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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: More Rosenisms on freedom? Message-ID: <813@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 19:35:02 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.813 Posted: Thu Jul 11 19:35:02 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 03:39:46 EDT References: <325@spar.UUCP> <27500082@ISM780B.UUCP> Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 23 Keywords: external (to "man", his "volition") In article <1190@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>In any case, external causes would refer to the actions of the physical >>>world as having an effect on the mind or brain [...] > >> But those cause-and-effect chains go *through* the man (his sensory >> system, his ratiocinations, etc.) and thus are *NOT* EXTERNAL to the >> man! So your argument fails. [TOREK] > >No, on the contrary, because of that my argument succeeds. BECAUSE (as you >admit here) the cause-and-effect chains go through "the man", as you say, >the actions of "the man" are dependent upon those chains, internal AND >external, and that violates the definition of free!!! A cause of behavior is not strictly external if it operates through "man" and his "volition". The DIRECT causes of intelligent behavior are INTERNAL to "man" and "volition", even if those causes have in turn other causes which are external. Examples of unfree behavior are: being forcibly dragged where you don't want to go, being locked behind bars and thus confined, etc. In all these examples the DIRECT cause of the behavior is external to the man and his volition, THAT is what makes them unfree. Conversely, when the direct causes are internal to "man's volition", the behavior is free. --Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink