Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: A reall strange notion about the utility of words
Message-ID: <1556@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 21:25:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1556
Posted: Mon Aug 19 21:25:31 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 19:58:15 EDT
References: <262@frog.UUCP> <1484@pyuxd.UUCP> <1219@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 55

>>>It is true that the meaning of the word unicorn as commonly used
>>>has been in existence for a long time.  However, that meaning
>>>is entirely useless!!  It does not describe a real thing that
>>>exists!  Thus, let's change the meaning of the word unicorn so
>>>that it becomes "useful".  Let's, say, make it equivalent to
>>>"horse".  There now we have unicorns.  And we all WANT to have
>>>unicorns, just like we want to have freedom, right?  So it must
>>>have been the "right" thing to do... [ROSEN]

>>Exactly.  Free will as originally and continually defined and used in
>>human discourse, like the word "unicorn", does not represent a real
>>object.  We don't go changing the meaning of "unicorn" to "get" unicorns
>>to exist.  The same with any other word. [also ROSEN]

> By the same token, then, no one can talk about Newtonian mechanics, since
> the theory is demonstably wrong?

On the contrary, Charles.  Just as Newtonian mechanics as a term refers
to a set of theories that is "demonstrably wrong" (it still refers to
the same theories), the term "free will" refers to a philosophical notion
regarding the ability for human beings to make choices unconstrained by
external dependencies.  The term "Newtonian mechanics" does not magically
change to conform to modern theories so that, thus, Newton would be right.
The same holds for "free will":  it refers to a notion that may be
demonstrably wrong in its implications, but that doesn't mean we have the
term point to something new that IS right.

Thanks, Charlie.  What a setup.  You're the best straight man since Bud
Abbott. :-)


I find this to be getting altogether silly.  First of all, it is not
established fact that human behavior is completely determined.  Second,
even if it were, there is great utility in wrong concepts.  The symbolic
value of unicorns is in fact of great import to psychology.  Newtonian
mechanics is wrong, but how it is wrong is quite well known, allowing it
to be used as an approximation.  Absolute determinism is almost certainly
wrong, but it is useful to talk about causes in most circumstances.

The whole problem with language here seems not to be with "freedom" but with
"will".  People have gotten in the habit of thinking of the Will of a person
as an object.  This almost immediately leads you into a metaphysical notion
of the Will, and thence into souls and spirits.  I think, however, that this
is an outmoded restriction upon the nature of Will.  It's entirely possible
that the Will (if you choose to believe in such a object) is purely a
process, which certainly accepts inputs from the outside, but which may or
may not have a core of information which is entirely self-derived.

Whether or not this is true, or even scientifically verifiable, is a subject
in a different discussion.

Charley Wingate    umcp-cs!mangoe
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr