Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Levels of Explanation and Definitions of Free Message-ID: <863@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 18:50:50 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.863 Posted: Mon Jul 15 18:50:50 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 08:36:16 EDT References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1209@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 60 Keywords: free, external In article <1209@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> But the nomenclature of free choice isn't erroneous, due to its co-reference >> with the nomenclature of brain processes that underly r-e-a. > >Due to the fact that YOU assert a co-reference??? Similarity of nomenclature >is not proof of anything's existence. And I really don't know what >co-reference you're talking about. I'm saying that free choice is present whenever choices are made by r-e-a. I know you disagree on that. But you do agree that r-e-a really goes on. So, you'll at least concede that IF "free choice" refers to r-e-a, then it refers to the same thing as a neurological description of r-e-a refers to. >> Nothing ELSE is going on besides the chemical processes. BUT -- the >> "free will" is THE SAME processes accurately described on a "macro" level. > >Again, the sun is "rising" at a macro level. Is it in fact changing position >at all (with reference to the solar system at large) in relation to the earth, >or is it the earth that revolves causing a PERCEIVED rising and falling? >Are you saying we should ignore what actually goes on in the solar system >so that we can continue to claim that the sun "rises" and "falls"? Or that >we have "free" "will"? We have r-e-a. If that is a genuine case of "free will", then we have free will. Our disagreement has degenerated into a purely verbal disagree- ment: a disagreement about the meaning of the word "free". >What definition of free has a basis in "rational evaluation"? Apparently >only the one you assert for purposes of claiming that this process is "free". >Can you show definitions of free based on rational evaluation, or show >examples of such usage other than your own? I probably can't find a dictionary definition that states "free = based in rational evaluation". I CAN find examples of usage that support my definition, though. For example, there was an interview in *Science Digest* or some such magazine in which a well-known evolutionary biologist responded to a question about "free will". I'll dig it up. >> ... Like I've said before, as long as it [choice] depends on ONE'S OWN >> experiences, it's independent *in the relevant sense* (i.e. the person >> can be described as "an *independent*, autonomous person"). > >"Depends on" != "free", as the dictionary and our previous discussions have >shwon. Furthermore, the "ONE'S OWN experiences" that you refer to are just >past instances of what goes on in the present, which we just showed are not >free because they are directly dependent on both the external AND internal >world. In other words, you're saying that one's decisions must have ABSOLUTELY NO INPUT FROM THE EXTERNAL WORLD in order to be free??! A person blind, deaf, with no sense of touch, completely ignorant of the external world is a paragon of freedom?? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS (YOUR!) PICTURE?? >> Only according to your misinterpretations of your dictionary. > >Why are they "misinterpretations"? Because they conflict with your notions, >or because you have some logical reasoning that shows why? Because they lead to absurdities like the above. --Paul V Torek