Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics,alt.extropians
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!iol!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!utcsri!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: A New Theory of Free Will -- continuation of an Open Letter to Professor Penrose
Message-ID: <DnEKBp.C0G@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <4el6ee$4t6@brtph500.bnr.ca> <4ghpol$9vh@amenti.rutgers.edu> <Dn71Ht.BD8@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <4gkl2l$gr9@amenti.rutgers.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 21:43:00 GMT
Lines: 319
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:173401 comp.ai:37346 comp.ai.philosophy:38245 sci.philosophy.meta:25120

In article <4gkl2l$gr9@amenti.rutgers.edu>,
Michael Huemer <owl@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>
>I wrote:
>>>   There aren't TWO kinds of FW, as you keep implying.  What you made
>>>clear in your post was that you are ASSUMING that incompatibilism is
>>>CORRECT.  I don't assume that.  It can be argued for, but the
>>>arguments for it are not so compelling as the belief in free will.
>
>>The main problem here (and this extends to the rest of your posting) is
>>that you assume that the two words "free will" (or these ten letters plus 
>>space between them) have some absolute meaning. 
>
>I don't understand that.  What do you mean by an "absolute meaning"?
>I DO assume that those words have a meaning, yes; or rather, I know
>that they do.  I don't know what's added by "absolute".
>
Using the word "absolute" I meant to stress that in your view (as I see it)
those words have a meaning which is independent of how they are used, that
there is a "right" meaning and that anyone meaning something else is "wrong".
It is pretty obvious from what you write below that you indeed think so.
My intention was to contrast this view of meaning with the one which says
that meaning is determined by use so the only difference among different 
meanigs is how widespread they are. The "wrong" meaning is the one which 
is inconsistent with the meaning used by the majority of speakers of the 
given language. Actually, some meanings can of course be also logically 
inconsistent.

>>I agree with Wittgenstein
>>that they don't, that the meaning is determined by use and different people
>>may use these two words differently. 
>
>I think Witt. would agree that the words have a meaning.  And I don't

But not a meaning independent of their use. He certainly would oppose the 
idea of the "right" meaning in your sense.

>deny that meaning is determined by use in some sense.  That doesn't
>contradict anything I said.  After all, the meaning of "2" is
>determined by use, but that doesn't mean that "2" doesn't have a
>meaning, or that it's ambiguous or changes from one person to another.

Some words have a meaning on which most speakers agree. However, even in the
above case it may easily happen that the words "number two" may mean something
else then when talking about arithmetic (for instance on a ship they may refer
to the first mate).

>A word generally has a meaning in a language, which is constant for
>all speakers of the language (not always, of course - there can be
>regional idioms).  I think Witt. would agree to that too.  In fact, I
>think that even *follows* from his theories of language (sc. the point
>that you can't have a private language).
>
Wrong. The same words usually have different meanings depending on the 
context. There is no "right" meaning.

>>In fact, even if there was
>>an absolute meaning to these words, what is a guarantee that everyone using
>>them would know it? 
>
>Well, finding out the meaning of those words is just what the
>philosophical project is up to.
>
This is only a meaningful project for linguists, unless of course you want to
determin the "right" meaning (see above).

>>It should be obvious to you that various people mean
>>different things when they use these words - some mean "compatibilist free
>>will", some mean "incompatibilist free will". 
>
>No, it's obvious to me that they don't, because it's obvious to me
>that they are disagreeing with each other.  You don't think that every
>disagreement indicates people have different meanings, do you?  Yet it

Honestly, I do not follow your logic. I agree that not every disagreement 
indicates that people have different meanings.  However, some might, right? 
So how can disagreement possibly make it obvious that they do not use these
words differently??? Have thought about it? Would they agree if they had
different meanings in mind??

>does mean they "use words differently".  When a theist says "God
>exists," he uses words differently from me, for I would never say such
>a thing about 'God'.  But that doesn't mean that he just has a
>different meaning for "God".
>
Since I do not know what you would say about God, I can't say if his and
your meanings are the same, but they of course might.

>>Just like when people say UFO, some may mean just unexplained physcial 
>>phenomena (say, ball lightning), some may mean alien spacecraft, some other
>>may think of it as a spycraft of an evil foreign power.
>
>Well, UFO means "unidentified flying object".  If some people believe

No, UFO is an akronim for the words "unidentified flying object", but it may 
be (and is) used to mean various things for various people.

>that the unidentified flying object was an alien spacecraft, then they
>just have a *different belief* from me.  That doesn't mean they have
>different meanings for the word.
>
If a new visitor to your home asks for "washroom", do you direct the person 
to the place where they can wash themselves or the place where they can
relieve themselves? Is it a matter of "belief" about what "washroom" means
or the matter of the meaning of the word being determined by the use?
The same in the case of UFO - it all depends on the context. In some cases
a person talking about UFO may actually mean the literal meaning and believe
that they are this and that. However in another context s/he may actually
mean a piece of the flying crockware. Do you really think that someone who
claims that people are being routinely abducted by UFOs, has in mind 
"unidentified ..."? For him or her its very well identified, it is a space
craft from another world.

>>>(a.p.o).  Let's just take one:  You have FW if and only if, sometimes
>>>you are in a situation in which there exist multiple alternative
>>>courses of action, each of which you could perform.
>
>>Your definition is meaningless since it would also apply to a stone sitting
>>atop a rock - it can fall off to the north, south, west, east and it can also
>>stay where it is.
>
>First of all, the word is "incorrect", not "meaningless".  Don't call

You are wrong, don't second guess me. I mean "meaningless", i.e. the 
definition which has no meaning, does not define anything. "incorrect" would
mean that it identified something different then intended, or perhaps had
a logical flow in it and could be made "correct". See below.

>things "meaningless" just because you disagree with them.  Second,
>it's debatable that falling of a rock is an 'action' that the stone
>'performs'.  In any case, of course I had in mind intentional actions.
>It's easy enough to modify the definition accordingly (I leave this as
>an exercise for the reader).

This shows very well that the definition you gave is _meaningless_ - there
is no 'correct' definition. You are trying to 'correct' it using the word
'intentional' which cannot be possibly defined without using the word
'volition' (or FW) again, which means that you engage in question begging.
Perhaps you can prove me wrong, I am waiting. And note that using the word
"consciousnes" or like will be question begging just as well.

>
>Now, how should I convince you that it is a real issue and not a
>verbal issue?  My only suggestion is that you read some of the
>literature on it, and consider the nature of conceptual analysis (and
>the project of refuting and refining analyses) more generally.  You
>will see that definitions of philosophically interesting concepts can

_definitions_, which simply means that philosophers are trying to establish
a fairly consistent use of the concepts to be discussed - so that they 
would not talk past each other.

>be and are *argued* for and against.  They can be refuted by counter-
>examples, and when they are their proponents change them.  They aren't

You cannot _refute_ a definition, you can only show that it is logically 
flawed or that it does not correspond to the common use.

[Free]
>>will" it cannot be either proven or disproven. It is just a matter of faith.
>
>What are you talking about?  If incompatibilism is true, then of
>course the existence of incompatibilist FW could be disproven, since
>we could get evidence that determinism is true.  If incompatibilism is
>false, then it could also be disproven by the methods of conceptual
>analysis. 
>
Could you demonstrate any of the above? Assume that incompatibilism is true
and show me how you could prove that there is no incompatibilist FW? Don't
you think that it would be "reductio ad absurdum" (assuming that A and 
proving that not-A")?

>>In other words it is "mystical".
>
>I think you just enjoy calling things mystical.
>
No, I am using it for things which people "believe" to be the case, but which
cannot be proven logically and even in principle shown empirically. Like FW.

>>>   You seem to be thinking that compatibilists do nothing more than
>>>just redefine "free will" . . .
>>
>>Yes, this is what I think they do, but why does it mean that the incompatibi-
>>lists are right, is beyond me.
>
>Because compatibilists, if they offer analyses of free will, are
>claiming to offer *accurate* analyses.  If they just said, "I propose
>to define 'free will' as a brown horse.  So free will exists," that
>would just be stupid.  They're not doing that.  They're trying to

Either you do not know what copatibilists say or you just engage in futile
sophistry. Compatibilists have a model of how the decisions are made and
claim that this is what corresponds to what is meant by "free will". 
The point is that in my view (and I am not alone) this disagrees with what
most people think "free" means.

>capture the *actual* meaning of the word, not to make up their own,
>new meaning.  If you can prove that their definitions are contrary to

So there is the "actual" meaning? Is this different from what I callled 
"absolute" meaning? 
In fact they are trying to argue that it is consistent with usual meaning,
but I think that it is not. One of the problem is that the usual meaning is
logically inconsistent, but this is not a flaw since humans are inconsistent
very often.

