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!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Free will - some new reading.. Message-ID: <112@gargoyle.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 14:13:41 EDT Article-I.D.: gargoyle.112 Posted: Thu Aug 8 14:13:41 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 21:39:33 EDT References: <108@gargoyle.UUCP> <1438@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics Lines: 45 Summary: non-hostile reply to Rosen Rich, (no sarcasm now) you're clearly an intelligent guy who can make valuable contributions, and I tend to agree with you more often than not. But I don't think you realize what a pain in the ass you can be. The free will problem goes to the heart of some basic human concerns and cannot be settled for all time merely by drawing an parallel between free will and unicorns. This analogy, to which you persistently appeal, has been challenged in this newsgroup (notably by Todd Moody, by implication). Your point is also addressed, and in my opinion demolished, by Dennett in *Elbow Room*. That's at least part of the reason why he subtitled his book *The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting.* Hence my annoyance with your flip dismissal of the book. (*Elbow Room*, BTW, is about the nature of philosophy as much as it is about the free will question.) Dennett writes (p. 49): I take it that we already have an abundance of reasons for believing both that we are physical entities and that we are rational. So we need to understand *how* it might be so, and how it might have come about....We have hardly begun to see how much of what we want to be true about ourselves can be illuminated -- not threatened -- by an application of the scientific, naturalistic vision. And he adds, in a footnote: Nozick [in *Philosophical Explanations*] urges philosophers to consider abandoning formal proof in favor of a particular sort of philosophical explanation, in which we bring ourselves to see how something we want to believe in could be possible. This is excellent advice, in my opinion, and I take my project in this chapter (and indeed in the entire book) to be an exercise in Nozick's brand of explanation. Before you respond to these quotes, Rich, make sure you understand exactly what Dennett and Nozick are talking about. I can't find any evidence in your postings so far that you have read even the first chapter ("Please Don't Feed the Bugbears") of *Elbow Room*. Please give us some incontrovertible evidence that you have. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes "No one has ever announced that because determinism is true thermostats do not control temperature." -- R. Nozick, *P.E.*, p. 315.