Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Getting Nowhere, FAST!
Message-ID: <1601@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 12:27:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1601
Posted: Tue Aug 27 12:27:55 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 09:02:08 EDT
References: <148@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 54

> 	You seem to have forgotten something completely. Natural 
> language works through analogy. Free will is a useful term for 
> education. Eliminating the term free will is like eliminating 
> Newtonian physics because it is not 100% accurate. You have 
> appeared to have graduated past this philosophical ideal. Good 
> for you. You have seen the exceptions and why this analogy is not 
> completely accurate. Congratulations. Free will is *STILL* a 
> useful term.

Like Newtonian physics, it should be taught as "something that appears
to be correct on cursory examination, but is fundamentally wrong
in actual reality".

"I've told new Bruce 'e can teach about the Marxist thinkers, provided
he makes it clear that they were wrong."  :-)

> 	I certainly hope that in your grand wisdom you don't fail
> to leave a path to understanding. The problem as far as I can see 
> between you and the term free will is that it is oversimplified.
> I personally suggest that you consider expanding the meaning of 
> free will to accomodate not only it's ideal meaning, but it's 
> inaccuracies, as well. You will only be getting far ahead of 
> yourself if you try to accurately define what everyone else 
> refers to as free will.

I'll expand the meaning of free will if you'll expand the meaning of unicorn.
(Everyone else?????)

> 	So, let's devise an experiment. I will choose a series of
> numbers, and you will attempt to find a pattern. If you can 
> accurately guess the numbers, then I will concede that I have no 
> free will.

My inability to predict does not imply non-predictivity.  I am human
(like you, I assume) and just because a human doesn't have all the
factors leading up to an event at hand (enabling him/her to predict)
does not mean that the event is not the consequence of those factors.
It is very anthropocentric to assume that because we lack the tools
to determine, there is no force of determination.

> 	I don't know about you, but I find the presence of free 
> will easier to demonstrate than the absence of it.

How so?  You find it "easier" to believe?  The world is a complex place,
and sometimes the easier explanation is not the right one.

> 	I suggest that you have to modify your understanding of 
> it, as you modify your understanding of everything, everything 
> that you learn through analogy.

I suggest that the same is true for you and your beliefs.
-- 
"Meanwhile, I was still thinking..."
				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr