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: Free will: there ain't no Sanity Clause
Message-ID: <1663@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Sep-85 17:36:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1663
Posted: Sun Sep  8 17:36:56 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Sep-85 04:08:23 EDT
References: <1495@pyuxd.UUCP> <2197@pucc-h> <1510@pyuxd.UUCP> <1001@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <1562@pyuxd.UUCP> <164@gargoyle.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 83

> There seems to be a consensus in net.philosophy that "free will" in
> the sense preferred by RR is incompatible with determinism of any
> kind, and also that some form of determinism holds true for the real
> world (perhaps one or two people would take exception to either of
> these statements). [CARNES]

Unfortunately, it is precisely because that definition is incompatible with
the form of determinism seemingly present in this world, AND precisely
because that IS the definition of free will (and its implications) that leads
us (at least me) to the conclusion that this phenomenon called free will does
not exist.  Those that it doesn't lead to that conclusion have unilaterally
altered the definition so that it does exist, which by the rules of language,
it just plain playing dirty.

> The disagreement that several people have with
> Rich is over his claim that there is only one "real" meaning (or
> definition -- not exactly the same thing) of the term "free will",
> just as there is only one true meaning of "Santa Claus" (assuming
> that this is indeed the case), and that some people are
> illegitimately redefining the term in order to give free will a place
> in the real world, just as one might redefine "Santa Claus" if one
> wished him really to exist (although I don't see how it would fulfill
> any wishes -- presumably what we are wishing for is the jolly old elf
> himself and his sleigh-full of toys).

PRE-cisely.  I'm waiting with bated breath to see how you're going to say
that this NOT what's going on here.

> Now I'm sure that Rich has already set forth his reasons for his
> position, but I don't understand what they are; so I would like to
> invite Rich to state, as clearly and concisely as he can, his reasons
> for believing that, in the context of the free will/determinism
> debates, the term "free will" and the terms which are usually treated
> as synonymous in philosophical discussion ("freedom of the will",
> "freedom", "liberty") have, and have always had, only one valid,
> univocal definition, namely the one that Rich advocates, and that
> usages of these terms which depart from this meaning are illegitimate
> Humpty-Dumptyisms.

They have "only" had one very general (yet very specific) definition:
the ability of human beings (or possibly some other sentient organisms)
to make decisions "freely", independently, without the constraints of
either the impositions of the external environment upon them.  The implications
of that are that that list of constraints includes those constraints found
within the brain (those of course being the result of accumulated experiences
we acquire interpreted and collated based on previous accumulated experiences
we acquire interpreted and collated based on ...).  The
consequences of such freedom of the will or whatever you wish to call it
are that (in the deterministic or even the quantum model) in order for the
actions to be free, the agent of choice MUST be outside the realm of
physical cause and effect (i.e., a soul).  Many people seem to want to beat
around this bush, but it remains a consequence of the notion.  Either you
believe in a soul, or you don't believe in free will.

> This is not a "mere" dispute over words; it is not a trivial
> question.  Anglo-American philosophers have spent much of the last
> century trying to understand the relation between language and
> reality.  

Words are simply pointers to objects and/or notions.  The words "free will"
represent a particular notion as described above.  It is abominable to
the notion of language and communication to simply arbitrarily switch around
word definitions, simply to orange water gibbon bucket of plaster and ashtray's
your uncle.

> Ancient riddle:  Why can't Santa Claus and Mae West be together in
> the same phone booth?  Obviously because Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Why can't a human being make decisions based on free will?  Another riddle.

> My conclusion:  If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.
> Furthermore, *this* sentence is false and Santa Claus does not exist.
> Therefore Santa Claus exists.

We've been through this.  One problem your cute Hofstadterisms have in relation
to the real world is that the "truth" or "falseness" of a group of sounds
strung together do not magically make things exist or not.
-- 
"I was walking down the street.  A man came up to me and asked me what was the
 capital of Bolivia.  I hesitated.  Three sailors jumped me.  The next thing I
 knew I was making chicken salad."
"I don't believe that for a minute.  Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is
 La Paz."				Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr