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: Pfui
Message-ID: <1554@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1554
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 19:57:46 EDT
References: <1276@pyuxd.UUCP> <2145@pucc-h> <1313@pyuxd.UUCP> <434@spar.UUCP> <1388@pyuxd.UUCP> <626@psivax.UUCP> <1474@pyuxd.UUCP> <660@psivax.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 83
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2358 net.religion:7432

> 	Hmm, it seems your definition of Free Will involves the
> capacity to magically, instantaneously accomplish a decision by
> force of will alone! With such a definition I can see why you do
> not believe it exists! All my definition requirtes is that I have
> the capability of carrying out my decisions as long as I am not
> directly constrained by external forces. I consider the past
> experiences and existing emotional structures which are involved
> in making a decision to be *internal* factors, and thus not in any
> way contradictory to my ability to make decisions. [FRIESEN]

Yes, you have hit the definition of free will as I understand right on
the head.  Actually, what you have hit on the head are the implications
of such a definition of free will as understood by English speaking people.
My point is that we cannot whimsically choose to change the definition of
something that, as you rightly say, does not exist, in order to "get"
the term to point to something that DOES exist.  To do so is both deceptive
and contrary to the notion of language and communication.  It is analogous
to calling eastern bloc countries "democratic republics", or missiles
by the name "Peacekeeper", or horses by the name "unicorn".  You cannot
just say "now I mean this" and expect the rest of the world to understand.
Even if all the philosophers in the world took a vote, it would not
change the meaning of the word.  Only the body of speakers of a language
can do that by usage.  And people generally don't take very well to
changing the meanings of words at whim so that oil tub prickle bottom
vestige catharsis beany.

Furthermore, you talk of free will by saying your past experiences and
existing emotional factors are "internal factors", and thus exempt from
examination in determining how free it all is.  But clearly those past
experiences were obtained (initially) in an unfree fashion (say,
during infancy), which determined the way in which later experiences were
integrated, which determined...  Given this chain of dependencies, the
final outcome is surely not a free choice:  you are constrained by what
you have become due to past experiences.  To claim "but that's in the
past" seems awfully arbitrary to me.  Can you explain your basis for such
exclusion?

> If I make a
> decision to change myself, and that decision was made on the basis
> of my own internal needs and desires, then I consider that decision
> to have been freely made, and any manipulation of externals that I
> need to accomplish it may be considered to proceed from the decision.

But the means to (or not to) be able to make decisions so as to make
such changes is ALSO determined (or not) by past experiences.  Granted,
being in that state of mind where you are able to induce such changes in
yourself offers you the most control over your life, and is arguably
the "most" free line of choice.  But the ability to do this or not is
rooted in past learning experiences, and thus not truly free.  Can you
choose to learn to take control in this way?  If you can, chances are
you already have learned enough to take the first step and thus (possibly,
given the right circumstances) subsequent steps.  But the possibility exists
that you might not be able.

>>Because the decision to do that was in fact based on external control!!!
>>Because the only reason you decided to choose that was because of the
>>way your mind happened to be set up at the time.  YOU had the opportunity
>>to choose that self-conditioning therapy of sorts because you had the
>>fortuitousness to have your mind set up to be able to make such a decision.

> 	But I do not call such things external, I call them internal.

But their roots are just as external as any other.  I fail to see where
the basis of distinction is.

>>Others in your situation, who want to change the way things are for them,
>>may not be amenable to making such a decision.  They might choose to pray
>>for the change to happen, or to just forget about it and "accept" the way
>>things are.

> 	Well, I consider those to be viable alternatives also, they
> are not even mutually exvclusive. Or don't you realise that to "just
> forget about it and accept the way things are" is itself a sort of
> change, a change in one's attitude towards a situation!

In some cases, but in such cases it is learned as a result of the
experience.  In other cases, it is already part of the mindset.
-- 
"I was walking down the street.  A man came up to me and asked me what was the
 capital of Bolivia.  I hesitated.  Three sailors jumped me.  The next thing I
 knew I was making chicken salad."
"I don't believe that for a minute.  Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is
 La Paz."				Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr