Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: The definitions, they are a-changin'
Message-ID: <252@umich.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Sep-85 14:34:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.252
Posted: Fri Sep 27 14:34:18 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 06:38:02 EDT
References: <1351@pyuxd.UUCP> <1109@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 50
Keywords: necessary conditions; sufficient conditions
Summary: Even if there WERE One True Definition, it might not help Rich

Rich Rosen still hasn't listed all the definitions of "free will" from
a few dictionaries and shown how they imply his point.  He must do so to
vindicate his assertion that centuries of usage of the term imply that
there can be no free will without an "external agent".  But that is not
the whole issue.  It might be that while an "external agent" is *necessary*
according to the definitions, it is not *sufficient* for "free will".
(Actually, I'm sure that some of the definitions won't imply that an 
"external agent" is necessary either.)  

If an "external agent" is necessary but not sufficient, Rich's claim to
have the One True Definition will still be vindicated.  But the term 
"free will" may then be open to redefinition, in precisely the same way 
that the word "mass" was redefined after Einstein's discoveries.

In Newtonian physics "mass" is assumed to be an invariant property of a
given quantity of matter, defined as force divided by acceleration.  
Strictly speaking, this concept has no referent: "mass", as originally
defined, DOES NOT EXIST.  Why did the scientific community take the
accuracy of relativity theory to show that "mass" needed to be redefined,
rather than saying "we've discovered that mass does not exist"?  Wasn't
redefining "mass" a case of Humpty-Dumptyism?

Not really, because there was something real that Newtonians were referring
to as "mass"; they were only mistaken about its nature.  Since the property
responsible for gravity was assumed to give velocity-independent resistance
to acceleration, both these ways of identifying "mass" were built into the
definition.  The fact that nothing quite fits that conception does not show
that "mass" was an illusion; it shows only that people had some mistaken
beliefs about mass.

If "free will" as defined in dictionaries includes the idea of acausality,
but also includes other ideas like activity controlled by a conscious mind,
then we should redefine "free will" in a similar fashion as "mass" was
redefined.  There is a real referent of both terms; both terms were defined
as they were because people thought that one phenomenon was characterizable
in many ways; and in both cases it turned out that (at least) one of those 
characterizations was mistaken.  (For "mass", that characterization was
"resistance to acceleration independent of velocity"; for "free will",
it was "action exempt from causal influence".)

The above discussion assumes that "free will" has One True Definition which
includes, but is not exhausted by, the idea that human action is uncaused.
This assumption was made strictly "for the sake of argument".  The point is
that, even if Rich were right about there being a One True Definition, he
can not show that "free will" should not be redefined, UNLESS he can show
that the One True Definition *is exhausted by* the concept of uncaused
human action.

Iconbusters, Inc.	"We get flamed the old-fashioned way:  we EARN it"
--Paul V Torek, Iconbuster-in-Chief				torek@umich