cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (07/18/85)
I found two definitions for "free will" in my Random House Unabridged. The first is a "general use" definition suitable for Paul Torek. The second, labeled with the "Philosophy" keyword, is the specific philosophical definition used by Rich Rosen and suitable (in my opinion) for net.philosophy. free will, 1. free choice; voluntary decision. 2. *Philos.* the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. Note that definition 2 seems to say nothing about the origin (internal *versus* external) of the forces, focusing instead on their nature (physical/devine *versus* personal). Unless Paul is claiming that the existence of free will by definition 1 (let's call it "voluntary decision" since "free choice" puts us back in the quagmire of defining "free") necessarily implies the existence of free will by definition 2 (and I don't think he is), then the issue should now be settled (inconclusively, since there was in fact no issue). Here's my explanation (explanation, not definition) of free will: Free will is a false perception which can arise when a person, having volition about something, is unable to recognize a plausible set of influences on her that led to her having that volition. Some people misinterpret their inability to perceive these influences, as the absence of such influences. Recognition itself is impossible without the person absorbing some influences first, and (I state this without proof) one cannot accurately perceive what one's self is; therefore the aforesaid inability is inherent in all people. This is not to say that the aforesaid misinterpretation is inherent! Still, I'm not sure it makes sense to fault people very much for this mistake, considering the multitude of much more serious misperceptions to which people are subject. Misperceptions such as, there's generally anyone on the net who much cares about one's own postings. (c; I don't worry, I'm sittin' on top of the world. Charles Poirier (decvax, ucbvax, ihnp4)!vax135!cjp
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/19/85)
> free will, 1. free choice; voluntary decision. 2. *Philos.* the > doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and > is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. > > Note that definition 2 seems to say nothing about the origin (internal > *versus* external) of the forces, focusing instead on their nature > (physical/devine *versus* personal). Unless Paul is claiming that the > existence of free will by definition 1 (let's call it "voluntary > decision" since "free choice" puts us back in the quagmire of defining > "free") necessarily implies the existence of free will by definition 2 > (and I don't think he is), then the issue should now be settled > (inconclusively, since there was in fact no issue). [CHARLES POIRIER] Since the definition of free really has been the root of the discussion, we ARE right back where it all started. For that matter, "voluntary" means "proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent" or "unconstrained by interference, self-determining", ... [UH-OH] > Here's my explanation (explanation, not definition) of free will: > Free will is a false perception which can arise when a person, having > volition about something, is unable to recognize a plausible set of > influences on her that led to her having that volition. Some people > misinterpret their inability to perceive these influences, as the > absence of such influences. Recognition itself is impossible without > the person absorbing some influences first, and (I state this without > proof) one cannot accurately perceive what one's self is; therefore the > aforesaid inability is inherent in all people. This is not to say that > the aforesaid misinterpretation is inherent! Still, I'm not sure it > makes sense to fault people very much for this mistake, considering the > multitude of much more serious misperceptions to which people are > subject. Very well said. Thank you for some real light. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr