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