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: More ... definitions of free Message-ID: <864@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 19:34:09 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.864 Posted: Mon Jul 15 19:34:09 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 08:30:23 EDT References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1212@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 56 Keywords: free In article <1212@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> The influences of the external environment on choice aren't direct. They >> operate ONLY through INTERNAL factors -- which make choices directly. > >So? They're not direct? The choices themselves aren't implemented "directly" >by that definition, either. That seems to be just doubletalk to get around >the fact that THEY ARE QUITE SIMPLY *NOT* FREE as I said above. What >determines the configuration of the "INTERNAL factors", if not the same >processes? The configuration of the internal factors is caused by inherited traits and previous experiences -- no argument there. But what I'm saying is that when the *immediate* causes of one's behavior are internal, the action is free. Yes, there was a time when the factors that are now internal were externally caused -- in infancy, for example. And that means that *an infant's behavior* is not freely chosen. But it doesn't mean that the adult's behavior is not freely chosen. >> Freedom of choice refers mainly to PRESENT influences on one's actions; if >> THOSE are INTERNAL then it's FREE. Past conditions make a choice unfree >> only if they trace a completely external (to the person's volition) chain >> of cause-and-effect to the time of the choice. > >BUT ALL THOSE PAST EXPERIENCES ARE JUST INSTANCES OF THE SAME TYPE OF PROCESS >THAT OCCURRED IN THE PAST!!!! Thus those "past conditions", those states >in the brain that result from past experiences, were achieved through the >same process as "present" experiences! And thus, the experiences of the >baby taken as an example, the baby whose experiences were not of his/her >own choosing, you answer your own argument---ALL the experiences can be traced >to external chains of cause-and-effect! You mean: all the chains of cause-and-effect can be traced to a point at which they are external. Granted. But my point was that NONE of the chains of cause-and-effect in an ordinary choice are without some point at which an internal factor is involved. Let's use a diagram -- time on the vertical axis, with the most recent time at the bottom, and two parallel lines representing the "boundaries" of the "internal". Chains of x's represent chains of cause and effect that influence an action. ------- x ------- x x ------- | | x| |x x| | x | x | x x x x | x | x x | |x x| x |x | x | x x | | x x |x | x | x | x x | | x x | x | x | x x | | x x| | x | x | x x | | x x| | x | x Now, based on your (interpretation/) definition, only the (impossible) left diagram shows a free choice. But on my interpretation, the center diagram shows a free choice also, because all the causal factors *operating at the time of the decision* are "internal". Only the right-most diagram represents an unfree action; the completely external chain (someone else's decision, say, to use physical force on the hapless person depicted at right) makes it unfree. --Paul V Torek