From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Straight talk on free will. (Paul Harvey thread)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1993Jan10.123819.10049@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 10 Jan 1993 21:15:29 UTC

In article <1993Jan10.123819.10049@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <fXLybC2@quack.sac.ca.us>, 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan9.153904.10032@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>At the moment, I have about three threads going on this topic, and me
>>>doesn't like repeating the same arguments over and over.
>>>So here it is, the Last Word on free will: It doesn't exist! So forget it!
>>>In simple terms: _it is impossible to not be spontaneous_. Paul Harvey
>>>advocates: "Just do it."  Well, it is impossible to _not_ "just do it."
>>>You just try and not be spontaneous some time!
>> A'ight. It pains me to have to resort to such measures and I assure you
>> that this hurts me far more than it can ever hurt you, but it seems you
>> leave me with no choice and I'm sure you can understand how that
>> situation just is not tolerable. And so, as further proof of my
>> possession of free will, my individuation, my uniqueness, my assertion
>> that I am not a number but a free man, it's time to go transcendent.
>> BANG!!!    Free will is a metaphor.
>> The existance or non-existance of a metaphor is a pointless argument,
>> much like the argument over the existance/non-existance of God, another
>> metaphor.
>We're arguing over whether or not free will is a metaphor that actually
>coresponds to anything experiential, or if it's a metaphor with
>no actual referent, i.e. pure fantasy. 
>> And so I say that I have free will and you say that you do not. This
>> means nothing. Free will is a metaphor, the beauty is in the eye (I) of
>> the beholder.
>I suspect that all 5 or 6 of us arguing about this each have different
>understandings of what is meant by "free will." I have the sneaking
>suspicion we're arguing past each other.

BINGO! The meaning of a metaphor is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone
sees their own vision, their own rose or lotus blossom. Would you
question whether a rose corresponds to anything experiential or is
purely fantasy? It is of course all of the above and much more.

>> Webster's II:
>> free will: n. [Transl. of LLat. liberum arbitrium] 1. The ability or
>> discretion to choose freely. 2. The power, attributed esp. to human
>> beings, of making free choices unconstrained by external circumstances
>> or necessity.
>A nice definition (2)...but somewhat meaningless, really, unless you define
>what is "external" and what isn't.

That is easy. It's the difference between you and me, us and them.
[Notice, we are surrounded by the field of opposites, in and out of
sharp focus?]

>If I am overcome with fear and run
>from a fight, is that an external or internal circumstance?

Internal. There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

>I don't think there's a clear boundary here. 

There is and there isn't. This is the field of opposites, moving in and
out of sharp focus. One moment it's there, clear as day, the next it's
gone from sight, only a mirage. But no one is playing tricks on you. You
see what you see, you are what you are.

>On the whole, though, I find fewer
>difficulties with that definition than with others I've seen.

Why?

>To be honest, I think we can come up with a definition of free will that
>I would agree with. 

Why? You are of course correct that it does not exist, it is a
construction by the one with the hands. Why struggle to find a
definition that proves existance of something that is made up, painted
onto the walls of caves? Why must your hands be proven to be real, to
exist? They of course do not. But, the metaphors and myths remain. You
have seen the hands painted on the walls of caves in France and
elsewhere, do they exist? Is not that ancient ghost of a human hand
saying, "I am that I am?" Could it not be said that the meaning of hands
in caves is also the meaning of a rock?