mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/14/85)
In article <1484@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>It is true that the meaning of the word unicorn as commonly used >>>has been in existence for a long time. However, that meaning >>>is entirely useless!! It does not describe a real thing that >>>exists! Thus, let's change the meaning of the word unicorn so >>>that it becomes "useful". Let's, say, make it equivalent to >>>"horse". There now we have unicorns. And we all WANT to have >>>unicorns, just like we want to have freedom, right? So it must >>>have been the "right" thing to do... [ROSEN] >Exactly. Free will as originally and continually defined and used in >human discourse, like the word "unicorn", does not represent a real >object. We don't go changing the meaning of "unicorn" to "get" unicorns >to exist. The same with any other word. By the same token, then, no one can talk about Newtonian mechanics, since the theory is demonstably wrong? I find this to be getting altogether silly. First of all, it is not established fact that human behavior is completely determined. Second, even if it were, there is great utility in wrong concepts. The symbolic value of unicorns is in fact of great import to psychology. Newtonian mechanics is wrong, but how it is wrong is quite well known, allowing it to be used as an approximation. Absolute determinism is almost certainly wrong, but it is useful to talk about causes in most circumstances. The whole problem with language here seems not to be with "freedom" but with "will". People have gotten in the habit of thinking of the Will of a person as an object. This almost immediately leads you into a metaphysical notion of the Will, and thence into souls and spirits. I think, however, that this is an outmoded restriction upon the nature of Will. It's entirely possible that the Will (if you choose to believe in such a object) is purely a process, which certainly accepts inputs from the outside, but which may or may not have a core of information which is entirely self-derived. Whether or not this is true, or even scientifically verifiable, is a subject in a different discussion. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/20/85)
>>>It is true that the meaning of the word unicorn as commonly used >>>has been in existence for a long time. However, that meaning >>>is entirely useless!! It does not describe a real thing that >>>exists! Thus, let's change the meaning of the word unicorn so >>>that it becomes "useful". Let's, say, make it equivalent to >>>"horse". There now we have unicorns. And we all WANT to have >>>unicorns, just like we want to have freedom, right? So it must >>>have been the "right" thing to do... [ROSEN] >>Exactly. Free will as originally and continually defined and used in >>human discourse, like the word "unicorn", does not represent a real >>object. We don't go changing the meaning of "unicorn" to "get" unicorns >>to exist. The same with any other word. [also ROSEN] > By the same token, then, no one can talk about Newtonian mechanics, since > the theory is demonstably wrong? On the contrary, Charles. Just as Newtonian mechanics as a term refers to a set of theories that is "demonstrably wrong" (it still refers to the same theories), the term "free will" refers to a philosophical notion regarding the ability for human beings to make choices unconstrained by external dependencies. The term "Newtonian mechanics" does not magically change to conform to modern theories so that, thus, Newton would be right. The same holds for "free will": it refers to a notion that may be demonstrably wrong in its implications, but that doesn't mean we have the term point to something new that IS right. Thanks, Charlie. What a setup. You're the best straight man since Bud Abbott. :-) I find this to be getting altogether silly. First of all, it is not established fact that human behavior is completely determined. Second, even if it were, there is great utility in wrong concepts. The symbolic value of unicorns is in fact of great import to psychology. Newtonian mechanics is wrong, but how it is wrong is quite well known, allowing it to be used as an approximation. Absolute determinism is almost certainly wrong, but it is useful to talk about causes in most circumstances. The whole problem with language here seems not to be with "freedom" but with "will". People have gotten in the habit of thinking of the Will of a person as an object. This almost immediately leads you into a metaphysical notion of the Will, and thence into souls and spirits. I think, however, that this is an outmoded restriction upon the nature of Will. It's entirely possible that the Will (if you choose to believe in such a object) is purely a process, which certainly accepts inputs from the outside, but which may or may not have a core of information which is entirely self-derived. Whether or not this is true, or even scientifically verifiable, is a subject in a different discussion. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/22/85)
In article <1556@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>Exactly. Free will as originally and continually defined and used in >>>human discourse, like the word "unicorn", does not represent a real >>>object. We don't go changing the meaning of "unicorn" to "get" unicorns >>>to exist. The same with any other word. [also ROSEN] >> By the same token, then, no one can talk about Newtonian mechanics, since >> the theory is demonstably wrong? >On the contrary, Charles. Just as Newtonian mechanics as a term refers >to a set of theories that is "demonstrably wrong" (it still refers to >the same theories), the term "free will" refers to a philosophical notion >regarding the ability for human beings to make choices unconstrained by >external dependencies. The term "Newtonian mechanics" does not magically >change to conform to modern theories so that, thus, Newton would be right. >The same holds for "free will": it refers to a notion that may be >demonstrably wrong in its implications, but that doesn't mean we have the >term point to something new that IS right. HOWEVER.... Rich in another article freely admitted that he would accept a definition of the "Will" (i.e., that it was the decision-making process of the mind). Free Will is therefore the doctrine that the decisions of the will are not completely determined by external constraints. (note that I use the word "determined" and not "constrained".) Certainly if the will is supernatural, then we can have free will. The implication does not therefore run the other way. Until it is determined how the Will works, there is no real basis for claims for or against free will. Charley Wingate