Re: Free Will FWIW

From: Albert (alwagner_at_tcac.net)
Date: 10/26/04 

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:57:05 -0500

Lester Zick wrote:
> Albert wrote:
>
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>I don't know as thoughts need to be truly objective in order to be
>>>objective. But I do know that thoughts which aren't objective are
>>>subjective and not available to choice, free or otherwise.
>>
>>This seems as good a post as any to ask you to please clarify for
>>me your definition of terms. Personally, the above paragraph
>>made absolutely no sense to me:

> Yes, but it reads rather well and says exactly what I had to say.

Yes, the poem Jabberwocky also 'reads rather well' and says
exactly what Lewis Caroll 'had to say.' Yet, it is still just
glorious nonsense.

> I
> don't know what these terms mean in any absolute sense,

Odd. That doesn't seem to stop your usage of them in categorical
statements.

> but my
> usage is nothing exotic. I mean them as antipodes in more or less
> conventional terms.

And which words are antipodes of which? You do not clarify, you
obfuscate.

>>To me, all thoughts are subjective. I have no idea what you are
>>referring to as an objective thought.
>
> All thinking is certainly subjective, but all thoughts as the result
> of those subjective thought processes are not.

More Jabberwocky. Are you trying to say that some 'thoughts' are
not the result of 'thinking?' Your tap dance was admirable, but
you failed to define an 'objective thought.'

> Would you characterize
> your thoughts here as subjective or objective? They seem pretty
> objective to me.

How is that possible? Objectively, you have nothing on which to
base that statement other than a specific arrangement of pixels
on your screen.

>>I am even more at a loss
>>to understand the difference(?) between 'truly objective' and
>>just plain old 'objective.'
>
> I didn't instantiate "truly objective". Allan Jones (you've deleted
> attributions so it's a little hard to be sure) chose to convert my
> term "objective" into "truly objective" for some probably nefarious
> purpose on which I'm not clear. I just responded.

And I responded to only to *your* statement. As you correctly
note, I snipped the words of everyone else.

>>Actually, given those confusions, I
>>now also wonder just what you believe a 'thought' to be. Perhaps
>>you should start with 'thought', then when that is clear we can
>>properly define the qualifiers 'objective' and 'truly objective'.
>
> I only qualify things as objective or subjective. My ideas of a
> thought as a matter of science is definitive but certainly wouldn't
> interest you or the casual reader at this point.

I have specifically asked for your definition of thought. And
you steadfastly refuse to give it. On what basis do you decide
that I would not be interested?

>> Finally, when those three definitions are stated and agreed
>>upon, then, and only then, can we begin to discuss 'free will.'
>>(Note: such clarifications would be unnecessary if everyone used
>>the commonly accepted definitions, untainted by personal ideology)
>
> Such clarifications are unnecessary for the discussion of "free will"
> which doesn't contain any reference to "thought".

True, the string 'free will' does not contain the substring
'thought'. But surely, you are not so lackwitted as to believe
that I was presenting a spelling problem. You know, as well as
I, that I was referring to the phenomenon named 'free will.' And
that phenomenon does, in fact, require for its definition the
phenomenon named 'thought.' You are truly a remarkable dancer,
but I am beginning to suspect that you are functionally illiterate.

> I see no need to
> define extraneous terms just because you say so.

As pointed out above, they are not 'extraneous' terms but are
rather critical to an intelligent discussion. And you shouldn't
do it because I say so, but because even children know that
discourse is impossible when one participant consistently uses
words with private definitions.

> And if you expect to
> get any kind of agreement before discussing "free will" you'll be
> waiting for a cold day in hell for sure.

That's just the response I anticipated.

> That's why I discuss free
> will purely in terms of its constituent terms. If you want to discuss
> it on some other basis, I suggest you start your own thread to do it.

Very well. If I start a new thread discussing the phenomenon
named 'free will', will you have the courtesy to stay out?

>>You call others to task for using the phrase 'free will', yet you
>
> I don't call anyone to task for using the phrase "free will"; I call
> them to task for misusing the phrase "free will" as a matter of
> science.

