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: net.ignorant.opinion
Message-ID: <1749@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 16:50:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1749
Posted: Sat Sep 21 16:50:20 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 06:42:47 EDT
References: <1495@pyuxd.UUCP> <2197@pucc-h> <1510@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 147

>>> There seems to be a consensus in net.philosophy that "free will" in
>>> the sense preferred by RR is incompatible with determinism of any
>>> kind, and also that some form of determinism holds true for the real
>>> world (perhaps one or two people would take exception to either of
>>> these statements). [CARNES]

>>Unfortunately, it is precisely because that definition is incompatible with
>>the form of determinism seemingly present in this world, AND precisely
>>because that IS the definition of free will (and its implications) that leads
>>us (at least me) to the conclusion that this phenomenon called free will does
>>not exist.  Those that it doesn't lead to that conclusion have unilaterally
>>altered the definition so that it does exist, which by the rules of language,
>>it just plain playing dirty. [Rosen]

> Huh? Playing dirty!!?? You claim that your pet definition is the ONE TRUE
> DEFINITION -- yet when practically everybody here disagrees, you accuse us
> of PLAYING DIRTY? May I humbly suggest that you are simply ignorant?

You've been doing that in a variety of ways for some time now, Michael.  Mostly
extremely boorish abusive ways.  "Practically everybody disagrees"?  I've
noted how so many people have disagreed:  "Well, yeah, the consensus among
dictionary definitions and among language users is that free will means, not
just freedom from interference by other people in choosing your actions, but
freedom from your own physical make-up.  But still, if we use that definition,
we have to accept the notion of souls, or some non-physical means of making
choices independent of the physical body/brain.  Since I don't believe in
souls, the definition of free will must be wrong, thus we should change the
definition to something that allows us to reach the conclusion that we have
free will.  How dare Rosen say that this is a butchering of the notion of
language and communication!"

>     Since you have previously criticized Dennett's book on free will without
>     ever bothering to read it, by empirical induction, I conclude that you
>     have read very little about free will in general.

I have concluded from your obnoxious tone that you have little to say on
any topic at all of significant merit anymore.  The excerpts posted from
Dennett's book showed clearly that he was doing exactly what I described above.

>     As the most vocal critic of free will in DrivelNet history, I hope to
>     correct an appalling gap in your philosophical knowledge.

Oh, teach me, oh great teacher.

>     Here are some quotes...
> 
>     Descartes:
> 	That we possess free will is self-evident: We had before a very
> 	clear proof of this; for, at the same time as we tried to doubt all
> 	things and even assumed that He who created us employed His
> 	unlimited powers in deceiving us in every way, we perceived  in
> 	ourselves such a liberty such that we were able to abstain from
> 	believing what was not perfectly certain and indubitable...We are in
> 	a special way the masters of our actions and thereby merit praise or
> 	blame.

Clearly Descartes was referring to "such a liberty" that enabled us to be
the "masters of our actions", meaning that no matter how we were physically
constructed, we were free to make any choice.  His other assumptions
notwithstanding, I think it's clear he is referring to the same type of
"freedom even from one's physical make-up" that I have spoken.

>     Leibniz:
> 	Though it was certain that Caesar would resolve to cross the
> 	Rubicon, his decision was a free decision. He made a rational
> 	decision, and therfore acted freely.. To ask whether there is
> 	freedom in our will is the same as to ask whether there is choice in
> 	our will.

Hmmm, Leibniz, whose Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that nothing
takes place without a reason?  Odd that the bellwether of acausality should
draw from Leibniz.  All I see is an assertion here.  Could he possibly have
been working from the same "premises" (i.e., backwards from the conclusion) as
you?

>     Hobbes: 
> 	Effect follows necessarily from cause..all the effects that have
> 	been, or shall be produced, have their necessity in things
> 	antecedent.  This at once rules out all freedom in man, at least if
> 	freedom is taken to imply absence of necessity.. A man's volitions,
> 	desires, and inclinations are necessary in the sense that they are
> 	the results of a chain of determining causes; but when he acts in
> 	accordance with these desires and inclinations, he is said to act
> 	freely. A free man is thus "he that in those things which by his own
> 	strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has
> 	the will to do.

Hobbes also said that as part of a causally determined world we are also
causally determined, and thus in the commonsense meaning of the word
freedom, we are NOT free.  He drew an analogy between what we perceive to
be our freedom and water running "freely" to the sea---not really "freely"
at all.

>     Hume: 
> 	Necessity makes an essential part of causation; and consequently,
> 	liberty, by removing necessity, removes also causes, and is the very
> 	same thing as chance. Free action would be uncaused action...the
> 	assertion of freedom involves denial of necessity.

It seems awful clear to me that Hume was working from the assumption about
the nature of causality (as you do) to "get" to a worldview in which actions
can be deemed to be unconstrained by "causes", thus (apparently?) making us
free.  Clearly he built a system which included non-causal elements, which
thus allowed the type of freedom we are talking about.

>     Voltaire: 
> 	The idea of free will is absurd; for a free will would be a will
> 	without sufficient motive, and it would be outside the course of
> 	Nature... It would act by chance, and there is no chance.

Funny, that's exactly what I've been saying (though Voltaire is more dogmatic
about indeterminism).

>     Of the above, Hume and Voltaire seem closest to your position --
>     likewise, their anti-libertarian arguments are weakened in light of 20th
>     century physics.  The others hold free will as reasonable in spite of
>     their belief in the same strict determinism that upholds your
>     Behaviorist position.

Altering things enough so that free will would "fit".  Clearly your friends
agree with the position I have put forth that free will requires an
independence from physical causality, including the physicality of their
own bodies.

>>They have "only" had one very general (yet very specific) definition: the
>>ability of human beings (or possibly some other sentient organisms) to make
>>decisions "freely", independently, without the constraints of either the
>>impositions of the external environment upon them.

>     In light of the quotes from Descartes, Leibniz, Hobbes, Rousseau, and
>     Kant (all of whom believed in strict determinism), not to mention many
>     recent philosophers I could supply, and the overwhelming opposition from
>     contributors to this newsgroup, I can only wonder how you can support
>     this blatantly false statement.

Well, I just showed that it was YOU who was making the blatantly false
statements.  Everyone you quoted believed that free will meant freedom even
from one's own physical make-up, and either they didn't believe that it
existed or they added in new axioms to make it "exist" on those terms.

If anyone can be accused of turning this group into "net.ignorant.opinion",
it is you, Michael.  If this is to be your style of argument, namecalling
followed by assorted random quoting rather than some serious reasoning, don't
bother to respond.  I've grown sick of your abusive tone.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr