Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!utcsri!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: <DnLvoM.BFq@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <DnI1qM.Cr@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <4h4s24$mpu@is05.micron.net>
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 20:31:34 GMT
Lines: 67
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.philosophy.meta:25263 comp.ai.philosophy:38397 comp.ai:37447 sci.physics:174100

In article <4h4s24$mpu@is05.micron.net>,  <august@micron.net> wrote:
>>   pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>
>      <heavy editing>
>>  >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".
>
>
>Sure, you can "use such a definition [of 'unicorn'] to decide if something you think
>of (or you draw, describe etc) is unicorn or not."  But 'unicorn' is an empirical concept,
>and 'free will' isn't.
>
I am puzzled by youyr claim that 'unicorn' is an empirical concept. Could you
explain how is it 'empirical' and 'free will' isn't? It seems to me that
this second concept comes partly from obseravtions that various people do
different things in the same circumstances.

>But a lot of other concepts (that you probably don't have a problem with?) are also
>not empirical.  Modal concepts, for example (possible, necessary).  Or the concept
>of a 'cause.'
>
Again, I do not see why the concept of 'cause' could not be said to be
empirically based. After all we observe daily that if we don't eat we are
hungry, if we do we feel satiated, that if we step on a banana skin, we 
fall etc, etc.

>When someone claims that a person has free will aren't they just asserting that at least
>sometimes when a person performs some action, they could have done otherwise--that
>is, that it was both logically and physically possible for them to perform some other action?
>
Yes, they are asserting exactly this. Difficulty is in establishing what 
"logically and physically possible for them to perform some other action" means.
Criticising such a definition of the free will I have indicated that a stone
situated on a top of a rock has "logical and physical possibilities" to fall
into many different directions. An attempt to prop up the definition by 
saying that the action has to be performed 'intentionally' fails, since you
cannot define what is 'an intentional action' without referring back to 
'free will'. Any definition which will not refer to "free will" will be 
unable to deny "intentionality" to the said stone.

>
>
>Paul Johnson
>
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