>the use of the word in standard English, then you refute their
>analyses.  *This is something that every compatibilist would accept.*

Nonsense. In a typical bad philosophy fashion you are assuming that mental
analysis of the use of words (in standard English) will reveal to us what
reality looks like (for instance, what is the mechanism by which brain works).
I am sorry, but this is just not the case.
It would only refute their claim that their mechanism can be called FW, not
that the decisions are made this way. You seem to confuse these two claims.

>They would *not* allow their thesis to be trivialized -- they
>will not admit that they're doing what I said above in defining FW as
>a brown horse.
>
>Like I said, the compatibilist says that it is the *incompatibilist*
>who is redefining FW.
>
I do not know about this.

>Maybe you don't understand this point:  It's possible for people to
>have a concept, but not know what is the correct analysis of *their
>very own concept*.  That's why the problem arises.  In fact, it's
>possible to incorrectly analyze your own concepts.

So what? As I have said above, people may entertain concepts which are 
logically incoherent. The only problem arise then if they refuse to see
that there is this logical incoherency (you are na example).

>   If what you say is true, the compatibilists have done so.
>
>   But of course, you've given no reason to think so.
>
I did. I really can't help you if you can't see them. You know what they say:
you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink :-(.

>>It is all a silly quarrel which meaning is the "right" meaning. 
>
>No, it is most important to clarify your concepts when you're trying
>to think about things.  Confusion in your ideas leads to confused
>judgements.
>
You are right, except that clarifying and claiming that one meaning is "right"
and another is "wrong" are two different things, and the latter is what is 
silly. 

>>How can you be wrong about what you mean yourself by something?
>
>It happens all the time.  Look at the examples in the Socratic
>dialogues for instance.  Socrates' interlocutors give definitions of
>things, and then later are forced to retract them, after admitting
>claims inconsistent with them.  Philosophers at one time thought that

This does not show that they were "wrong" about what they meant, only that 
what they meant was logically inconsistent itself or with other uses of these 
words.

>"knowledge" meant "justified, true belief".  Gettier showed that this
>was not the case.  His counter-example (in "Is Justified True Belief
>Knowledge?") proved that we don't mean JTB by "knowledge".  The fact
>is that all the philosophers who read his counter-example agreed that
>it was a counter-example - i.e., they agreed that the subject didn't
>know, even though he did have a justified, true belief.  This proves
>that they didn't know what they meant by "knowledge".
>
It does not - it is absurd to say that you do not 'know' what you mean by
your own words. If you do not 'know' you simply do not "mean' anything.
How would words "you mean" mean anything if you do not "know" what you "mean" 
by something? You can of course say the words like a parrot, but then you do
not "mean" anything by them. Please explain to me what would the word "mean"
signify in the context "He meant something by X, but he did not know what he
meant". I think you are speaking nonsense.

>>Can you explain the above, it sounds to me like logic from Mars :-).
>
>No, just logic from philosophy.  All right, if you really want to see

Just shows what most philosphy is worth. See above.

>this, let's do an experiment.  Take some word that you think is
>meaningful (not a mathematical term, please), something like
>"government", say, and tell me what you think you mean by it.  I will
>try to show you that you are wrong.
>
In other words, whatever I say you can prove me wrong. It either shows that
I am so stupid that I do not understand any word I am using or that you
are engaging in futile sophistry. In either case the discussion is pointless.
I do not have time for such games or if I am so stupid you are wasting time.

Consequently continuation of this discussion is not worthwhile.
I am not going to reply to your other posting either unless you make sensible
points (by my logic).

................
>And others just like to flee from absolute truth because it relieves
>them of the responsibility of having to think.  They prefer to cling
>to the notions of relative 'truth' because it gives them the comfort
>of saying whatever they want without being challenged.
>
I like to be challenged, but if your assumption from the start is that 
whatever I say you can prove me wrong this is the worst example of
the philosophical sophistry and I do not have time for such games.
>-- 
>                                                         ^-----^ 
>   Michael Huemer <owl@rci.rutgers.edu>                 / O   O \ 
>   Rutgers Univ. (Philosophy Dept.)                     |   V   | 
>                                                         \     / 
Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Information Commons                   what they think and not what they see.
pindor@breeze.hprc.utoronto.ca                      Huang Po
