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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: More Rosenisms on freedom?
Message-ID: <813@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 19:35:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.813
Posted: Thu Jul 11 19:35:02 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 03:39:46 EDT
References: <325@spar.UUCP> <27500082@ISM780B.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 23
Keywords: external (to "man", his "volition")

In article <1190@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>>>In any case, external causes would refer to the actions of the physical 
>>>world as having an effect on the mind or brain [...]
>
>> 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!!!

A cause of behavior is not strictly external if it operates through "man"
and his "volition".  The DIRECT causes of intelligent behavior are INTERNAL
to "man" and "volition", even if those causes have in turn other causes
which are external.  Examples of unfree behavior are:  being forcibly
dragged where you don't want to go, being locked behind bars and thus
confined, etc.  In all these examples the DIRECT cause of the behavior
is external to the man and his volition, THAT is what makes them unfree.
Conversely, when the direct causes are internal to "man's volition", the
behavior is free.
				--Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink