Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!ames!barry
From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: Is what Torek calls "free will" really "free"?
Message-ID: <1043@ames.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 18:20:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.1043
Posted: Tue Jul 16 18:20:24 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 08:23:13 EDT
References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1208@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 53
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2054 net.religion:7246

Even no. of >'s = Paul Torek, Odd no. = Rich Rosen:

>> 	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!

	'Scuse me for butting in, but I think I see the seeds of agreement
between the two of you in the above quote. If disagreement over premise
"2" is all that separates you, then perhaps I can help.
	Rich, you seem to define "free" the way I'd define "absolutely
free" - i.e., if there are *any* constraints limiting one's choices in
any way, then that choice is not "free", by your definition.
	Paul, you seem to consider a choice "free" as long as there is
any element of the choice that is not completely constrained by external
factors.
	Up 'til now, I had understood Rich to be arguing that there are
*no* elements of choice in any decision, that constraint was complete.
If this *is* your position, Rich, then never mind; your disagreement
with Paul is real, and I can't settle it, though I'd take Paul's side
in the debate.
	But by contesting Paul's rejection of premise "2" above, I infer
that you concede that there can be undetermined factors in a choice,
but disagree that this is sufficient cause to use the label "free will"
to characterize such choices. Only complete freedom from constraint will
satisfy your definition of "free will". If so, then it seems to me your only
disagreement is over the proper definition of "free will", not its existence.
Using Paul's definition, you'd both agree it exists; using Rich's, you'd
both agree it doesn't. So, where's the beef?
	I can't resist adding that your definition of free will seems
unduly restrictive, Rich. Were I to use an analogous definition of "random",
I would have to conclude that an honest roulette wheel is *not* random,
since it is constrained to come up with one of the numbers inscribed
on the wheel, and no other. In any case, I can't see the point of debating
free will ad infinitum if the only difference of opinion between you
is what the correct use of the term is.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	USENET:		 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry