<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Apr 5, 2007, at 7:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR><BR><DIV><SPAN class="gmail_quote">On 4/6/07, <B class="gmail_sendername">Jef Allbright</B> <<A href="mailto:jef@jefallbright.net">jef@jefallbright.net</A>> wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> There's no paradox here folks, it's just about using the appropriate<BR>context. We have no problem at all describing the behavior of *other*<BR>agents in fully deterministic terms. It's only when we consider <BR>volition from our own point of view that we are seduced and overcome<BR>by the illusion that something special is going on.</BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR>So you agree that free will consists only in the fact that we don't know what we're going to do until we do it? <BR><BR>A digression: does God have free will? It would seem to be inconsistent with omniscience. <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>So now you want to talk about invisible unicorns? I rest my case regarding the merits of this topic.</DIV></DIV><BR><DIV>- samantha</DIV></BODY></HTML>