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!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.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: <DnIB4H.C5L@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <4el6ee$4t6@brtph500.bnr.ca> <4gkl2l$gr9@amenti.rutgers.edu> <DnEKBp.C0G@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <4h0cv2$r2q@amenti.rutgers.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:14:41 GMT
Lines: 386
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:173768 comp.ai:37398 comp.ai.philosophy:38314 sci.philosophy.meta:25197

In article <4h0cv2$r2q@amenti.rutgers.edu>,
Michael Huemer <owl@amenti.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>No, I don't think that.  I don't know where you're getting that.
>
Really? Look below.

>>>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.
>
>W. would say that it was incorrect to use the words contrary to their
>common usage.  That's all I'm assuming.
>
This seems rather trivial. Is this all you understood from Wittgenstein?

>>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??
>
>No, they would neither agree nor disagree.  They wouldn't be talking
>about the same issue.
>
So they would disagree what is the issue referred to by "free will", don't 
you think so? 

>>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.
>
>What are you talking about?  Intentional actions are those that are
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the product of an intention, roughly speaking.  That's not the same as
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am impressed by this definition. Speaks volumes about philosophy.

>free actions.  In fact we think some intentional (volitional) actions
>are not free -- as if, for example, the subject has a pathological
>compulsion.  I don't see what question is getting begged.
>
Please define what you mean by "intentional". And how can a "volitional" 
action not be "free"? Why would you call it then "volitional"? How is an action
caused by pathological compulsion "volitional"? Perhaps you could explain what
you mean by "volitional". If I stick a pin in you and you jump up, is this
action "volitional"? It seems that either you twist the meaning of words to
suit your purposes or we are speaking different languages. My online Webster
says about volition:
1. An act of willing, choosing, or deciding. 
2. A conscious choice; decision. 
3. The power or capability of choosing; will.

Now it is up to you to tell me where did you take your meaning of "volition"
from so that you can claim that "In fact we think some intentional (volitional) 
actions are not free". And who are "we"? Whoever they are, they apparently do 
not understand the words they are using (this includes you).
  
>>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.
>
>No it's not.  Consciousness is not the same thing as free will.
>
Right, it is not, however I think that there is enough connection between 
them to make my claim above valid. Of course, considering that you use the
words in a way contrary to the common usage (see above), you may not see it.

>>_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.
>
>No, they are trying to analyze a concept, like "knowledge".  The
>problem is not that some people have been using "knowledge" to refer
>to a different class of things.  Again, look at some of the
>literature, and you will see this.
>
Aha, then there is a meaning of the concept "knowledge" which is independent
of how different people are using the word, right? I do not see how could
your claim above to make any sense if this was not the case, perhaps you could
explain. If then you think that there is such an independent concept, why are
you having so much problem understanding what I mean by "absolute meaning"? 
I mean exactly this. Is this the word "absolute" which puts you off?
.........
>>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?
>
>The proof would be this:
>(1) Incompatibilism is true.
>(2) Therefore, if determinism is true, there is no free will.
>(3) Determinism is true.
>(4) Therefore, there is no free will.
>(5) Therefore, there is no incompatibilist free will.
>
It seems to me again that you are using words in a way which is unfamiliar
to me. True, English is not my first language, so in case of doubts I like to
check out a dictionary. Above I gave you an example that you should do it 
yourself, because you seem to be more confused about meanings of difficult
words than me.
Now, what you mean above by incompatibilism? You seem to suggest that there
is a meaning to this word (relevant to the context of this discussion) 
independent of the issue of free will. I'll be grateful if you tell me what 
it is. As I see it, (5) is negation of (1), so it seems that you have shown
the "reductio ad absurdum" and hence you have proven that incompatibilism is
false! Congratulations, philosophers have been strugling with this issue for
centuries.
Accidently, can you explain how, under the assumption (1), you can legitimately
make an assumption "determinism is true"? As I see it, if (1) then "determinism
is not true". Unless you can demonstrate that even though (1) is true it can
still be the case that "determinism is true" (you have of course explain what
you mean by "incompatibilism" and you better check it with a philosophical
dictionary), I'll have to conclude that you shuffle the words around without
any understanding what they mean. Perhaps you could admit "Yes, I did not
know what I meant", but I'd say that you did not mean anything, you are
acting Eliza-like.

>Obviously, (3) is the important premise.  I am not saying that is
>true.  But it might be, and if it is, then it might be proven.
>
It is contradictory to (1), unless you mean by "incompatibilism" something
very different than it means to me.

>>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.
>. . .
>>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
>
>That's what I said:  you're saying the compatibilists are wrong.
>
But "wrong" in what? In the claim that their _meaning_ of "free will" is
consistent with the usual _meaning_. Is this what you said??
It seems to me that you are ignoring a fact that people may have a concept
of something which does not actually exist in nature (unicorns, phlogiston, 
etc).

>>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 have not assumed this, unless by "reality" you mean to include what
>the correct analysis of a concept is -- if that's part of 'reality',
             ^^^^^^^^
>then yes, I assume that analysis of the use of words can tell us about
>that.  I don't see what's objectionable about that.
>
I can not make much sense of the above unless the underlined word was meant 
to be "meaning", was it? Assuming  an existence of a "correct" meaning (I 
expect that "correct" is the same what I call "absolute"; see the discussion 
above; if not, please explain what you mean by "correct", how does one 
distinguish it from "incorrect"?) is the same as assuming that such concept 
is a feature of "reality", does it not? Now, since people use words to 
describe their experiences with reality, analysing the use of words we might
find out something about common experiences. However, claiming that this
discovers "correct" concepts is totally unwarranted for at least two reasons.
Firstly, many concepts are strongly culture dependant and you run a risk of
claiming that one culture is more "correct" than another, do you?
Secondly, our unaided experiences probe reality in a very shallow way; the
way people use the word "light", for instance, will give us a very poor idea
of what "light" is.

>>>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?
>
>So what is that this was the center of the whole dispute.  I suggest
>that you could be wrong about the analysis of "free will".  Maybe it
>really is correctly analyzed in some compatibilist way.  You refuse to
>recognize this.  But then here you grant the point and say "so what?"
>Are we both reading the same discussion?
>
The fact that people sometimes incorrectly
analyse their own concepts does not mean that they do not know what they
mean by them. Unless they just make the sounds, parrot like, they must
mean something if the word "mean" is to have any meaning. Could you explain
what you mean by "he means something by X but does not know what he means
by it". I have asked you this before but you have ignored my request.
I guess that you are unable to give any sensible meaning to the above
sentence.

>>>>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
>>
They simply had problems to put their meaning into words. Has it never 
happened to you that you had problems finding words to explain what you 
mean? You can always blame the intellectual capability of your opponent
(an easy way out), but try to imagine that you are trying to explain what you
mean in a language you do not know very well. You could have problems and
if you were shown that your explanation did not do a good job, would it mean 
that you did not know what you meant? Is there a reason to think that there
is a level of knowledge of one's own language such that the only reason of
being unable to explain what one means is that one "does not know what one
means"?? This is totally ridiculous claim. It cannot stand up to any rational
scrutiny. How many people have such a mastery of language? How does one
recoginize if one has it or not? Does it apply to any language? Aren't some
languages richer in concepts than other ones? How does one recognize if
a language is rich enough for this claim to be true? Is English special?
etc., etc.

>>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.
>
>Not unless practically every concept everyone uses is logically
>inconsistent with itself.
>
Where does "practically every" come from? Or are you saying that for 
"practically every" concept we do not know what we mean?
BTW, you seem to be unaware of the fact that humans are inconsistent very 
often. Some even claim that this is an essential part of being human and that
being inconsistent gives human special mental capabilities computers can't 
have.

Are you saying that other people can know better than us what _we_ mean by
something??

>>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.
>
>Again, I repeat my challenge.  If you want to test this thesis of
>yours, take some everyday word that you think is meaningful, and tell
>me what you think you mean by it.
             ^^^^^
How about a challenge to explain what it means "I mean something" if one
"does not know what one means"??
Are suggesting that you could know better what I think I mean by something?
Do you pretend to be able to read my thoughts (over Internet)? You are not
making any sense!

>I presume you're not going to say that there aren't any words that you
>use that are meaningful.
>
They are definitely meaningful _to me_. Is your claim that _you_ know better 
than me what they  mean _to me_??

>>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.
>
>For example, Socrates' interlocutors can not say what they mean by
>"virtue".  They clearly do mean something by it, though, and are not
>merely parotting the word, since they are able to give lists of
>virtues, to identify virtuous people, and to use the word
>appropriately in appropriate contexts.
>
Since they could use the word (virtue) in a way which was considered sensible
by others (Socrates) how could they not "know what they meant " by it??
They might have had problems putting this meaning into words (see above) but
it makes a mockery of the expression "to know what it means" to claim that
they could use a word correctly and yet "not to know what it means".

>>>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.
>
>No, you jerk, it shows that you can be mistaken about what you mean.
         ^^^^
It seems that you are becoming desperate.

>That is the point.  Why don't you just accept the challenge?  It
>should be so easy for you, IF your thesis is true.  Then you would
>make a fool of me, when I was unable to deliver on my own promise.
>
I do not see any point to the challenge, perhaps you could convince me that 
there is one. The only thing you could do would be to show that _you_ mean
something else or perhaps that the definition which I provided did not 
describe all my uses of a given word. So what? Many words have such wide
meanings that one definition cannot do justice to all uses. 
If you recall, you made a qualification "no mathematical
or physical terms" (or something like this). Why? Presumably because these 
words do not mean _much_ to you, so you would not be able to demonstrate
that there is an alternative meaning.

>I also am not saying that you are so stupid that you don't understand
>any words.  I would extend this challenge to anyone.
>
How does the first sentence above connect to the second one? If not the former
then explain what is the purpose of the challenge? I do not see what it can
possibly prove.

>>I do not have time for such games or if I am so stupid you are wasting time.
>
>I can see I am wasting my time.

Exactly my sentiments. Moreover, you seem to be using words in non-standrad 
way (I gave an example above) and then saying that I am wrong - no surprise
if you do not understand the standard meaning of the words.
>
>You refuse to listen to anything I say.  When I offer to prove it --
>in a very generous offer, in which it would be very easy to refute one
>of our respective theories -- you refuse.  You just dogmatically
>insist that I'm wrong, and then sprinkle in various insults.
>
Where did you find insults in my postings? If you look above, you may notice
that it is you who do it (perhaps you again do not understand the words,
check a dictionary more often).

>>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.
>
>I did not ASSUME FROM THE START that I can prove whatever you say I
>can prove wrong.  I OFFERED to ATTEMPT to prove wrong a DEFINITION
>that you would propose.  
>
OK, I have glossed over your words "I'll try...", I appologize. However,
if you explained the purpose of the challenge I might have not interpretted it
as an arrogant claim that you know better what _I_ think. Your challenge
surely expressed a confidence that you can prove me wrong whatever I say.

>Apparently, though, you do not have 'time' for putting your own
>beliefs to the test.
>
What beliefs would these be?
Since I am confused about what you mean by the words you use, I have no idea
what what you see as my "beliefs".

>You've shown that you don't care about finding out the truth.  You

What truth? Unless you decide to use words in a standard way, I cannot 
guess what are these "truths" you are proffessing to express.

>just make a bunch of dogmatic assertions, demand 'proofs' from others

I did my best to justifiy tha claims I have been making. Perhaps you failed
to see this, because you attach totally different meaning to the words
I use. This is why I ask you often for explanations, but you ignore my 
requests.  No surprise we cannot communicate. For instance when I say that
you assume that concepts have "absolute" meaning you keep denying it, even 
though you keep talking about "correct" concepts. How do these two differ?
Isn't the "right" meaning the same as "correct"?

>but have nothing substantive to say yourself.  You refuse to
>reconsider your opinions, and when offered a test of them, you try to

If you explain how your challenge is going to test _my_ opinions, I'll 
certainly be interested, but so far you have only shown yourself capable of 
shuffling the words around without any regard to their standard meanings
(check "volitional" in any dictionary and tell me how a pathological 
compulsion can be a "volitional" action).

>weasel out by saying you "don't have time" to do it.  You close by
>dismissing your opponent with insulting gestures and implying that it
>is he who was being unreasonable.
>
You are in no position to accuse me of insulting gestures. Btw, you seem not 
only to have telepathic ambitions (you have offered to try to tell me what
I think) but also to be a see'er. How otherwise you would be able to know
what gestures I perform?

>Well, you're right about one thing:  This conversation has been a
>complete waste of time.

My sentiments exactly, we agree on something.

>-- 
>                                                         ^-----^ 
>   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
