rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/05/85)
> What Does It Mean To Have Free Will ? > > This is the hard one. It is important to recognize that there are several > parts to this question. First one must determine what one means oneself > when using the phrase "Free Will". Next this meaning must be analyzed to > determine whether it is consistent. Assuming that a consistent concept > can be formed, it is now of interest to share this analysis with other people. > > A common occurrence will be that what I mean by "Free Will" is not what > someone else means. > > One particularly useless refutation of Paul's analysis of Free Will was > based on the fact that certain people meant something by Free Will that > differed from what Paul meant (and therefore naturally his analysis of > the concept was not appropriate to those people). [GEOFFREY CLEMM] Sorry, my friend. Paul is not the general populace. It was a very useful refutation in that it showed that 1) what Paul believed to be "free will", the concept of "rational evaluative capabilities", does exist, and 2) what Paul believed to be "free will" is not the same as the definition of "free will" in the sense as described in dictionaries, intellectual discourse, and yes, common discourse on the subject of "do humans have free will?". It was a useful refutation precisely because *PAUL* meant something by free will that differed from what *certain people* (i.e., the rest of the world) meant. And not the other way around. > To throw my hat in the ring, I would very much like to have Free Will, > for a variety of reasons, but I am more strongly attached to having a > consistent analysis of my concepts. I have found no consistent analysis > of Free Will that provides the characteristics that I would want it to > have, nor have I been able to generate one. It is not sufficient that > I want to have it (although this does explain why people less devoted > to being consistent can say that "they have free will" even though they > have no analysis of this statement). > > In this case I am left with the conclusion that until I discover a > consistent analysis, what I mean by Free Will (which corresponds > closely to the meaning of most postings I have seen in this news group) > must be consigned to the same category as a Square Circle, as much as > I would like to have Free Will or see a Square Circle. As for the rest of this: well said. -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/05/85)
Sorry, my friend. Paul is not the general populace. It was a very useful refutation in that it showed that 1) what Paul believed to be "free will", the concept of "rational evaluative capabilities", does exist, and 2) what Paul believed to be "free will" is not the same as the definition of "free will" in the sense as described in dictionaries, intellectual discourse, and yes, common discourse on the subject of "do humans have free will?". It was a useful refutation precisely because *PAUL* meant something by free will that differed from what *certain people* (i.e., the rest of the world) meant. And not the other way around. Rich, your ignorance is showing again. Take another trip to the library. This time hit the philosophy library. Look up ``type-type materialism''. While you are at it, you can try the AI section of the computer science library, though AI types often do not use this phrase. All you have demonstrated is that Rich Rosen doesn't know that philosophers and AI people who discuss the question of free will (or ``agency'' as Paul has also called it -- you can look that word up as well) often talk about free will exactly as Paul has used the term. What on earth do you expect Paul to do? He is presenting a theory of free will. He has defined his terms. He has tried to explain why his theory explains the evidence for the existence of free will as well as a popular alternate theory (ie that we have souls) does. He dealt with some of the subsequent ``but is there any evidence for the existence of free will''. What do you ask of philosophers? Do you tell the scientists that whenever they come up with a new theory that they thinks explains the evidence better that they cannot use any of the same words, because, of course, nobody uses words to mean their new theories (yet)? Arguing with you is hopeless. You reserve the right to use words like ``religion'' and ``free will'' only in the ways that you are accustomed to using them. If lots of people use the words differnetly then you scream that they are wrong, not precise enough, and that they must change how they speak to suit you. If a few people use the words differently, you argue that they must change to suit the public notion. I am sick of ``the dictionary according to Rich Rosen''. You can argue that free will does not exist, if you like. You can argue that the term is meaningless. This is the logical positivist approach, but even the logical positivists do not get out their dictionaties and claim that they know the sacred words, ni, peng and agency and that all theories which do not correspond to the theories that they already know should be abolished by fiat. tiredly, Laura Creighton utzoo!laura