[net.philosophy] What is this free will stuff?

js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/15/85)

     I just started reading this newsgroup today, and I found this amazingly
long and convoluted argument about whether or not 'free will' exists, and
it's clear that the various people in the argument DISAGREE ABOUT WHAT
'FREE WILL' MEANS!  How can you argue with people for weeks about the
existance/nonexistance of some quality without defining it!
     Rich Rosen seems to think that an entity would have 'free will'
(yes, I'm going to continue quoting it until I can get a decent definition
of it.) only if said entity could radically modify its mindset without
external help.
     Others seem to have weaker criteria, though many of you seem to think
that causal systems (ie intelligent computers, human brains without 
quantum indetermanancy, etc.) could not display 'free will'.
     BUT WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY 'FREE WILL'?
     If I decide to post an article to netnews, have I displayed 'free will'?
If not, is it because my decision merely reflects the bio-electrical-chemical
state of my ???n?n?Bbbb
Pbe-
P
e'''???no1?t.4!t222???KKK?????in?Fri10Fro1Her))).2)tma.
Dt'UUUl'???EEE'''t.'rorrorrsd1rowsUCPoFrF?333?-uw???-P?'''?'?'
????j???''?'???'???1!??????---ggg'''
|?????n?WWW??'''KKKKK
FKe-
???yRRR4--U--U---U-??.?n9?--U-sit_ps4?'''''????????yR?(*r?NUUe-l111?3N?lsl '''s'???#'?n?lyRtd '4?it_-U^?
|t?3N??'''#?*???WWlsl ?????>>>g?o|???_r?(B'''bbC@.?
?????y'u l1yc??'?n??:y9?WW?3NB???'?>ol ?l'?$????_r'''--U-siF?'??-
?E))1?oWW?WW?W???'Uol ?l'?Uol?$))))):08)n?Bw:yRtsnWW?eWW?eWhaW:08h a:???''''''#'''#'as'paa?(?(?e ?'''.?
???-C@)))))))ch)??
?(??(??nc?c?WW?e''?W?
|WW?e'WW?e'W'''''''ould'?????-ololoWWteo???'???'?
?
?
 f
 f  B?'''''''/// f  f  UoUo*bl?bl?b??i''''C@)9-5g?u @.??
|t??WyRtsyj'?''?''ist' fiWW?e''''''JWW?e' i  i  ???g
???? y?vjs2j?"scJscJs|?dsa |?ly?ly?(HACK!)?'?n5g4-#'tt??'??????"
?l a"?9-5JWJWJ.  /nJ"s???."
?
ro.#'t(#'t(#| #??ly?ajUU/#WW?W'?')?oooyRt   CKCKC????l5HAccc.  /n.:?cc@???holholhK
r
rXol ?l'.ccdol1ycl1yclpjUjU??LISSS--U-siF--U-siF-

mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (08/16/85)

Jeff, you're absolutely right that one of the reasons the free will discussion
has been going around in circles for many weeks is that the participants
do not agree on a definition.  However, don't expect that your observation
and question will help them cut through the nomenclature problem and settle
down to substantive discussion -- there is also a subsidiary argument going
on about when and how and who gets to decide on matching terms with definitions
as a preliminary to figuring out what holds true of the world.
	I don't mean that nomenclature is never important -- it can be the
focus of real conceptual analysis.  But it's frustrating to see it become
the focus when that's just an avoidance of substance.
	The debate is also producing some interesting substance, though not
entire agreement.  But even when there's agreement on some point of substance,
some parties won't allow of its relevance under their definition.
	[By the way, I say things like 'terminology' and 'nomenclature' where
people often say "that's just a matter of semantics".   There's nothing mere
about semantics, it's real and it's tough, phew boy! ]
-- 

            -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago 
               ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar