Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!ames!barry
From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: Is what Torek calls "free will" really "free"?
Message-ID: <1048@ames.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Jul-85 15:36:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.1048
Posted: Sat Jul 20 15:36:27 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 23:29:49 EDT
References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1208@pyuxd.UUCP> <1043@ames.UUCP> <1230@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 57
Xref: linus net.philosophy:1827 net.religion:6847
[]
"'When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather
scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more
nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you *can* make words
mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master
- that's all.'"
"Definitions, contrary to popular opinion, tell us nothing about
things. They only describe people's linguistic habits; that is, they
tell us what noises people make under what conditions. Definitions
should be understood as *statements about language*."
- S. I. Hayakawa
This meta-discussion is inspired by the current debate over free will
between Rosen and Torek, et. al., and indirectly by a previous debate between
Rosen and others (Laura Creighton and Tim Maroney come to mind) about whether
"religion" necessarily implied belief in a supreme being. In both cases, what
began as a philosophical debate ended up getting bogged down in semantics.
First, a concession to Rich: for what it's worth, I'd have to agree
with you about the traditional formulation of the question of "free will".
Historically, belief in free will has implied a belief in a mysterious
something, "will", which was both non-random and acausal. For reasons which
Rich has covered thoroughly (and repeatedly :-), belief in this kind of free
will has become unpopular. It is not dead, but it runs afoul of the generally
materialist and empirical temper of our times. Many of us at least suspect, as
Rich insists, that this whole formulation of the question of free will is
paradoxical, and content-free.
What I fail to see, is why we are constrained to continue the debate
using this traditional formulation. Must we completely reinvent the vocabulary
of the debate to discuss it meaningfully? What Torek and others are saying (I
think) is that we can discard the non-material implications of free will, and
still leave the term with a meaning that corresponds pretty closely with
common-sense notions of what "free" means.
I'm sure we would all agree that there's a real difference between
being on an airplane that's hijacked to Havana, and choosing to take a Cuban
holiday. I think what we're all after is getting a better handle on that word,
"choose". If someone's ideas about that don't fit neatly into the traditional
pigeonholes, I don't see the point of requiring them to invent a whole new
vocabulary to explain their thoughts. All that's required is that they make
clear the novel job they're giving to an old word. Torek et. al. have done so,
as even you, Rich, concede. You seem clear enough on what they're saying; why
this schoolmasterish insistence that they say it *your* way? When you insist
that the old sense of "free will" is devoid of meaning, why aren't you willing
to let that poor abused phrase find a better roost, aboard a sensible idea?
As Humpty Dumpty said, the question is who is to be the master. I'd
like to see some more meaningful debate on what this "novel" definition of
free will really says, and less use of dictionaries for brickbats.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry