Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!torn!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: <DnI1qM.Cr@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <4el6ee$4t6@brtph500.bnr.ca> <4gussj$nt9@hahn.informatik.hu-berlin.de> <DnG6xD.DH0@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <4gvo8k$ct6@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 18:51:58 GMT
Lines: 77
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:173711 comp.ai:37391 comp.ai.philosophy:38304 sci.philosophy.meta:25186

In article <4gvo8k$ct6@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Doug Merritt <doug@remarque.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <DnG6xD.DH0@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>,
>Andrzej Pindor <pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>In article <4gussj$nt9@hahn.informatik.hu-berlin.de>,
>>Matthew Scott <scott@informatik.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>    God created man in his own image.  Part of this image is the ability
>>>to assimilate new, complex decision routines.  God gave his children [...]
>>>I say, if you're looking there for the physical meaning of the word
>>>"Free Will" you're barking up the wrong tree.  Your religious background[...]
>>
>>What you say above is not universally accepted and so this is not a proper
>>newsgroup to discuss their consequences.
>
>It is not relevant when phrased as a truth, since as you say it is
>a matter of faith, rather than of science, to believe its truth.
>
>However it is quite relevant to defining what is meant by the phrase
>"free will", since there is a long history of linking the religious
>issues of culpability for sinning with non-predestination.
>
Yes. However, claiming then that the consequences of this original
assumption are obvious "truths" (since they follow logically) is out of
place here and this was what I was objecting to.

>This is quite similar to the issue of law in determining *legal*
>(rather than medical) sanity, which boils down to whether or
>not an individual was believed to be exercising free will or not,
>and therefore whether they can be considered culpable or not, and
>therefore whether they "deserve" punishment or not.
>
>These are not matters of truth, but merely of the components that
>make up the rather complex matter of what people think that
>"free will" *means* in a non-reductionist sense.
>
>You guys that are arguing incessantly about all this could do worse
>than to list all of the qualities that appear to commonly enter
>the definition of "free will", and *then* argue about the validity
>and consequences of each item. You're putting the cart before the
>horse, in arguing consequences and reductionism and such before
>the phrase is even well defined.
>
>BTW the notion that it cannot be defined is untrue. Unicorns don't
>exist, but they can be defined perfectly well, as one example.

Yes, unicorns can. You can use such a defintion to decide if something you
think of (or you draw, describe etc) is unicorn or not. Can this be done
in case of "free will"?

>The sentence "This sentence is false." is self-contradictory, but
>it is perfectly well defined. Definitions exist prior to logical
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do not understand what you mean here by the above. Is writing out a sentence
the same as "defining it"? If so, then "free will" is "defined" just by writing
the words out! According to my on-line Webster 'define' means:
1. To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example). 
2. To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain;
(there are other meanings given, but they do not apply here)

I do not think any of the above can be satisfied for any 'definition' of 
"free will".

>exercises, and "free will" has a complex set of definitions (not
>just one, since there's disagreement).

Could you provide some?

>	Doug
>-- 
>Doug Merritt                            doug@netcom.com

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
