Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Free will: there ain't no Sanity Clause Message-ID: <164@gargoyle.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 20:10:07 EDT Article-I.D.: gargoyle.164 Posted: Thu Aug 22 20:10:07 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 04:09:03 EDT References: <1495@pyuxd.UUCP> <2197@pucc-h> <1510@pyuxd.UUCP> <1001@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <1562@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 47 Summary: Last try before I give up In article <1562@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >I'm passingly familiar with some of Dennett's other work. The point is >that in the long run he makes the same fallacy that people in this >newsgroup insist upon making: the Humpty Dumpty position that says "I >can take this word and redefine it to mean this and no one will be any >the wiser". You can't get away with that in this life. There seems to be a consensus in net.philosophy that "free will" in the sense preferred by RR is incompatible with determinism of any kind, and also that some form of determinism holds true for the real world (perhaps one or two people would take exception to either of these statements). The disagreement that several people have with Rich is over his claim that there is only one "real" meaning (or definition -- not exactly the same thing) of the term "free will", just as there is only one true meaning of "Santa Claus" (assuming that this is indeed the case), and that some people are illegitimately redefining the term in order to give free will a place in the real world, just as one might redefine "Santa Claus" if one wished him really to exist (although I don't see how it would fulfill any wishes -- presumably what we are wishing for is the jolly old elf himself and his sleigh-full of toys). Now I'm sure that Rich has already set forth his reasons for his position, but I don't understand what they are; so I would like to invite Rich to state, as clearly and concisely as he can, his reasons for believing that, in the context of the free will/determinism debates, the term "free will" and the terms which are usually treated as synonymous in philosophical discussion ("freedom of the will", "freedom", "liberty") have, and have always had, only one valid, univocal definition, namely the one that Rich advocates, and that usages of these terms which depart from this meaning are illegitimate Humpty-Dumptyisms. This is not a "mere" dispute over words; it is not a trivial question. Anglo-American philosophers have spent much of the last century trying to understand the relation between language and reality. Ancient riddle: Why can't Santa Claus and Mae West be together in the same phone booth? Obviously because Santa Claus doesn't exist. My conclusion: If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Furthermore, *this* sentence is false and Santa Claus does not exist. Therefore Santa Claus exists. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes