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: Re: Re: freedom and unpredictability Message-ID: <1190@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 21:37:32 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1190 Posted: Tue Jul 9 21:37:32 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 07:38:47 EDT References: <325@spar.UUCP> <27500082@ISM780B.UUCP> <1123@pyuxd.UUCP> <541@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1151@pyuxd.UUCP> <750@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 14 Keywords: external; man >>In any case, external causes would refer to the actions of the physical >>world as having an effect on the mind or brain, which is what I've been >>contending all along---the outside world, the physical world itself, is >>what has effects on the rational evaluative analysis process, thus not >>making it free. [ROSEN] > 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!!!