esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (04/24/85)
[I love it when a plan comes together!] The Oxford English Dictionary, 1933 (sorry, that was the only edition in the library; but I looked in World Book Dictionary 1984, and my point would be supported just as well by its definition) says: ------------------------------------- Free will. 1. (Best written as two words.) Spontaneous will, unconstrained choice (to do or act). Often in phr. _of one's own free will_, and the like. [dagger] _In ones's free will_: left to or depending upon one's choice or election. [there follow several historical examples apparently tracing the derivation of the term, spanning centuries] 2. 'The power of directing our own actions without constraint by necessity or fate' (J.). [the symbol J. is explained in a table of symbols as: J. -- Johnson (quote from).] [More historical examples] [I also looked up each word separately; each had one definition which said "see also FREE WILL" at the end; here they are:] Free. 19. Of a person, his will, etc.: Acting of one's own will or choice, and not under compulsion or constraint; determining one's own action or choice, not motivated from without. (see also FREE WILL) Will. 6. The power or capacity of willing; that faculty or function which is directed to conscious and intentional action; power of choice in regard to action. (see also FREE WILL) -------------------------------------- Now folks, WHAT **DON'T** YOU SEE IN THESE DEFINITIONS?!!! Hint: consider this exchange between Rich and me: >>>The actual flow of reasoning is that the definition of free will (that >>>humans can make decisions independent of their current physical state >>>and surrounding environment) directly implies that the decision making >>>process MUST be externalized from the physical world of cause and effect. >>>I give a definition as stated not only in the dictionary but in common >>>usage (in terms of "do humans have free will?"), and I state the >>>implications of it. [Rosen] >> The dictionary -- oh really? You haven't quoted one lately (try the OED >> if available). Your "MUST", and parenthesized comment, are mistaken. [me] He didn't quote one. He did say later on in his article: > If you want to believe that it's *me* who's redefining, I won't stop you. Well folks, if you noticed the LACK, in the OED definition of free will, of any mention of SOUL, of NONPHYSICAL, or of ACAUSAL, then congratulations-- you got my question right. >> Without giving any argument *why* except the bald assertion that "free >> will implies supernatural". [TOREK] > Bald, my ass, Paul. I explained rather thoroughly what the implications > of the notion were. You just didn't like the fact that I did. [ROSEN] The Oxford English Dictionary seems to disagree with you too. >> I've already explained two problems [with what Rich says about free >> will]; here they are again. 1) Your criteria make "free will" out to >> be a *self-contradictory* notion (as you yourself admitted, when I >> asked about a non-physical mechanism), which it definitely is not. >Sorry, Paul, that's not a problem. If there's a word in the dictionary which >has a blatantly self-contradictory definition that cannot exist in reality, But if there's a word in the dictionary that has a blatantly logically self-CONSISTENT definition... >> 2) Your "MUST ..." condition fails to >> explain why people suppose that free will is something worth wanting. >> There is no reason to want that one's control should necessarily be >> via a *non-physical* mechanism. > If you wish to redefine the term to mean something that is both "worth > wanting" and "existing", let's go back to hot fudge sauce[...] Here Rich REPEATS his mistake, which I've already plainly explained once, of taking my suggested NECESSARY condition on an adequate definition of free will as a SUFFICIENT condition. I'll explain it one more time; this time I'll also explain the meaning of the words "necessary" and "sufficient" since Rich didn't seem to get it last time. A NECESSARY condition on an adequate definition is one such that, if a proposed definition does not meet the condition, it is inadequate. A SUFFICIENT condition is one such that, if a proposed definition does meet the condition, it is adequate. A definition can meet a necessary dondition and not be adequate; it can fail to meet a (particular) sufficient condition and still be adequate. I am saying that, being something that most people would consider worth wanting, is a necessary (NOT sufficient) condition for an adequate definition or explanation of "free will". The OED definition meets my suggested necessary condition. Most people want their choices to be unconstrained, their actions to depend on their choices or election, and to direct their actions without constraint by "necessity or fate". Most people want to be "free" in sense 19. The constrasts provided in the definitions are interesting. "Necessity or fate" -- consider the tale of Oedipus and his parents who wound up fulfilling a prophecy they tried specifically to avoid. "Compulsion or constraint" -- consider brute-force overpowering of a person, or a dictator's commands backed by guns. Note that non-physical entities within us are NOT necessary for our being not subject to these things. Note that we could "direct our actions" and be "motivated from within" whatever the structures underlying our mental operations, "physical" or "nonphysical". The verdict is in: OED vs. Rosen -- which do YOU believe? --the vindicated iconoclast
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/28/85)
All right, Paul. You're so fucking unhinged by my decapitation of your concepts that you spend hundreds of lines just plowing through dictionaries picking out as many words as you can to support your "cause". (e.g., "WILFRED: a large green thing that is almost an anagram of the phrase "free will" and has nothing to do with "souls" or anything else Rich Rosen has said", as extracted from the Oxford English dictionary. See?) My point was and still is: the notion of free will as you describe it, being free to engage in actions independent of any external or internal interference, IMPLIES DIRECTLY some agent that is external to physical cause and effect! IMPLIES DIRECTLY, meaning that it can be deduced LOGICALLY from the premises of the definitions using the very same logical reasoning you take as a given elsewhere! You ignored my points on "how can one have free will if one is not free to 'choose' the experiences that happen in one's life, some truamatic, that directly influence and in some cases control the way events and phenomena are interpreted by the brain, stored, and used as a BASIS for later decisions?" You ignored them completely. Why? Because it INTERFERES DIRECTLY with your blind assumptions that free will, in some form, MUST exist, no matter how much twisting and redefinition you must do. I never claimed that the implications were imbedded in the definition! I said that they were CONSEQUENCES of that definition. For reasons listed above. (How can you be free to choose anything if the elements of choice and decision are part of your physical make-up which is involved in the cause and effect chain? Thus to have such a thing, you MUST have something outside this chain... I repeat myself very unnecessaily. I've said this before and Paul's obviously not listening anyway.) -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr