Subject: Re: Fate or chaos, the atheist dilemma
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:15:23 -0700
From: "Brian Holtz" <Brian.Holtz@sun.com>
To: "Brian Holtz" <brian@holtz.org>

"Paul Filseth" <pgxf@lsil.com> 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