Subject: Re: Fate or chaos, the atheist dilemma Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:15:23 -0700 From: "Brian Holtz" To: "Brian Holtz" "Paul Filseth" wrote : > > Free will is either of the doctrines that volition is not externally > > determined (weakly free) or is not pre-determined (strongly free). > > Why are you labeling these variations "weak" and "strong"? This > seems to implicitly accept the dualists' notion that freedom is about > unpredictability rather than about control. I take it you're not disputing the identification of these two senses of "free will", but instead are urging that the unpredictability sense not be given some kind of primacy by labeling it "strong". As stated, strong free will is a strict subset of weak free will, and that would justify the terminology. But I think you're right that the more interesting distinction is between pre-determination and internal determination (as opposed to mere lack of external determination). Also, given my definition of volition, I notice that weak free will as defined above is true by definition. :-( So now I'd define free will as either of the doctrines that human choices are a) determined internally rather than externally (volitional free will) or b) not pre-determined at all (indeterminate free will). > (* Terrific book. I'm bowled over by the sheer ambition of it. What > are you doing in this century? You belong in the Enlightenment.) I'm just surprised that nobody seems to have tried to create such a systematic and analytic (as opposed to merely alphabetical) summary of what humanity knows. The closest I've found are the Propaedia outline of the Encyclopedia Britannica (which of course meekly refrains from making assertive judgments) and The Bible According To Einstein (which ignores philosophy, math, and the social sciences, and which is written in an annoying biblical style). There are of course various systematic statements of philosophical belief, but these seem invariably to derive from mysticism or faith in divine revelation, which of course invalidates them. That leaves (as far as I've been able to find) things like Rand's Objectivism, whose metaphysics and epistemology seem just amateurish and sloppy. It's not like there isn't a vague consensus on ontology and (especially) epistemology within the tradition of Analytic philosophy. It's just that nobody seems to want to stick their neck out and try to summarize that consensus. So the book is my meager attempt to summarize the most important things humanity knows and the most valid things humanity believes. If its shortcomings inspires someone to do a better job than I've done, then the effort will have been worth it. :-) -- Brian.Holtz@sun.com Knowledge is dangerous. Take a risk: http://humanknowledge.net