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!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definitions of free, esp. mine
Message-ID: <1102@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 01:00:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1102
Posted: Mon Aug  5 01:00:39 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 02:22:09 EDT
References: <1057@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1389@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 208

In article <1389@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>>>Not with that wording it ain't.  "Have been selected" implies a selector.

>> But it does so only in the most general way, and it's YOU, Rich, who is 
>> attaching this implication of purposefulness.

>General way or not, it implies it, and incorrectly so.

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.

>>>Though [mass] still referred to the same physical phenomenon [after
>>>Einstein], only utilizing a different perspective.

>> Rich has fallen into an important pitfall.  There is an important sense in
>> which mass is NOT a physical phenomenon at all.  Remember that you cannot
>> measure mass directly; you can only measure some of its effects (primarily
>> in relation to energy, momentum, and gravity).  Mass itself is simply a 
>> construct which is postulated to explain a variety of real physical
>> phenomena  We presume that it is exactly analogous to whatever the true
>> phenomena are, but we can't tell.

>Mass hasn't been changed in definition so that it now refers to speed.
>It refers to the same aspect of an object, no matter how it winds up
>being "measured".

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."

>> It doesn't matter, really.  The concious thought (and again, "rationality"
>> is not important) of most individuals does in fact seem to control at least
>> some of their behavior.  So in this sense, the example is rather flawed, as
>> it ignores the actual outcome in many similar cases.

>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.  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)

>>>As I said above, those who behave rationally are constrained by THAT, just
>>>as those who don't behave that way are constrained by THAT.
>
>> 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.  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.").

>>>Thanks for making my point.  Like "a compulsive gambler", "a compulsive
>>>drinker". people WANTING to do those sorts of things, CONSTRAINED by their
>>>wants.  Really, thank you for supporting that with your quoted definition.

>> But precisely because you apply this only to abnormal behavior, you have
>> destroyed your argument.  I don't think anyone is arguing that these people
>> are not seriously less free.  But you've failed to demonstrate that ALL 
>> behavior is like this.  It's fairly clear that even all mental disorders
>> aren't like this; if they were, then psychotherapy would be useless.

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

>>>> 2:  I never claimed that ALL humans are free, or had perfect freedom; I
>>>> explicitly stated that freedom comes in degrees.

>>>One hand shackled to the wall...

>> I think it's sufficiently intuitively obvious that a man in a cage is more
>> free than one chained to a post.  It is threfore clear that it is Rich who
>> has this notion of absolute freedom, and no one else.

>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?
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.

>>>Oh, now your definitions of free will only apply to a subset of humanity,
>>>and one arbitrarily defined at that.  ("Who's sane?    Anyone who acts 
>>>in a way I consider responsible, and, thus, free.")  There are lots 
>>>of "sane, normally intelligent adults" for whom the choices you 
>>>describe are not available.  In what way do compulsive gamblers,
>>>drinkers, or even wife-beaters disqualify themselves from the 
>>>aforementioned category other than your say-so?

>> 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? :-)

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.

>>>That's a crock.  People CAN engage in such examination, they CAN change the
>>>way they think, it IS a viable way to live.  But to claim that anyone who
>>>doesn't, due to their lack of exposure to the possibility of doing it or
>>>whatever, is "responsible", is a crock of shit.

>> Go ahead, prove it.  I think this is just a value judgement on Rich's part.

>Say what, Chucko?  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.

>>>it is just an excuse for blaming them, for putting yourself in some 
>>>position of superiority for having been lucky enough to have had 
>>>the experience that enabled you to think that way.  Such "blaming" 
>>>belief systems went out with old time religion, my friend.

>> Wrong, wrong, wrong.  It is YOU, Rich, that attached blame to
>> responsibility.  Not Paul.  You impute to him someone else's
>> morality.  (Certainly not mine.)

>> And besides, Rich, why are YOU suddenly so judgemental?  Is not the pot
>> a little singed himself?  You are acting, in fact, as if Paul WAS
>> responsible for his ideas.  Isn't this rather inconsistent?

>I am berating Paul's ideas, not Paul.  And I am making claims about the
>nature of "responsibility"-based belief systems.  If you claim that someone
>is "responsible" for his/her actions, and they do something negative, then
>when you say they are "responsible" for a negative thing, you are BLAMING
>them.  Quite clear, I think.  What's more, if you proclaim "*I* am 
>responsible for *my*self, why isn't *she* responsible for *her*self?", 
>you are implying some superiority to that person---YOU have taken 
>charge of your life, and SHE is too XXXXX to do the same.
>  (Or so you say, or imply.)

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. ***"

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 :-) :-) :-)

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe