Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: Is what Torek calls "free will" really "free"?
Message-ID: <954@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 18:54:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.954
Posted: Mon Jul 22 18:54:23 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jul-85 07:24:07 EDT
References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1208@pyuxd.UUCP> <1043@ames.UUCP> <1230@pyuxd.UUCP> <1048@ames.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 9
Xref: linus net.philosophy:1835 net.religion:6851
Summary: Purge the old leaven!

In article <1048@ames.UUCP> barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes:
>[...] What Torek and others are saying (I think) is that we can discard 
>the non-material implications of free will, and still leave the term with
>a meaning that corresponds pretty closely with common-sense notions of 
>what "free" means.

EXACTAMOONDO!  I couldn't have said it better (or even as well) myself.

--Paul V Torek, aspiring language reformer