tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (07/29/85)
Words and phrases-denoting-concepts can have many meanings.
The concepts can be precise even where the words (or
phrases), lacking explicit context, are vague.
One of the criteria for selecting or creating a meaning for
a word is usefulness. That is the epistemological principle
of economy in concepts.
It is true that the meanings of "free will" used by Rosen
and Torek (excepting r-e-a) have been used for a long time.
However, there is one important difference between the two.
Rosen's meaning is entirely useless (except as an
argumentative foil!). For that reason, it would be
epistemological treason to yield to Rosen's contention that
"free will" means what he says it does (despite historical
precedent), let alone merely what he says it does; better
to not bother arguing that point.
Rosen's definition deviates from extending the common
meaning of "free", which is not a matter of "micro" versus
"macro", or "now" versus "the past", but of perspective and
degree. It is a matter of perspective in that causal chains
flow from the consciousness (perhaps figurative, merely
anthropomorphic, consciousness) of an acting individual. It
is a matter of degree in that it is often far more difficult
to counter the depredations of other humans than it is to
manipulate the rest of the physical world.
The extension of "free" to "free will", since freedom is
dependent on consciousness, then involves tracing causal
chains back to control by another entity. (Such control
would necessarily operate over time, however short that
time might be.) There would be two objective criteria for
saying that someone, in effect a marionette, did not have
free will:
1) The marionette was incapable of consciousness
(and therefore not a "someone"). (Warning:
this presumes classifying cognizant of the
difficulties involved.)
2) Some puppeteer had an evident means of
controlling the consciousness of the marionette,
at least as far as controlling its values.
(Note: it might not be evident to the
marionette.)
Both of these characteristics are present to degrees in
the world around us. As people develop from infancy into
adulthood, they are generally increasingly conscious and
decreasingly under the shaping of others.
I disagree that the use of r-e-a is essential to having
free will. It may be a vital tool for escaping the control
of others, and its presence may be essential to
consciousness and therefore to free will, but many short-run
choices would be rendered impossible by the
information-processing requirements of concurrent conscious
thought. It is better to think of conscious thought as
having patterned the later unconscious thought involved in a
choice and perhaps as aiming it as it happens.
David Hudsonrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/03/85)
> One of the criteria for selecting or creating a meaning for > a word is usefulness. That is the epistemological principle > of economy in concepts. > > It is true that the meanings of "free will" used by Rosen > and Torek (excepting r-e-a) have been used for a long time. > However, there is one important difference between the two. > Rosen's meaning is entirely useless (except as an > argumentative foil!). For that reason, it would be > epistemological treason to yield to Rosen's contention that > "free will" means what he says it does (despite historical > precedent), let alone merely what he says it does; better > to not bother arguing that point. [HUDSON] 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's definition deviates from extending the common > meaning of "free", which is not a matter of "micro" versus > "macro", or "now" versus "the past", but of perspective and > degree. Thus if I perceive or feel that I am free, I am. May I recommend Aldous Huxley's book "Brave New World". After reading that, tell me if those "everybody's happy nowadays" people are free. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr