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: Levels of Explanation and Definitions of Free Message-ID: <1232@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 19:00:45 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1232 Posted: Wed Jul 17 19:00:45 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 20:31:22 EDT References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1209@pyuxd.UUCP> <863@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 101 Keywords: free, external >>>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. I won't "concede" anything here, because this is the point I've been reiterating all along. That the power to make rational choices is not the same as freedom. Is a machine with the power to only make the best rational decisions "free"? >>>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". I wouldn't use the term "degenerated". You may remember that I was saying this all along: that you have a very different definition of "free" (as in "free will") than I do, and mine seems to be well rooted in documentation: philosophical discussion of the topic for centuries has used that definition, as does the dictionary. You're right, it's all semantic, and I've long claimed that your assertion of "free" = "ability to make rational choices" is JUST an assertion. >>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. You also mentioned Dennett's "Elbow Room". I must ask if these people are, as you seem to be, seeking to find a "free will" at all cost, even if it means warping the definition. I could just as easily assert that "hot fudge sauce" is "free will". We *know* that to exist (as well as we can know anything to exist, probably better!), so to call "hot fudge sauce" free will would thus give us free will. Does that work? Does that change anything? >>>... 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?? See me, feel me, touch me, heal me. What's wrong with this (YOUR!) picture, is that it bears no relation to mine. My picture simply shows that the notion of free will as espoused for centuries and as understood by philosophers and laypeople alike has a contradiction built into it. For one's "will" to be truly free, it cannot be controlled by the chemicals that make it up or surround it. Thus, the agent of "will" must be outside of the cause and effect spectrum in order for us to have "free will". On a more internal level, one might ask if we internally can control our own actions. I reply by quoting my favorite quote from Schopenhauer: "A man can do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants." Only if the latter were true would we have free will. >>>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. The fact that certain rigorously defined notions lead to absurdities does not make such interpretations of the notions into misinterpretations, it merely makes the notions themselves into fallacies. If the definition of a notion leads to an absurdity, then that notion must not be realistic. Can't you see that? Or don't you want to? -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr