williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (09/03/85)
Rich, the discussion is over. But, before you label me as an enemy of the public with such words as " deceiving ", I suggest you consider for a moment what I will say when the inquisition begins :-) The fact that you have not been able to prove determinism beyond all reasonable doubt, added to the fact that you prefer an inflexible vocabulary, are proof enough to me that this argument will not be resolved to *YOUR* satisfaction. Here exists the arbitrary choice, and I don't think the world will destroy itself over either definition. The choice I have made is to recognize that words invariably connect with ideals which do not exist in reality, and that the best one can hope for is a close fit within some acceptable margin. It is true that free will can not exist within die hard determinism, but I choose not to use this word in a scientific context. If science were able to explain everything, there would be no need for such things as philosophy. I use free will in the subjective experience context, because it is very similar to consciousness. There is no scientific proof. I honestly thought that that was what philosophy was all about. Determinism and free will both have conflicting evidence, and I think it needs a little more than to say that one simply doesn't exist. I believe the difference between our views stems from the fact that I prefer to understand how these definitions to not necessarily fulfill their ideals in reality, rather than to invalidate the language. Free will can be demonstrated to any arbitrary degree of significance. Remember, Rich, that the essence of science is not analysis, but observation. It would be rather simple for me to prove that objective analysis doesn't exist, if I were to define the concept by the ideal. Yet, ideals are valuable as learning constructs. I am finished. John.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/04/85)
> The fact that you have not been able to prove determinism beyond > all reasonable doubt, added to the fact that you prefer an inflexible > vocabulary, are proof enough to me that this argument will not be resolved > to *YOUR* satisfaction. Here exists the arbitrary choice, and I don't think > the world will destroy itself over either definition. [WILLIAMS] The fact that I was never seeking to "prove determinism beyond all reasonable doubt" notwithstanding, the placement of the burden of proof is crucial here. In certain systems, the status quo simply says "It's on you because we are the statusquo, even after holes have been shown in the status quo. That doesn't change where the burden of proof really belongs. > The choice I have made is to recognize that words invariably > connect with ideals which do not exist in reality, and that the best one can > hope for is a close fit within some acceptable margin. It is true that > free will can not exist within die hard determinism, but I choose not to > use this word in a scientific context. "Words invariably connect" with concepts and ideals, and we cannot willy nilly unilaterally change which concepts/ideals they are supposed to connect with. I accept the first part of your last sentence above, but to accept the latter (which really means, despite the abuse of the term "scientific", that you choose not to use a rigorous definition---why not? does doing this IMPROVE communication?) would be a sham. > If science were able to explain everything, there would be no need for > such things as philosophy. Perhaps it is precisely because philosophers choose to be presumptive rather than rigorous that you get 100 philosophers in a room and 200 opinions, all antithetical to each other. Perhaps. > Remember, Rich, that the essence of science is not analysis, > but observation. It would be rather simple for me to prove that objective > analysis doesn't exist, if I were to define the concept by the ideal. One without the other doesn't yield much. Analysis without observation is pure theory, not necessarily a notion related to the real world (which is not in and of itself bad). Observation without analysis yields a pile of observations (and observation without rigor in exmaination may yield the influence of subjective notions we can do without in analyzing the real world). I would say science is really a combination of both. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr