Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402)
From: williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Impasse
Message-ID: <273@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 10:37:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.273
Posted: Tue Sep  3 10:37:21 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 07:13:42 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 37



	Rich, the discussion is over. But, before you label me as an enemy
of the public with such words as " deceiving ", I suggest you consider
for a moment what I will say when the inquisition begins :-)

	The fact that you have not been able to prove determinism beyond
all reasonable doubt, added to the fact that you prefer an inflexible
vocabulary, are proof enough to me that this argument will not be resolved
to *YOUR* satisfaction. Here exists the arbitrary choice, and I don't think
the world will destroy itself over either definition.

	The choice I have made is to recognize that words invariably
connect with ideals which do not exist in reality, and that the best one can
hope for is a close fit within some acceptable margin. It is true that
free will can not exist within die hard determinism, but I choose not to
use this word in a scientific context. If science were able to explain
everything, there would be no need for such things as philosophy.

	I use free will in the subjective experience context, because
it is very similar to consciousness. There is no scientific proof. I
honestly thought that that was what philosophy was all about. Determinism
and free will both have conflicting evidence, and I think it needs a little
more than to say that one simply doesn't exist. I believe the difference
between our views stems from the fact that I prefer to understand how
these definitions to not necessarily fulfill their ideals in reality,
rather than to invalidate the language. Free will can be demonstrated to
any arbitrary degree of significance.

	Remember, Rich, that the essence of science is not analysis,
but observation. It would be rather simple for me to prove that objective
analysis doesn't exist, if I were to define the concept by the ideal.

	Yet, ideals are valuable as learning constructs.

	I am finished.
						John.