Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: free choice as rational evaluation and action Message-ID: <1191@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 21:44:07 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1191 Posted: Tue Jul 9 21:44:07 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 07:39:07 EDT References: <1043@pyuxd.UUCP> <6155@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 153 Even no. of >'s = me, Odd no. = Paul Torek >>>>Note the dependencies of the actions leading to r-e-a [rational evaluative >>>>analysis]. You can only make such r-e-a if your experience up to that >>>>point has not been fraught with inhibitive preconceptions that impede the >>>>incorporation of useful knowledge into your "stored constructs". >>>So? >>So, that means that any r-e-a leading to a decision (e.g., to take action) >>is dependent on the prior experiences and xposures, and hence is not free. >True up to the last comma, but "and hence is not free" doesn't follow. Why stop at the comma? If it's DEPENDENT, it's not FREE, no matter how much you want to assert that it is. It's that simple. >>>>Could you've chosen not to have had a traumatic experience as a child that >>>>tainted the way you look at the world and incorporate knowledge about it? >>> But, in point of fact, I didn't have such an experience. >>They say birth is a traumatic experience. Can I take this to mean that, >>confirming my suspicions, you were not born (but rather hatched)? :-) >I mean I haven't had an experience that drastically impairs my ability to >perceive accurately and reason well. Birth may be traumatic, but the point >is that most people survive it (and other things) without losing rationality. Point is that EVERY experience in your life has an affect on the way in which you act and think thereafter, from the traumatic ones down to the trivial ones and all those in-between, with degree of effect proportional to severity. And often those experiences form a basis for the way in which you reason. It's admirable to try to shirk their effects or to recognize them, but it's not likely that you'll ever do so. >>> You assume (at least, what you say makes sense only on the >>> assumption that) being free now requires as a prerequisite that one was >>> free to choose the influences on one's character in the past. Not so! >>> One might just as well assume, that having language ability now requires >>> that one was able to use language in the past. >> Paul, to use analogy to prove a point, the two things being related must >> be SIMILAR. Got it? I don't "assume" that being free noe requires that >> one was free to choose one's earlier experiences. I state that the basis >> for the making of the choices that you make today is FUNDAMENTALLY >> DEPENDENT upon the past experiences, and thus[...] the current choices >> cannot be considered free because they are DEPENDENT on other things. > Again, you are doing fine right up to the conclusion. Far from needing > to be independent from past experiences to be free, a choice NEEDS TO > DEPEND on them to be free -- past experiences form the basis of an > intelligent choice. (E.g., "should I reach into the fire? No, last > time I did something like that, I was painfully burned.") Ah, freedom is slavery again. The definition of free (there are a few) that pertains to this discussion (from Random House this time) is as follows: "exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc. *INDEPENDENT*, unfettered". Got it? Freedom implies INdependence from interference, restriction, etc. which includes the restrictions of the chemicals within your own body. Can you unshackle yourself from those restrictions? I don't think so. >>> It only shows that free choice, like language ability, is something we >>> acquire during our childhood in the learning process. Big news! >>You "learn" free choice as a child? Some points here. First, does everyone >>learn the same things as children? With this in mind, I could say that some >>people might learn free choice and others not. Second, remember what free >>choice is all about: one's choices not being dependent on other things. > Aha -- but that's NOT what it's all about. (See my discussion of "other" > things in a previous article). No more moebius strip pointers to other articles, OK? In those other articles I recall that I stripped out your notions of "other things" to the bone. In that light, you've offered nothing of substance and you haven't answered the point above. >>Remember, I agree with you about rational evaluative analysis, and I agree >>that THAT *CAN* *BE* learned. What I object to is your calling THAT "free >>choice" when it is not free, except in that you LIKE to use the word >>"free" to describe for solely aesthetic reasons. > That was indeed my point in suggesting that free choice can be learned. > Why do I call r-e-a "free choice"? Because it satisfies all the conditions > of ordinary talk about freedom and choice. Consider some of the closely > related concepts to "free will", such as "agency" and "self-control". > (For a good discussion of all the main concepts involved in the issue, > and how "free will" can be compatible with a naturalistic perspective, > see Dennett, *Elbow Room*.) An "agent" in legal contexts is a responsible, > intelligent actor. "Control" requires a controller and a controllee, the > behavior of the controllee must be causally dependent on behavior of the > controller (*among other factors*), and the controller must have goals -- > evaluations -- concerning the behavior of the controllee, beliefs about > the controllee, and intelligence. (See the example of the remote > controlled model plane in Dennett.) Beliefs, goals, intelligence, > responsibility -- all the elements of r-e-a. But where is the freedom? What you choose to refer to as the agents of r-e-a are clearly bound and restricted by what they are chemically. They cannot will something different from what their make-up would point to. Great, so you (according to you) have an agent, and control, but YOU AIN'T GOT FREEDOM!!! So it ain't free will!!!!!! >>>>> And to say that one ought to avoid >>>>>error is to say that one *can* avoid error: "ought" implies "can". >>>>"Can" through addition of new knowledge into one's mind. >>> Yes. And if she can do so, she is FREE to do so -- it's a tautology. >>Are inanimate objects free to do the things they CAN do? C O M E O N !! > No, good point, but there is a sense of "can" meaning "is an option", so that > if one can do it one is free to do it. This strong sense of "can" would seem > to be presupposed by statements that someone "ought" to do something. But is it an "option", or (when you get down to it and look at what's happening chemically) is it the only "choice" available? As Henry Ford told his customers "you can have it in any color as long as it's black", aren't you saying "you can make any choice you want to as long as it's the choice 'determined' by your chemical make-up"??? >>I can "rationally criticize" her [Laura] for it [believing in free choice] >>because there are inherent flaws in the belief. I'm not pinning "blame" >>on her for believing it, I'm simply showing the fallacies therein. "Can't- >>lose propositions" aren't necessarily true (e.g., Pascal's reason for >>believingh in god) > As I pointed out before, Pascal's wager was NOT truly can't-lose, so that > is a straw man argument against me. It's the one you had compared all this to, no? >>and someone else long ago pointed out to you that rational reasons for >>holding beliefs revolve around their truthfulness and not their utility. >>A point you passed by. > A point I replied to. Since we don't have a LIST OF TRUTHS (at least, I > think we don't -- you haven't become a fundamentalist, have you Rich? :->) > we have to go on evidence which is never final; we have to decide if the > evidence is "good enough", and that depends on utilities of the consequences > of believing what is not true, and failing to believe what is. And if anything the evidence points AWAY from your conclusions, showing them to be nothing more than the same brand of wishful thinking the religious believers engage in. And contrary to your "fearful thinking" concept that claimed that I reject wishful thinking because I fear its truth (you never did respond to that after I made it clear where you were coming from) and because I reject out of hand all wishful thinking, I reject beliefs that asre based ONLY in wishful thinking and have no other foundation to support them. Like evidence...