rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/05/85)
> Are we going to do this again? The existence of free will does not imply > the existence of a soul, or a ``me trapped inside the body''. Certainly > there are lots of dualists who belive in free will. But there are a lot > of materialists as well who have the same notion. [LAURA CREIGHTON] Are we going to do this again? In recent discussions with Paul Torek, I've been trying to explain that the concept of free will as it is commonly defined DIRECTLY IMPLIES the notion of a soul or external agent. To be truly *free* to make any "decision", the agent of choice MUST be outside of the realm of cause and effect, external to the physiochemical makeup of the brain and body. If, as Paul Torek does, you claim that something along the lines of rational evaluative analytical capabilities do exist, I'd be inclined to agree (as I have done with Paul), but that's not the same as free will. True freedom has nothing to do with rational evaluative capabilities. True freedom would involve the ability to make decisions independent of ANY external physical cause, INCLUDING the rational evaluative processes. If one is truly free, one is truly free to choose either rationality or irrationality at will, and not simply based on making a rational choice. Since this is somewhat outside the realm of religion proper and more in the realm of philosophy, and since discussions have been going on for a while now in net.philosophy, I'd recommend that further discussion be carried on there. (Do you see how that was done, "charley"?) -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr