Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Levels of Explanation and Definitions of Free
Message-ID: <863@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 18:50:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.863
Posted: Mon Jul 15 18:50:50 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 08:36:16 EDT
References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1209@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 60
Keywords: free, external

In article <1209@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>> But the nomenclature of free choice isn't erroneous, due to its co-reference
>> with the nomenclature of brain processes that underly r-e-a.
>
>Due to the fact that YOU assert a co-reference???  Similarity of nomenclature
>is not proof of anything's existence.  And I really don't know what
>co-reference you're talking about.

I'm saying that free choice is present whenever choices are made by r-e-a.
I know you disagree on that.  But you do agree that r-e-a really goes on.
So, you'll at least concede that IF "free choice" refers to r-e-a, then
it refers to the same thing as a neurological description of r-e-a refers to.

>> Nothing ELSE is going on besides the chemical processes.  BUT -- the
>> "free will" is THE SAME processes accurately described on a "macro" level.
>
>Again, the sun is "rising" at a macro level.  Is it in fact changing position
>at all (with reference to the solar system at large) in relation to the earth,
>or is it the earth that revolves causing a PERCEIVED rising and falling?
>Are you saying we should ignore what actually goes on in the solar system
>so that we can continue to claim that the sun "rises" and "falls"?  Or that
>we have "free" "will"?

We have r-e-a.  If that is a genuine case of "free will", then we have
free will.  Our disagreement has degenerated into a purely verbal disagree-
ment:  a disagreement about the meaning of the word "free".

>What definition of free has a basis in "rational evaluation"?  Apparently
>only the one you assert for purposes of claiming that this process is "free".
>Can you show definitions of free based on rational evaluation, or show
>examples of such usage other than your own?

I probably can't find a dictionary definition that states "free = based in
rational evaluation".  I CAN find examples of usage that support my
definition, though.  For example, there was an interview in *Science Digest*
or some such magazine in which a well-known evolutionary biologist responded
to a question about "free will".   I'll dig it up.

>> ... Like I've said before, as long as it [choice] depends on ONE'S OWN
>> experiences, it's independent *in the relevant sense* (i.e. the person
>> can be described as "an *independent*, autonomous person").
>
>"Depends on" != "free", as the dictionary and our previous discussions have
>shwon.  Furthermore, the "ONE'S OWN experiences" that you refer to are just
>past instances of what goes on in the present, which we just showed are not
>free because they are directly dependent on both the external AND internal
>world.

In other words, you're saying that one's decisions must have ABSOLUTELY NO
INPUT FROM THE EXTERNAL WORLD in order to be free??!  A person blind, deaf,
with no sense of touch, completely ignorant of the external world is a 
paragon of freedom??  WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS (YOUR!) PICTURE??

>> Only according to your misinterpretations of your dictionary.
>
>Why are they "misinterpretations"?  Because they conflict with your notions,
>or because you have some logical reasoning that shows why?  

Because they lead to absurdities like the above.
						--Paul V Torek