Woops. There is that phrase again: 'as a matter of science.' Of
course, absolutely no one understands what that phrase means to
you, for science does not concern itself with grammar, syntax or
meaning.

> I wrote three posts on this same theme: this one, Artificial
> Intelligence FWIW, and Abstract Information and Knowledge FWIW. And
> they all had the same moral.

So, you are simply using the NG as bulletin board to post your
lectures and wish to avoid discussion and dissent regarding what
you condescend to post.

>> seem to have a very strong position on what the phrase means to
>>you;
>
> The only position I hold very strongly is what the phrase means and
> can mean to science.

I've asked before and I'll ask again: What does the phrase 'free
will' mean to Science, as you understand it?

> If you or others want to use it some other way,
> no problem. Use it any way you want.

How would anyone know what 'some other way' means when we don't
know what your way is?

>> But you only share that meaning obliquely.
>
> I thought I was pretty clear.

I don't doubt that.

>>The phrase
>>'free will' has, in fact, a very precise and commonly accepted
>>meaning that any literate person clearly understands.
>
> Which is probably why each and every literate person I've run into
> means something different in using it. Unless, of course, you happen
> to be the very one and only model of a modern literate person.

I don't confuse a phenomenon with the *name* of a phenomenon. It
does require a certain level of literacy to avoid such an obvious
mistake.
 
                      You may
>>agree or disagree as to whether 'free will' exists. But you only
>>engage in Newspeak when you attempt to argue that the phrase has
>>no meaning.
>
> I argue precisely the reverse. Did you actually read what I wrote? Or
> are you just running off at the mouth about what you think I wrote.
> Maybe you should do a little boning up on what I said versus what you
> think I may have said. Above you erroneously attribute origination of
> the qualifier "truly" to me. Now you want me to define terms that
> aren't even in the phrase "free will". Methinks you better stop
> reading all that philosophy. Apparently it's ruining your eyes.

>>A careful reading of Wittgenstein (one of your hated
>>philosophers) would convince even the most illiterate of
>>scientists that without a reverence for and a careful use of
>>words even Science will waste tremendous mental energy chasing
>>chimera.

> Why the hell would anyone read philosophy when they can think for
> themselves?

That's *exactly* why I suggested you read Wittgenstein. If you
are in fact thinking for yourself, then it is not apparent to
anyone else, for you are sorely lacking in communication skills
and thereby give the impression that you are simply another
ideologue with an agenda.

> Do you need W. to do your thinking for you? If so, you'd
> be much better off talking to David than me. Next time you want to
> lecture me on the meaning of words and their integrity as a matter of
> science, you'd better get a clue first.

Uh, oh. There it is again: "the meaning of words and their
integrity as a matter of science." How many times do you have to
be told that "the meaning of words and their integrity" is *not*
a matter of science. I see now that we have to regress even
further to find a point of commonality: What is your definition
of 'science?' 

-- 
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the 
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally 
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
     -- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dennett / Ruse Tiff Continues
    ... are avenues of exploration that science should decline to ... about the universe that aren't made "true" just ... You *claim* it has no meaning. ... that humans can observe (many of these consequences ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sex bias in Biological hypotheses
    ... I've lost your meaning here. ... piece together using what the 'process of Science' keeps ... of people's individual "Actention Selecting Systems" ... (in phylogeny of multi-cellular fauna) ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: What would science be like if intelligent design hadnt been a dishonest scam?
    ... Also science does not deal with meaning. ... That emotions are the product of the brain is common knowledge. ... intelligent design folk are liars, Stew here is the liar obviously. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dennett / Ruse Tiff Continues
    ... It is clear that you advocate scientism. ... are avenues of exploration that science should decline to ... metaphysical claims (the universe has a purpose). ... "real" in a way that, quite literally, has no meaning. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dennett / Ruse Tiff Continues
    ... "no, that means something to me regardless of its material existence," ... evaluated by science. ... Perhaps you're using "meaning" here to signify empirical understanding. ... Now scientism, on ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast