williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (08/27/85)
Back then they didn't call it " Newtonian ". They still call it mechanics or physics or whatever. If you wish to archive the old definition of free will, be our guest. It's boiling down to you or me, isn't it Rich? You can call it whatever-the-f*** you want, and I'll still call it free will. But tell me honestly, which do you think will be easier to live with? I don't know about you, but I don't think people are that stupid to confuse free will with the logical extreme you presented us with. If I find any, I'll send them to you. John. It takes a truly brilliant mind to make a truly brilliant mistake.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/29/85)
> Back then they didn't call it " Newtonian ". They still call > it mechanics or physics or whatever. If you wish to archive the old > definition of free will, be our guest. Now they call it Newtonian to distinguish it from modern models that express a closer relationship to reality. > It's boiling down to you or me, isn't it Rich? You can call it > whatever-the-f*** you want, and I'll still call it free will. I'm afraid YOU'RE the one who's calling it whatever the f*** you want. Are you purposely intending to deceive people by applying the label to a completely different phenomenon? If that is not your goal, then why not be clear about what you are referring to? > But tell me honestly, which do you think will be easier > to live with? Using the words accepted as part of the language to mean what the speakers of the language understand them to mean, and using other words to describe new concepts. That would make it much easier for speakers of the language. Of course, using the words you want at your whim might make it easier for you and for philosophers. Language wasn't built to make it "easier" for philosophers, though a good deal of philosophy seems to be founded on the ability to misuse words. > I don't know about you, but I don't think people are that > stupid to confuse free will with the logical extreme you presented > us with. If I find any, I'll send them to you. Confuse? My good man, people DEFINE what words mean. Not "the Council of the Hierarchy of Eminent Alcoholic Philosophers". You may remember that Paul Torek "challenged" me to find ONE person who thought that free will meant what I have long said that it meant (and thus implied an external agent in control). It didn't take me long; the first person I asked (actually, that person's attentive eavesdropping officemate) confirmed it, as did many subsequent random samples. Perhaps *I* should send such people to *you*, Mr. Williams, since you seem to believe that they don't exist. Who said philosophers live in ivory towers? ... -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr