williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (09/12/85)
Rich, your assertions that free will mean one and only one thing are a feeble and futile attempt to set a universal context and force everyone to your style of thought. As I stated before, there exists a secondary meaning which lends more flexibility to it's interpretation. While it is true that no one possesses absolute freedom, there is still a degree of freedom which can be measured with any phenomenon. The truth remains that you simply have no empirical evidence for your belief. My STAND: Free will is a suitable term for expressing the component in natural evolution that allows mutation of society. Free will is limited to an optimized margin ( degree of freedom ) that promotes cohesive development. This is a requirement for intelligence. Without freedom, there is no mutation. Without mutation, there is no evolution. Without evolution, there is no intelligence. I invite you to find a flaw. Now, for one of your flaws . . . Regulations are necessary to stabilize the environment. Social systems only function within certain environmental margins. Minimal interference is a very indirect way of looking at it. Certain types of interference ( or influence, interference having " bad " implications . . . ) are actually promoted. For example: Schools. The basic idea is to raise the standard of living. Unregulated interference is transposed to subtlety, where free will then allows a choice of alternatives. What this means is that you are free until such time as the alternatives can be determined to no longer be considered arbitrary. It is then that culture achieves a degree of coherence, and the stable concepts and ideals gain acceptance. Interference should always be allowed at some transposed level of interaction, simply so different concepts are allowed to compete for acceptance. When a singularity becomes evident, it is adopted. Standards and regulations are necessary to promote cooperation. They represent alternatives that have been demonstrated to be non arbitrary. You show two remarkable extremes, Rich. First, you state that freedom doesn't exist, and second, you promote a policy that considers freedom to be highest priority. I hope you recognize these idealisms. You are becoming an experienced juggler. John.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/13/85)
John, your assertions that unicorn means one and only one thing are a feeble and futile attempt to set a universal context and force everyone to your style of thought. As I stated before, there exists a secondary meaning which lends more flexibility to it's interpretation. A unicorn can be thought of as a horse. Why won't you give up your personal definition of unicorn and accept mine, which others in this newsgroup have accepted? Other speakers of the language, you say? Who cares about such riffraff... > Regulations are necessary to stabilize the environment. > Social systems only function within certain environmental > margins. Minimal interference is a very indirect way of looking > at it. Certain types of interference ( or influence, interference > having " bad " implications . . . ) are actually promoted. For > example: Schools. The basic idea is to raise the standard of > living. Unregulated interference is transposed to subtlety, where > free will then allows a choice of alternatives. What this means > is that you are free until such time as the alternatives can be > determined to no longer be considered arbitrary. It is then that > culture achieves a degree of coherence, and the stable concepts > and ideals gain acceptance. Interference should always be allowed > at some transposed level of interaction, simply so different > concepts are allowed to compete for acceptance. When a > singularity becomes evident, it is adopted. The point is that apparently when you "accept" such interference as ipso facto legit, you have lost sight of all of your goals. Are the goals to get people to obey the rules, or are they to set up rules that will do the most for the most people? > Standards and regulations are necessary to promote > cooperation. They represent alternatives that have been > demonstrated to be non arbitrary. See above. > You show two remarkable extremes, Rich. First, you state > that freedom doesn't exist, and second, you promote a policy that > considers freedom to be highest priority. I hope you recognize > these idealisms. You are becoming an experienced juggler. Not at all. It is precisely because my experiences lead me to be a certain way, and thus to have certain needs and wants, that I feel that the purpose of society MUST be to accommodate the needs of all such people, rather than to forcefit us into a mold that is "best" (short term only, of course) for "society". -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr