williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (08/26/85)
Richard. You seem to have forgotten something completely. Natural language works through analogy. Free will is a useful term for education. Eliminating the term free will is like eliminating Newtonian physics because it is not 100% accurate. You have appeared to have graduated past this philosophical ideal. Good for you. You have seen the exceptions and why this analogy is not completely accurate. Congratulations. Free will is *STILL* a useful term. I certainly hope that in your grand wisdom you don't fail to leave a path to understanding. The problem as far as I can see between you and the term free will is that it is oversimplified. I personally suggest that you consider expanding the meaning of free will to accomodate not only it's ideal meaning, but it's inaccuracies, as well. You will only be getting far ahead of yourself if you try to accurately define what everyone else refers to as free will. So, let's devise an experiment. I will choose a series of numbers, and you will attempt to find a pattern. If you can accurately guess the numbers, then I will concede that I have no free will. I don't know about you, but I find the presence of free will easier to demonstrate than the absence of it. I suggest that you have to modify your understanding of it, as you modify your understanding of everything, everything that you learn through analogy. John. Forgive, but *DON'T* Forget.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/27/85)
> You seem to have forgotten something completely. Natural > language works through analogy. Free will is a useful term for > education. Eliminating the term free will is like eliminating > Newtonian physics because it is not 100% accurate. You have > appeared to have graduated past this philosophical ideal. Good > for you. You have seen the exceptions and why this analogy is not > completely accurate. Congratulations. Free will is *STILL* a > useful term. Like Newtonian physics, it should be taught as "something that appears to be correct on cursory examination, but is fundamentally wrong in actual reality". "I've told new Bruce 'e can teach about the Marxist thinkers, provided he makes it clear that they were wrong." :-) > I certainly hope that in your grand wisdom you don't fail > to leave a path to understanding. The problem as far as I can see > between you and the term free will is that it is oversimplified. > I personally suggest that you consider expanding the meaning of > free will to accomodate not only it's ideal meaning, but it's > inaccuracies, as well. You will only be getting far ahead of > yourself if you try to accurately define what everyone else > refers to as free will. I'll expand the meaning of free will if you'll expand the meaning of unicorn. (Everyone else?????) > So, let's devise an experiment. I will choose a series of > numbers, and you will attempt to find a pattern. If you can > accurately guess the numbers, then I will concede that I have no > free will. My inability to predict does not imply non-predictivity. I am human (like you, I assume) and just because a human doesn't have all the factors leading up to an event at hand (enabling him/her to predict) does not mean that the event is not the consequence of those factors. It is very anthropocentric to assume that because we lack the tools to determine, there is no force of determination. > I don't know about you, but I find the presence of free > will easier to demonstrate than the absence of it. How so? You find it "easier" to believe? The world is a complex place, and sometimes the easier explanation is not the right one. > I suggest that you have to modify your understanding of > it, as you modify your understanding of everything, everything > that you learn through analogy. I suggest that the same is true for you and your beliefs. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr