Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: outlook on life and free will
Message-ID: <5422@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 04:41:24 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5422
Posted: Fri Apr  5 04:41:24 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 04:41:24 EST
References: <362@aesat.UUCP> <5272@utzoo.UUCP> <734@pyuxd.UUCP> <5312@utzoo.UUCP> <766@pyuxd.UUCP> <5364@utzooReRe: outlook on life and freeFri, 5-Apr-85 04:41:24 EST
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 50
Keywords: free will

	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