Don Mikulecky replies:
Yes, by reducing the system to one which traditional positivist methods can
handle you will succeed in stripping it of eaverything meningful and
interesting. This is what the science wars are all about!
Nathanael T Lauster wrote:
> I appreciate the pragmatics of using "free will" as a term to explain
> differences in internalized processes (processes which result in more
> random and subjectively unpredictable behavior). However, might I suggest
> that the term "free will", originating, I believe, in decidedly
> philosophical-religious contexts, carries alot of baggage with it. It
> will probably ALWAYS be associated with some vague defense of Humanism.
> Perhaps another term might make the distinction more meaningful in a
> behaviorist fashion?
>
> Best Luck,
> -Nathan Lauster
>
> ***********************************************************************
> Nathan Lauster - Sociology Department - Washington State University
> tikitavi@wsunix.wsu.edu - http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~tikitavi
> ***********************************************************************
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Bruce Edmonds wrote:
>
> > 1. The indended meaning of the term "free will" (FW) means that (if it
> > exists) then a newly fertilsed egg and a normal adult human are
> > different with respect to it. Any theory which equates the capacity of
> > FW of such an egg and us is merely confused as to what FW means.
> >
> > 2. Therefore (if it exists at all) anything corresponding to a
> > meaningful conception of FW emerges during our development from an egg
> > to our adult form.
> >
> > 3. Thus an all-or-nothing concept of FW is incoherent (or, at least,
> > radically incomplete) unless it is possible to get from a situation
> > without FW to a situation with FW in an instant.
> >
> > 4. There are grave problems with identifying a coherent meaning of FW
> > in an absolute sense, since there seems to be no way, even in principle,
> > to check for the existence of FW (other than metaphysics). The events
> > of the universe seem equally explicable with and without FW.
> >
> > 5. A pragmatic approach to free-will gets around many of the
> > philosophical problems associated with it. The key question becomes
> > when is it useful to attribute it to systems and when not. The
> > differing degrees of usefulness means that FW is not an all-or-nothing
> > concept.
> >
> > 6. From this perspective one can start to identify some of the
> > properties of a system that might lead one to suppose that attributing
> > it the additional property of FW would be useful: the degree to which
> > its actions are not predictable, the degree to which its actions relate
> > to something we may attribute to its internal mental state rather than
> > its circumstances, how constrained it is as to possible action etc.
> >
> > 7. From these sort of considerations the evolution of FW in species
> > (leading to us) makes some sort of sense - there is great survival value
> > in being unpredictable and not constrained.
> >
> > 8. In this practical sense there are several candidate processes for
> > it.
> >
> > As usual looking at the pragmatics gets rid of the philosophically
> > self-generated confusion.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Bruce Edmonds,
> > Centre for Policy Modelling,
> > Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Bldg.,
> > Aytoun St., Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
> > Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
> > http://bruce.edmonds.name
> >
--------------54E6A8FF87CACA11FB807DDE
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Don Mikulecky
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Don Mikulecky
n: Mikulecky;Don
org: Department of Physiology, MCV/VCU
email;internet: mikuleck@hsc.vcu.edu
title: Professor
note: First International Laboratory for the Application of Analysis
Situs to P hysiology(FILASAP)
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------54E6A8FF87CACA11FB807DDE--