Rusting Car Bumper

Well yes. The meanings of words are decided by what people mean them to mean. Its fallacious to pull out some other definition and apply to some text where a person may have meant the word in some other sense.

A dictionary is just like any other book. It does not contain the "real" definition. Its merely an instance of the reporting of language like a newspaper. I'm not going to get into a dictionary argument in any case. If you cant understand "please understand it in this context" then I can't help you.

DC

Devilnaut

DC, you seem to take issue with Zadok's argument, but I'm not exactly clear on what part of it you are contesting. Could you clarify?

xeren

That's just it, i do understand it in the "context" you are using it. And in that case, then you are right, we do not have that version of democracy that you are using.

Now, as i said(already), if the definition of a democracy is simply a structure for government in which the masses have representation, then not having free will does not take away those masses' representation. It just means the opinions that they put forth by voting on the candidates that they want in office are caused. This really isn't that hard.

<assumption>Maybe you just don't WANT to understand what i'm saying because you value the idea of free will so much that you don't want to let it go.</assumption>

callmejay

Of course there's free will. Here's my logic:

1) There certainly appears to be free will. I can choose to clap my hands behind my back right now or throw a ball or nod my head three times. That is at least what it feels like.

2) Therefore, either a) there is free will or b) the universe simply looks like there is free will.

I choose a) by Occam's Razor.

xeren

Occam's Razor says do not multiply entities needlessly.

For there to be a) there would have to be something else besides caused and uncaused events. Please do not multiply entities needlessly.

-xeren

Zadok001

In agreement with Xeren, callmejay, that's just nuts. Yes, you can indeed choose to clap your hands. But why do you choose to? Because my argument has given you cause to make that choice. Cause. Causality. Now, examine the roots of my argument - It involved three philosophy professors from two major institutions, plus my own thinking process, which is gleaned from literally thousand of sources.

Comprende? It wasn't YOUR choice. It was related to my choice to type the argument.

xeren

If anyone cares, here is a VERY good essay on <a href="http://world.std.com/~twc/strawson.htm" target="_blank">free will</a>. If you don't quite understand where Zadok001 is coming from, this MIGHT clear it up.
Here's a good quote form the essay which sums it up rather well:

Keith Russell

xeren:

I disagree with the conclusions of the essay; I think we can be responsible for our character, our actions, etc., even in a deterministic universe.

A great part of one's 'self' might be 'determined', but a great part of one's self is built out of experience, and which experiences a given person will--or won't--have is not determined beforehand, but only reveals itself as it happens.

Thus, our reactions to those things also cannot be determined beforehand, but known--again--only as they happen.

Keith.

Zadok001

Keith, that strikes me as distinctly irrational.

One's 'experiences' are indeed predetermined (or random). Any event we are affected by is an 'experience,' and every event has a cause. Thus, every experience is caused. With enough information, we could almost certainly predict every non-random event in someone's life, and their reactions to all of those events.

Swapping out the term "event" for "experiences" doesn't exactly affect this argument.

Sandslice

And then what would be the point of existing? This has always been my distaste with Predestination (or its secular parallel, determinism that once one comes to believe (or realises or whatever) that all of existence is basically on rails, then what's left?

And don't even say discovering what is yet to come. If it is as predictable as you say, then there really would be nothing to look forward to.

That, IMO, is free will... the not knowing... the not being able to predict. Even if I told you my "darker secrets" about my years of playing D&D, and gave you my entire background before and during my D&D years, you can't predict whether or not my next character WILL be an Aquatic Half-Elven Necromancer, or even whether or not I'll ever roll a four-sided die again. (Don't forget house rules; you have my background, so you know that I tend to play mages. Do you know whether I'll stick to my guns, or do I want a change of pace?)

Or, maybe, I might decide to burn my books in ritual sacrifice to some god. Can you predict whether or not this will happen, or if so, which god? Loki? The Morrighan? Huitzilpochtli? (Of course, having my full background, you'd know that I know of Huitzil, even if you yourself didn't otherwise...)

That attribute of not definitely knowing the future is what, IMO, allows free will to exist. Why would anyone want to read a book if the ending is that predictable?

If this seems irrational, my counter-argument is the Argument from the Pillow... tiredness.