Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: A Figment of the Imagination ( 1/2 of life  - RLR )
Message-ID: <675@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Aug-85 20:23:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.675
Posted: Sun Aug 25 20:23:09 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 09:25:54 EDT
References: <3518@decwrl.UUCP> <1451@pyuxd.UUCP> <661@psivax.UUCP> <1555@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 41

In article <1555@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>
>> 	Well, I also say the analogy is invalid, but for a different
>> reason. The term 'free"(and also the phrase Free Will) has more than
>> one accepted, historically valid definition. Yours is one, but the one
>> we are using is by no means new. [FRIESEN]
>
>What is it?  What references do you cite for the validity of it?  I
>honestly have yet to see any.  Surely you don't mean "without cost"?
>I think we are dealing in the same definition of free here:  unconstrained
>by dependencies on other things.
>
	The definition I use is "unconstrained by *external*
factors", that is "not controlled from *without*". This definition
is in my dictionary(American Heritage Collegiate) and is the one used
by a number of major philosophers when talking about human will.  It
differs from yours in the emphasized words, and this makes a large
difference in requirements for the existence of free will.
	And that same dictionary defines free will as "the power or
discretion to choose" and "man's choices are ... not determined by
*external* causes", which definitions clearly are based on the
definitions I am using, not the more restrictive one you are using.

>> ... it is perfectly acceptible, when a word has several meanings,
>> to use the one which is most useful in a given context. All we are
>> saying is that the definition you have chosen is less useful than the
>> alternative definition.
>
>Not true.  You are in fact not changing the meaning of the word "free"
>(I think we're all talking about the definition above), you are talking
>about changing the meaning of the term "free will", which is entirely
>different.

	See above, we are using a perfectly acceptible definition of
the term free will.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa