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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definitions of free, esp. mine
Message-ID: <1433@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 11:37:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1433
Posted: Wed Aug  7 11:37:27 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 20:02:01 EDT
References: <1057@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1389@pyuxd.UUCP> <1102@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 221

> If the whole universe is taken as the selector, then there is no difference
> between the two positions; Rich's determinism IMPLIES that the whole universe
> selects.  Therefore, it must have been the supposed implication of purpose
> which Rich objects to.  Rich, however, is the only person who is attributing
> purpose to the selector. [WINGATE]

That's funny, I thought it was the religionists who imputed purpose to the
process of selection by calling it "god" and giving it a will and deeming it
"good".

> Well, it doesn't refer to "red" either.  The concept of mass has been extended
> to include other aspects of the object that weren't included before.  It now
> includes, for instance, the notion of "how much energy I can get by
> annihilating this object."

Extending a definition is very different from fundamentally altering it in its
entirety.

>>If the conscious thought can determine behavior choice, and if that conscious
>>thought is determined by the prior circumstances, in what way is it free?

> There simply is no sceintific proof that ALL conscious thought is determined.
> Therefore, this question could simply be ignored.

It could be (and is) by those who simply WANT to believe that the workings of
the human brain are fundamentally different from those of other things in the
universe.  What evidence is presented to make such a distinction?  Could the
basis for this distinction JUST POSSIBLY be anthropocentrism and wishful
thinking?  (NAAH!)

> But let's assume for the 
> moment that it is all determined.  There is still an obvious qualitative 
> difference between neurotic and normal behavior which justifies calling the
> first "free". (see below)

I always shudder when someone says "an obvious ...".  It's usually a camouflage
for a lack of substantiation behind an assertion.  If it's not in this case,
I'd be curious to hear specifics about this qualitative difference.  I think
you meant to say "calling the second 'free'", but it just goes to show that it
can go either way, can't it?

>>> I don't know about this; I think you can trim away at rationality and still
>>> get some freedom (which is all we're looking for, Rich).

>>Wait a minute.  "Get some freedom"?  You mean (by the way you word it,
>>and apparently by the way others seem to be doing the same thing) that the
>>goal is NOT to find out whether or not there IS any true freedom involved,
>>but rather to BUILD THE MODEL in such a way so that freedom is "retained",
>>regardless of the accuracy of the model?  It sounds like a religious argument
>>about god:  let's build our model of the universe to be consistent with the
>>view of the god we believe in and want.  Sorry, Charley, no dice.

> If this argument is valid, than it equally condemns Rich, who so passionately
> argues against freedom, in the abscence of evidence against it.

I think your logic is a bit cockeyed there.  What I am doing in no different
than arguing against the existence of unicorns, despite the fact that "there's
no evidence that unicorns don't exist".  (whatever that means)  Only if you
work from "freedom exists" as an assumption (the way you work from "god
exists", for example) is there a need to "disprove" that.  But you don't
assume that the things you're "looking for" (as you put it) necessarily exist
a priori.  (Things like gods and freedom.)  To do so is, you guessed it,
wishful thinking.

> Ignoring that
> for the moment, I would also like to point out that the Master of Taking the
> Wrong Meaning of Words has take get to mean obtain when I meant "brings you
> to" (as in the phrase "It's ugly but it gets you there.").

What wrong meaning did I extract from your use of the phrase "looking for"?
(said Mr. Rosen to the Master of Attempting to Alter the Meaning of What He
Had Already Said...)

>>Is the cart before the horse here?  Is it abnormal because it is not free
>>(as opposed other "normal" behaviors), or is it just a "slave" to a different
>>master?

> It's abnormal on two counts: (1) it's not what the majority do,

Normality is determined (like reality) by popular consensus.  Let's take
a vote on whether god exists.  On whether wearing loud shirts is "abnormal".
Or any other behavior you might want to JUDGE...

> and (2) it represents an interference with the mental processes which would be
> there if there were no disorder.

Charley, did you fail "Attaching Horses to Carts 101"? :-)  Who's to say
that the behavior YOU call normal represents "no disorder"?

>>Freedom is a lack of restraint preventing you from doing things.  "Wanting"
>>to do certain things is just as much a restraint as anything else.  In fact,
>>the neurotic and psychotic behaviors Charley mentioned are a *result* of
>>their wantings.  If THEY are not free because of that, neither is anyone
>>else.  The fact that some people simply want to exclude "wants" from the
>>list of restraints and say "that's different!" (despite the origins
>>of those wants and their effects) is silly.

> Almost everything Rich has to say in this paragraph is conjecture.  It's quite
> clear that schitzophrenia is organic, since it responds only to chemical
> treatment.  And to say that people "want" their neuroses is false; otherwise,
> why would people voluntarily undergo psychiatric treament to get rid of them?

Why is it "quite clear" that schizophrenia is organic, but not clear that
human thought is based on basic physical biochemistry and thus subject to
physical law?  Aren't you being arbitrary?  Note that I didn't say "their
neuroses are caused by their wants" (as Charles implies), I said THEIR
BEHAVIORS are caused by their wants.  The neuroses/psychoses change what these
people WANT.  They WANT to engage in the silly or violent or whatever
behavior they engage in, because, as you admit, there is an organic basis
that changes their brain chemistry!!!!  Thank you for supporting my point,
although somewhat unwittingly.

> As for wants themselves, there origin is still a mystery.  And wants are not
> absolutes anyway; they modify each other.  Rich has also avoided confronting
> the point that one can equate greater freedom with less restraint; to prove
> his point, he must demonstrate that the restraints are complete.

My points ARE that the restraints exist at a deeper level than you might choose
to realize, that at bottom level the illusion that you are choosing this
"freely" is based on restraints:  you "want" to do this or that BECAUSE of
the way your brain has been organized by previous experiences.

>>>I think it's well established that neither Paul nor I denies that some 
>>>people are not free.  Rich is also (again) ignoring the fact that a
>>>person is capable of recognizing that he would prefer to behave 
>>>differently from the way he behaves when he is not thinking about it.

>>Recognizing that he would "prefer"?  Says who?  Would the wife-beater 
>>"prefer" not to beat his wife?  Hell, no, he enjoys it.  How do you know 
>>he would "prefer" to do something else?  If he is getting satisfaction 
>>out of his behavior that he has learned, and if no one stops him (he 
>>might have married a woman who has learned, in the same way he has, 
>>to ACCEPT that of part of marriage [sad]), why "prefer" anything else?

> Rich, how come you know so much about wife-beating?  Care to confess now? :-)

Maybe I have friends who have suffered at the hands of abusive husbands.
Maybe I have seen people completely "unrepentant" about doing such things
because they had learned that this was the thing to do.  Your cute statement
(in your opinion) represents such a callous and vacuous disregard for such
things that it shocks me that I am still continuing this discussion.

> This example is highly dependent on the fact that the husband has a character
> disorder (i.e., that he is inappropriately assigning responsibility outside 
> himself) or is evil (i.e., that he is unnecesarily destructive).  In both
> of these cases, the behavior tends to be self-reinforcing.  In the case of a
> neurosis (where inappropriate responsibilities are taken on), however, the
> person often realizes that there is something wrong with his behavior, and 
> wants to change it, but essentially doesn't know how.  Normally, a person
> can decide to do something different and then just do it.  Both of these 
> latter states are obviously quite different from the case Rich cites. 
> Phobias are a quite common example of behavior where the person does NOT
> desire the behavior, but is unable to stop it.

You draw a line between psychosis and neurosis that I am not sure is valid
from the perspective of psychological definitions, but nonetheless it is
a valid line to draw.  The line I am referring to is the line between
"negative" behaviors that the person knows are maladaptive/counterproductive/
wrong and wants to change them but can't, and similar behaviors that the
person has learned to be "OK, no problem".  I'm just not sure if those
two words represent this dichotomy. But I fail to see what relevance this
has to the topic at hand.  In both cases, the fact that the behavior sees
nothing wrong with the behavior, or that he/she feels unable to do anything
to change it, is part of that person's learning from experiences, and is
part of that person's brain, as the behaviors themselves are.  So?

>>If my experience has NOT involved my having learned to
>>be able to control my emotional reactions and responses, if I have learned
>>negative behavior traits, if I have NOT learned control of such behavior,
>>in what way am I "responsible" for that?  Should I have taken my parents in
>>to the Consumer Complaint Bureau, sued them for malpractice?  (Malparenting?)
>>How would a child who has learned NOT to think rationally, NOT to behave
>>sociably, change him/herself if not owing to some outside impetus to do so?
>>(e.g., negative experiences from the behavior, external force)  I know,
>>Charley, that you have expressed the opinion that you "don't like" certain
>>world views because they "exclude responsibility".  If you can show evidence
>>why it should be INcluded, based on your knowledge of whatever, especially
>>in light of examples given above, I'd be interested.

> You forget that people can make non-rational decisions.  I say "non-rational"
> to indicate that the decision is outside of reason rather than counter to it.
> The evidence is in fact on my side, not Rich's.  People go to get 
> psychological help every day in ridding themselves of irrational behavior
> learned from their parents.

Again, so?  What does that prove?  Yes, indeed, people do what you describe.
They fit into the category you labelled above as "neurotic".  Their experience
has led them to the point where they "cannot take it anymore".  If their
experience includes the knowledge that such therapy can and does help
people, and if they also have come to believe that people are not stigmatized
by having such therapy, they may go.  If not, if their experience is that
"therapy is for nutcases who are treated by shrinks in looneybins", they
most likely will not go (unless forced), and might resort to any number of
actions in response to their desperateness.

> Well, first off, "responsibility", ignoring whatever moral implications you
> wish to attach, simply implies that you go to the person to change behavior,
> rather than looking for some outside cause to change.  This is precisely what
> prompted Paul's (I think it was Paul's) comment that "they shouldn't be
> blamed or punished, *** unless there is no better way to change their
> behavior. ***"

Again, a better way may exist, but if they have been made unaware of it
or turned against it by family/church/media indoctrination, then they CANNOT
be blamed for not taking that path.

> Under Rich's system, on the other hand, there's no reason to criticize anyone.
> After all, they can't control their behavior.  But of course, neither can 
> Rich.  He's doomed to repeat this argument forever :-) :-) :-)

But such criticism is itself an external stimulus that, if the person can
see the reasoning behind the viewpoint held by the other person, can (to
use Paul Dubois' favorite word) PRO-FOUNDly influence that person's life,
hopefully in a very positive way.  Of course, if they are so entrenched
in a particular mindset that has taught them to deny such reasoning when
it presents itself, or to ignore it, or bestow evil qualities onto it,
then you're right, it is very likely that they will never change.  I find
this very very sad.  I think you know which type of mindset I am referring to.
-- 
Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege...
				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr