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,net.religion Subject: Re: Is what Torek calls "free will" really "free"? Message-ID: <1208@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 11:37:27 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1208 Posted: Sat Jul 13 11:37:27 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jul-85 08:30:46 EDT References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 39 Keywords: levels of explanation Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2042 net.religion:7239 Even no. of >'s = me, Odd no. = Paul Torek >>[...] I'll reiterate my own points to give you a head start: how do >>babies "choose" the influences around them that formulate and mold their >>mindset that lead them to the personalities and outlooks they will have as >>they grow older into childhood (when they acquire the most amount of >>knowledge and patterning) and adulthood (when they act on the influences >>surrounding them all those years---actually they do that all their lives, >>but you know what I mean)? Can you show how a person has a choice in the >>formation of his/her own patternings, starting from infancy through adult- >>hood, in the ULTIMATE sense? (I know how you claim you don't mind looking >>at things both in the overall and at the root, so please do so now.) >>Remember how the patterns and mindsets formed in infancy cascadingly >>influence one's >actions/decisions/learning in later life. > Babies don't choose such influences. Thus, if by "ULTIMATE sense" you > mean choosing ALL the influences on oneself throughout one's life > history, nobody has such choice. But that isn't necessary for one's > choices now to be free -- as long as those early influences lead to > a capacity for "rational evaluative analysis" (r-e-a) by the person. In > short, you seem to be arguing > 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! -- Like a bourbon? (HIC!) Drunk for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr