Hi dmb,
> Steve asked:
> What do you mean by "proper use of terms"?
> dmb says:
> You cannot be serious.
Steve:
Yes, I am. My impression is that "proper use of terms" equates to "how
dmb thinks people ought to use words." I am glad that that is at least
not what you think you mean.
dmb:
> If the dictionary defines one term as the opposite of the other and you use
> those terms as if they were equal to each other, for example, then you have
> misused the terms. You do that a lot.
Steve:
If someone says "free will is the extent to which we follow DQ," and
the dictionary says something different, is this "improper use"? If
the dictionary says that determinism/free will is about external
versus internal causes for human action, and if the MOQ starts with an
entirely different picture of the situation, is using these terms not
"improper use" by your own definition?
dmb:
>To say that indeterminism is a form of determinism is very like like saying
>cold is a form of hot. It's like saying up is a form of down.
Steve:
Only in the sense that "hot" is just "cold" with some hot in it. As I
explained and justified with quotes, James's "indeterminism" is just
determinism with some randomness thrown in. It does not mean "free
will." It is just what most post quantum mechanics folks today mean by
determinism in the free will/determinism debate. Otherwise, if we
think of indeterminism and determinism as mutually exclusive and
exhaustive we would have to think of free will itself as a form of
determinism (i.e., determined by internal rather than external
causes)...
Steven Pinker:
...a random event does not fit the concept of free will any more than
a lawful one does, and could not serve as the long-sought locus of
moral responsibility.
Thomas Pink:
There are but these two alternatives. Either an action is causally
determined. Or, to the extent that it is causally undetermined, its
occurrence depends on chance. But chance alone does not constitute
freedom. On its own, chance comes to nothing more than randomness. And
one thing does seem to be clear. Randomness, the operation of mere
chance, clearly excludes control.
Paul Russell:
...the well-known dilemma of determinism. One horn of this dilemma is
the argument that if an action was caused or necessitated, then it
could not have been done freely, and hence the agent is not
responsible for it. The other horn is the argument that if the action
was not caused, then it is inexplicable and random, and thus it cannot
be attributed to the agent, and hence, again, the agent cannot be
responsible for it. In other words, if our actions are caused, then we
cannot be responsible for them; if they are not caused, we cannot be
responsible for them. Whether we affirm or deny necessity and
determinism, it is impossible to make any coherent sense of moral
freedom and responsibility.
dmb:
> If the dictionary says free will is the ability to make choices but you say
> making choices has nothing to do with freewill, then you are misusing the
> terms "free will" and "choice". You do that a lot.
Steve:
As I have said many times, both free will and determinism acknowledge
the fact that we make choices. The traditional dilemma is about
whether choices are only somewhat or completely determined by external
factors.
dmb:
> See, the thing is that language is a public property. It can't function
> without a certain level of stability of meaning. There is no such thing as
> your own private meaning. So if you want to communicate with other speakers
> of english, then you don't want to use terms improperly. You don't want to
> defy the dictionaries or encyclopedia if you want others to understand you,
> but you do that a lot anyway.
Steve:
This is my complaint about calling Pirsig's conception of freedom "free will."
People are free to use words how ever they want, but if they hope to
be understood by others, they need to use them in ordinary ways or
somehow explicate what is meant in deviation from ordinary usage.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
