karl@dartvax.UUCP (S. Delage.) (08/05/84)
Although I don't understand dec-kirk!williams' any of
dec-kirk!williams' second paragraph, starting ``The observation
that certain things preceed [sic] others is easily proved.'', I
would still like to comment on his example. That is, ``When I drop
a dish, I am capable of detecting the amount of time it takes for
the dish to fall to the ground and change states.''
-- First, we appear to be granting the existence of things called
dishes, and even more, that we know of such existence, when such assumptions
are anthema to many philosophers ... but let that pass.
-- Second, the phrase ``capable of detecting the amount of the
time'' is very confusing. How does one detect time? What sort of
units is it measured in? {I don't have a builtin dectector that tells me
``n seconds have elapsed'', and, in any sense beyond that of a
stopwatch, I have no concept of second, minutes, what have you.}
Do you just mean that ``before'' we had something, and ``now'' we
have something else?
-- Finally, what do you mean by the dish changing ``states''? If
you mean it breaks, then I wish you'd say so. If you don't, please
explain what it is you do mean.
Then Mr. Williams goes into something about being able to predict
with certainty that the dish will always break if I drop it from
a sufficient height. I admit dishes usually break when they're
dropped, but without some reasoning, the inductive step from
``Umpteen dishes have broken before'' to ``The next dish I drop
will break'' is unjustified.
Next paragraph. Mr. Williams: ``My limitation of awareness
excludes my perception of the future.'' What about people who can
successfully predict the lottery or go on a gambling streak? {No,
I have no documented cases at my fingertips, but I know some
people who have won lots of money in a short time, and Ayer
devotes substantial thought to just these cases, so I hope they're
not unheard of.''
Also, what does ``limitation of awareness'' mean? What is
``awareness'', anyway?
A couple sentences later, ``my experience is a sample of
reality.'' Memory is notoriously imperfect, as Mr. Williams points
out. I don't understand how the above statement follows from the
fact that we have memories.
``My free will determines what choice...'' Huh? Free will
determines?
Next paragraph. ``We recognize the existence of both cause and
effect, AND free will.'' Where is cause and effect and free will
that they have existence? What do you mean by existence? How do
we recognize them, assuming they do exist?
From there to the end, I could again make no sense out of the
words. I felt like I was reading Jabberwocky. It seems much of Mr.
Williams' articles relies on terms that have not been defined, and
are being used as if we all knew what we meant. Perhaps you could
elucidate?
dartvax!karl karl@dartmouth