Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: re: Free will: there ain't no Sanity Clause
Message-ID: <240@umich.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 22:00:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.240
Posted: Thu Sep 19 22:00:29 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 05:07:59 EDT
References: <164@gargoyle.UUCP> <1663@pyuxd.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 32

Richard Carnes 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.

Rich Rosen (rlr@pyuxd.UUCP) replies:
>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 implica-
>tions 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 [...]

I think Carnes is asking for *evidence* that this is the "one and only"
definition.  That, it seems, could only be given -- supposing (just for
the sake of argument) that you're right -- by listing all the definitions
in two or three dictionaries (say, Oxford English, Webster's, and a
well-known Dictonary of Philosophy).  This might take up about fifty
lines of netnews text.  You could then proceed to show how each of the
definitions implies what you say after the colon in your first sentence
above.

That seems like a reasonable request; if you're really right, that would
show it.  I'd then concede that I should coin a new phrase for my concept.

--Paul V Torek					torek@umich


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com