Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: From Gordon A. Moffett (living without free will)
Message-ID: <375@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 18:38:16 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.375
Posted: Tue Mar 26 18:38:16 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Mar-85 00:44:54 EST
References: <1150@decwrl.UUCP> <1321@amdahl.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 24
Summary: 

In article <1321@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) writes:
>
>However, I believe that there is no difference between a chemical
>reaction and "knowing" something.  Certainly this is an amazing
>chemical reaction (whatever it is), but I don't belief my body
>operates outside physical laws, known or otherwise.
>
	You are making an assumption here, that is:
"free will implies not-natural". This is unwarrented,
since there is disagreement about what free-will *is*,
you cannot assume it implies supernatural causation.
The problem, as I see it, is that a statement like
"knowledge is a chemical reaction" is a *process* level
statement, but a statement like "I have free will" is a
meaning level, or philosophical statement, and they are
thus *independent* of one another. It is possible to believe
both, one, or neither of them and still be logically consistant.
As a matter of fact I believe both of them!
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen