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: A Figment of the Imagination ( 1/2 of life  - RLR )
Message-ID: <1607@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 19:41:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1607
Posted: Tue Aug 27 19:41:32 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 09:41:01 EDT
References: <3518@decwrl.UUCP> <1451@pyuxd.UUCP> <661@psivax.UUCP> <1555@pyuxd.UUCP> <675@psivax.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 55

>>>	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.

Hardly.  Since the current configuration of the mind is determined (more
than just slightly) by external experiences, is that not an external
constraint?  I'd really like to know why you can so easily dismiss this
by saying "oh, but that's in the past, we're talking about right now",
as if it was somehow exempt.  And even if it were, aren't there events
going on right now in the external world that affect the current decision?
How much light there is in the room.  How hot it is.  What sights, sounds,
smells, etc. happen to be around you at the time.  Don't those factors
alter your choice of action?  Is it really free?

> 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.

They're only "more restrictive" in that I don't nonchalantly exempt
past external influences because they interfere with my conclusion.
And given the other examples I offer above, they don't work even if
you could just exempt the past.

>>> ... 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.

Indeed, and I believe once again I have shown a major problem and
inconsistency regarding its use when applied to the real world.
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr