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!!!