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: free choice as rational evaluation and action Message-ID: <1227@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 00:35:32 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1227 Posted: Wed Jul 17 00:35:32 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 05:56:41 EDT References: <1043@pyuxd.UUCP> <6155@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1191@pyuxd.UUCP> <817@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 124 Keywords: internal causes of behavior >>>>So, that means that any r-e-a leading to a decision (e.g., to take action) >>>>is dependent on the prior experiences and xposures, and hence is not free. >>>True up to the last comma, but "and hence is not free" doesn't follow. >>Why stop at the comma? If it's DEPENDENT, it's not FREE, no matter how much >>you want to assert that it is. It's that simple. > If it's dependent on things that are a crucial part of one's identity, > reasoning and evaluations, i.e. that are INTERNAL to the "man" and his > "volition", then it is free. Those things that are a "part of one's identity". How were they acquired? Does one get to choose the patterning with which one later evaluates and analyzes? Of course not. Thus, since the decisions and actions are dependent on these unfree internal elements plus the externals over which one has no control as they become part of the internalized knowledge construct structure. this whole process is not free. >>Point is that EVERY experience in your life has an affect on the way in which >>you act and think thereafter, from the traumatic ones down to the trivial >>ones and all those in-between, with degree of effect proportional to severity. >>And often those experiences form a basis for the way in which you reason. > Yes, but the way in which one reasons, one's experiences -- which form a > crucial basis of one's identity and a basis for one's evaluations (and > thus one's "volition") -- are INTERNAL in the relevant sense. How were those internal elements determined? See above. They come about through processes over which one has no control or choice, hence they are not free. >>>Far from needing to be independent from past experiences to be free, a >>>choice NEEDS TO DEPEND on them to be free -- past experiences form the >>>basis of an intelligent choice. (E.g., "should I reach into the fire? >>>No, last time I did something like that, I was painfully burned.") >>Ah, freedom is slavery again. The definition of free (there are a few) that >>pertains to this discussion (from Random House this time) is as follows: >>"exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc. INDEPENDENT, >>unfettered". Got it? Freedom implies INdependence from interference, >>restriction, etc. which includes the restrictions of the chemicals within your >>own body. Can you unshackle yourself from those restrictions? I don't think >>so. > "Unshackle"? "Interference"? In what way do the chemical processes that > constitute my thought processes "interfere" with me or "shackle" me? You make the extremely erroneous claim the freedom is equivalent to the ability to act rationally, which is very far from the truth. (More later.) But, even with regard to our old friend rational evaluative analysis (REA), when one's experiences are catalogued as prejudices or preconceptions or stereotypes, they interfere with true REA in any case. The fact remains, to be truly free, one's choices of action must be one's own, and not those *determined* by a series of events that were experienced. > The fact that "chemical process XYZ caused his behavior" is just THE SAME > FACT as "his decision caused his behavior", given that "chemical process > XYZ" and "his decision" REFER TO THE SAME EVENT. Must one be independent > from HIMSELF (ain't that a contradiction in terms?) before you will call > him free? Independence means that *one's own* experiences motivate one's > behavior, NOT that *no* experiences do. How are the things one experiences in life the same as "oneself"? Only YOU are YOU, and the fact that YOU have incorporated into your brain many experiences that have a direct effect on the way you think and evaluate quite clearly makes YOU un-free: you are bound to act as your experiences and accumulated knowledge dictate that you will. >>>>choice is all about: one's choices not being dependent on other things. >>>Aha -- but that's NOT what it's all about. (See my discussion of "other" >>>things in a previous article). >>No more moebius strip pointers to other articles, OK? In those other articles >>I recall that I stripped out your notions of "other things" to the bone. > I don't think so; those "other things" have to be strictly external to "man" > and his "volition" for dependence on them to be unfreedom. So far all you've > come up with are factors that *crucially depend* on something *internal*. Since the way in which those internals are developed and formed are outside one's control, one's actions and thoughts are thus (at minimum indirectly) dependent on those things that do that determining, and thus you are not free no matter how much you may assert it. >>>[PAUL TALKS ABOUT AGENTS AND CONTROL] >>But where is the freedom? What you choose to refer to as the agents of r-e-a >>are clearly bound and restricted by what they are chemically. They cannot >>will something different from what their make-up would point to. Great, so >>you (according to you) have an agent, and control, but YOU AIN'T GOT FREEDOM! > You have an agent and *self*-control, which IS freedom. (I think that if > you look at a detailed dictionary definition of freedom you'll find > "self-control" listed as one of the synonyms.) You must have a very unusual dictionary. In all the dictionaries I've looked in, there is no such synonym. I quote, though, from Webster's: "1. the quality or state of being free [TAUTOLOGY TIME!], as [HERE WE GO] a) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint [LIKE ONLY BEING ABLE TO CHOOSE TO DO WHAT YOUR INNER CHEMICALS DETERMINE THAT YOU WILL DO] in choice or action, b) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another [I WOULD ASSUME ANOTHER THING AS WELL AS ANOTHER PERSON HERE]". You seem to be under the erroneous impression that being free means being able to choose the best rational course of action. Being free, in fact, means being able to choose without constraint (choosing the rational only would be a constraint). Self-control and REA are not synonyms for freedom. >>>[...] This strong sense of "can" would seem to be presupposed by >>>statements that someone "ought" to do something. >>But is it an "option", or (when you get down to it and look at what's >>happening chemically) is it the only "choice" available? > If it's not an option, then why criticize Laura by saying that she ought not > to believe in free will? If it's a foregone conclusion that she's going to > believe it anyway, your criticism is pointless! That's my point. If my criticism can lead her (as an external influence) to a more accurate conclusion, then it certainly does have a point and it is thus very worthwhile. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr