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,net.religion
Subject: Re: Is what Torek calls "free will" really "free"?
Message-ID: <1208@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 11:37:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1208
Posted: Sat Jul 13 11:37:27 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jul-85 08:30:46 EDT
References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 39
Keywords: levels of explanation
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2042 net.religion:7239

Even no. of >'s = me, Odd no. = Paul Torek

>>[...] I'll reiterate my own points to give you a head start:  how do
>>babies "choose" the influences around them that formulate and mold their
>>mindset that lead them to the personalities and outlooks they will have as
>>they grow older into childhood (when they acquire the most amount of
>>knowledge and patterning) and adulthood (when they act on the influences
>>surrounding them all those years---actually they do that all their lives,
>>but you know what I mean)?  Can you show how a person has a choice in the
>>formation of his/her own patternings, starting from infancy through adult-
>>hood, in the ULTIMATE sense?  (I know how you claim you don't mind looking
>>at things both in the overall and at the root, so please do so now.)  
>>Remember how the patterns and mindsets formed in infancy cascadingly 
>>influence one's >actions/decisions/learning in later life.

> Babies don't choose such influences.  Thus, if by "ULTIMATE sense" you
> mean choosing ALL the influences on oneself throughout one's life
> history, nobody has such choice.  But that isn't necessary for one's
> choices now to be free -- as long as those early influences lead to
> a capacity for "rational evaluative analysis" (r-e-a) by the person.  In 
> short, you seem to be arguing
> 	1. No one chooses all the influences on her development.
> 	2. [implicit] Unless one has a choice in all the influences on
> 	   one's development, one's later actions are not free choices.
> 	3. Therefore, no one has "free will".
> I deny premise 2.

Good for you!!  Your denying it doesn't change its veracity one bit.  Since
free means "independent of external influences, unfettered, etc.", and since
you now seem to at least agree that such things directly influence later
choices, THEY ARE QUITE SIMPLY *NOT* *FREE*!!!  It's that simple.  No matter
how much you choose to use the word "free" to describe them.  Since you
cannot simply refute premise 2 by asserting its falseness, premise 3 does
follow quite logically.  You put it very well yourself:  Unless one has a
choice in ALL the influences of one's development (and life), which one
obviously cannot, one's later actions are NOT free choices!
-- 
Like a bourbon?  (HIC!)  Drunk for the very first time...
			Rich Rosen   ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr