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: Newtonian Mechanics
Message-ID: <1614@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 19:00:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1614
Posted: Wed Aug 28 19:00:56 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 20:19:14 EDT
References: <151@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 44

> 	Back then they didn't call it " Newtonian ". They still call
> it mechanics or physics or whatever. If you wish to archive the old
> definition of free will, be our guest.

Now they call it Newtonian to distinguish it from modern models that
express a closer relationship to reality.

> 	It's boiling down to you or me, isn't it Rich? You can call it
> whatever-the-f*** you want, and I'll still call it free will.

I'm afraid YOU'RE the one who's calling it whatever the f*** you want.
Are you purposely intending to deceive people by applying the label
to a completely different phenomenon?  If that is not your goal, then
why not be clear about what you are referring to?

> 	But tell me honestly, which do you think will be easier
> to live with?

Using the words accepted as part of the language to mean what the
speakers of the language understand them to mean, and using other
words to describe new concepts.  That would make it much easier for
speakers of the language.  Of course, using the words you want at your
whim might make it easier for you and for philosophers.  Language
wasn't built to make it "easier" for philosophers, though a good deal
of philosophy seems to be founded on the ability to misuse words.

> 	I don't know about you, but I don't think people are that
> stupid to confuse free will with the logical extreme you presented
> us with. If I find any, I'll send them to you.

Confuse?  My good man, people DEFINE what words mean.  Not "the Council
of the Hierarchy of Eminent Alcoholic Philosophers".  You may remember
that Paul Torek "challenged" me to find ONE person who thought that
free will meant what I have long said that it meant (and thus implied
an external agent in control).  It didn't take me long; the first
person I asked (actually, that person's attentive eavesdropping officemate)
confirmed it, as did many subsequent random samples.  Perhaps *I* should
send such people to *you*, Mr. Williams, since you seem to believe that
they don't exist.

Who said philosophers live in ivory towers? ...
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr