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