Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos  And indeed, if Mary and I were having a philsophical discussion about love and whether it is logically possible, we would have a tough job ahead of us. Fortunately, we just fell in love and didn't have to analyze it.
So if you just want to fall into free will and accept it on faith, then you certainly don't need to define it.
~~ Paul |
The main point I was trying to make, was that any definition is just in terms of more words, which in turn need defining ..... infinite regress!
Since the only terms that are acceptable to you as base terms (not requiring definition) are intrinsically materialist, any expression like 'free will' always appears to need defining, and defining, and defining, until it has morphed into a subtly different concept that fits with your world view.
Think again of the guy defining 'fire' as the rapid release of an object's spirit. It may have seemed like a good definition, but what good was it?
My aim is not to suppress the disagreement, but to try to prevent it being buried in disagreement about definitions. The question should be whether type A free will (i.e. the thing 99% of people mean by the term) is:
a) An illusion.
b) A reality.
c) Something else.
Instead, we get diverted into the question of its definition! If you really want a definition of Type A free will, it must conform with the 99%, whereas your Type M free will can obviously conform with your ideas! It is clumsy, but it might work. Your disagreement with Ian, is not really about definitions, it is about the nature of reality.
David