he wanted them to have some degree of power like his
>own.  They are his children.  Why shouldn't they share his capabilities.
>So God went ahead and gave mankind a little R.A.M. And with it, we do both
>good and evil.

Please note that we discuss science here. The above might as well be true but
the "truth" of it is not a matter of science, but faith. Once you make these 
assumptions, many other of your conclusions follow. However, if one does not
make these assumptions, they do not.
A discussion is only possible if there are common premises. In case of
science these premises are: logic and empirical evidence, as determined by
consent what is an empirical fact and what is not. "Facts" about which  
there is no consent are not _scientific facts_ and they cannot be  basis 
for a scientific discussion.
What you say above is not universally accepted and so this is not a proper
newsgroup to discuss their consequences.
.............
>I say, if you're looking there for the physical meaning of the word "Free Will"
>you're barking up the wrong tree.  Your religious background is too weak

You are right here, although note that compatibilists might disagree.

>to expect philosophising about this topic to bring valid, globally
>acceptable results.   And to the people who say...Free Will..No such thing!!!
>Who are you to say that a religious concept doesn't exist in reality.  Have

Very true, but who are you to say that they do? Please accept that as
you _believe_ that they do, some people might just as legitimately _believe_
that they don't. If you want others to respect your beliefs, you should also
respect the other people's beliefs. Assuming then the mutual respects you
can easily see that the only things which can be discussed are those
which do not involve beliefs.

>scott@informatik.hu-berlin.de

Andrzej

-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Information Commons                   what they think and not what they see.
pindor@breeze.hprc.utoronto.ca                      Huang Po
