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: More levels of explanation and definitions of free
Message-ID: <1212@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 12:10:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1212
Posted: Sat Jul 13 12:10:28 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jul-85 08:32:11 EDT
References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 51
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2044 net.religion:7241

Even number of > = me, Odd number = Paul Torek

>>>>[...] I'll reiterate my own points to give you a head start:  how do
>>>>babies "choose" the influences around them [...]

>>> 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*!!!  

> The influences of the external environment on choice aren't direct.  They
> operate ONLY through INTERNAL factors -- which make choices directly.

So?  They're not direct?  The choices themselves aren't implemented "directly",
by that definition, either.  That seems to be just doubletalk to get around
the fact that THEY ARE QUITE SIMPLY *NOT* FREE as I said above.  What
determines the configuration of the "INTERNAL factors", if not the same
processes?

>>... 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!

> Freedom of choice refers mainly to PRESENT influences on one's actions; if
> THOSE are INTERNAL then it's FREE.  Past conditions make a choice unfree
> only if they trace a completely external (to the person's volition) chain
> of cause-and-effect to the time of the choice.  

BUT ALL THOSE PAST EXPERIENCES ARE JUST INSTANCES OF THE SAME TYPE OF PROCESS
THAT OCCURRED IN THE PAST!!!!  Thus those "past conditions", those states
in the brain that result from past experiences, were achieved through the
same process as "present" experiences!  And thus, the experiences of the
baby taken as an example, the baby whose experiences were not of his/her
own choosing, you answer your own argument---ALL the experiences can be traced
to external chains of cause-and-effect!
-- 
Like aversion (HEY!), shocked for the very first time...
			Rich Rosen   ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr