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 (Dr. Emmanuel Wu)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: To Laura:  outlook on life and free will
Message-ID: <800@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Mar-85 19:40:54 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.800
Posted: Thu Mar 28 19:40:54 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Mar-85 02:46:26 EST
References: <362@aesat.UUCP> <5272@utzoo.UUCP>, <734@pyuxd.UUCP> <5312@utzoo.UUCP>, <766@pyuxd.UUCP> <5364@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY:  We have no slogan
Lines: 227

>> Why are you trying so bloody hard to forcefit your notions of "without free
>> will I wouldn't do any of these things".  If your chemical makeup was such
>> that you enjoyed and took pride in your work, you most certainly would.
>>  [ROSEN]

> This is, of course, the question. The answer is, though, because I would have
> no reason to enjoy or take pride in my work any more. I could not help but
> do the things that I did. [LAURA]

You can't help but do the things you're doing right now.  What's the
difference?  Explain why there would be "no" reason.

> I don't take pride in *other people's* work, and
> I don't take pride in the actions of other people. If my behaviour is
> entirely determined, then I would view my own actions as I viewed the
> actions of other people -- and indeed, my way of viewing other people
> would change.

That's your choice to take pride or not.  It has no bearing on the actual
nature of the world around you.  It is a decision you make based on your
own preconceptions.

> Do you write lousy code? Today, I would criticise you for it. But, of
> course, if you couldn't help but write lousy code, then there is no
> reason for me to upbraid you for it, since you didn't choose to write
> lousy code.

But your criticism might induce me to seek ways to improve my programming
abilities, because you might use arguments that convince me that it
might be worthwhile to do so, or I might simply respect your opinion.
But it would *influence* me to take some course of action.  Of course,
if your "criticism" was in the form of an "upbraiding", it might not have
that same effect.

> Are you an Identity Christian? Well, these days I will
> flame you into the ground. But, of course, if you were not free to
> not become an Identity Christian, it seems foolish of me to criticise you
> as if it were your fault, or your responsibility.

If you're in the blaming business, finding fault with people for the
circumstances of their lives, then of course feel free to do so.  I don't
automatically assume (as some would) that because a person is a certain
way, he/she is that way by "choice" and thus worthy of "punishment".  If
given the opportunity to change, if shown the "errors of their ways",
if offered reasoning as to why they are that way and how they might change,
they might still not do so.  The human mind's conditioning may preclude any
such change, and often that is sad.  Still we can try and hope.  (Need I
give examples of the above?)

> Do I say I love you?
> Oh well, today I believe that it is because you and I share similar
> values and I admire you for having them. Of course, if you are in no
> way responsible for the values that you have, then it is foolish of me
> to admire you as if you had anythng to do with it. You just happened to
> be that way, but I could as easily love someone who shares none of my
> values, for they just happened *that* way as well. Gee, love seems
> kind of pointless.

To you.  I find that the people I love specifically (as opposed to a 
more generic love for people in general) are those people who share
similar tastes/values/experiences/outlooks/etc., and it doesn't faze
me one bit (as it seems to faze you) that the person I love may not
be ultimately responsible for their current state due to "free will".
I love them just the same.

> Gee -- *EVERYTHING* seems kind of pointless. I think
> I will pack it in now, now that I understand that there is no such thing as
> personal responsibility, I don't think that there is anything worthwhile
> any more.

Have I got a robot pal for you?  (Oh, Marvin...)  That's some outlook,
Laura, and I feel really sorry for you.  Could you explain WHY you thus
think that nothing is worthwhile?

> How can you say that life is ``as full as I make it''? What you have been
> telling me is that *I* *can't* *make* *it*!

You must have been telling yourself that, because I certainly didn't tell
you that.

> If I could, if I could really
> chose to make life more or less full, then I would have free will. But, if
> I can't, then no life is full -- some only appear more full by a standard
> that assumes that there is such a thing as personal responsibility. Without
> personal responsibility, all talk of a ``meaningful life'' is so much crap.

I don't follow at all.  As the people I described above, you can choose
to change your life as you see fit.  But you WILL not do so unless you
change the outlooks/preconceptions you have that lead you to the erroneous
conclusion that life isn't worthwhile in the absence of free will.

> Everybody gets what they were destined to get in life. Some people are
> destined to be called ``meaningful'' and others aren't. But who cares? It
> wasn't by their actions that they determined what they were destined to get --
> what they were destined to get was determined even before they were born
> out of the equally destined lives of their ancestors.

The way you use the word destiny implies an ordered plan of sorts.  Destiny
and determinism don't necessarily imply that.  Sure what's going to
happen is going to happen.  If you are incapable of realizing the
erroneousness of your own preconceptions regarding life, then you WILL live
out life with the same notions, that in the absence of free will you have
nothing to live for.  But you're NOT incapable of doing so.  SO why not
do so?

>> Why are you asking me to prove something I don't believe?  To what end?

> What is meaningful about knowledge if one cannot influence one's own actions?

The knowledge itself influences the actions directly.  By seeking it you are
taking charge of your life.

>> Knowledge is as meaningful as its usefulness, as useful as its application.

> Why should I care?

Because you're alive, and you have a stake in your own life, making it
more enjoyable, and by caring you directly improve the quality of your
own life.

>> Even without application, pure knowledge can have beauty.

> Again, why should I care? If the future, like the past, is fixed then
> why should the application of anything interest me?

If it doesn't, that's your problem.  Period.  It interests me.  Free will
or not.  What does that tell you?

>>>>If I program a machine to ask the question, does it have free will?

>>>Now, here is an instance where we must be careful of what we mean. 
>>>what do you mean by ``ask''? If you mean ``print out the question 
>>>on a terminal'' then I would say ``no''. On the other hand, if you
>>>programmed a machine and then it spontaneously came up with the
>>>question ``does man have free will'' then I would have to answer that
>>>I do not know -- but I would be inclined to suspect that it does.
	
>> What makes you think that human beings don't ask questions by simply
>> going through a series of internal processes and then "printing out the
>> question" or "asking it orally"?  Straw man.  What makes you think that
>> humans "spontaneously" ask questions rather than going through such
>> such processes as I describe above to do so?

> Rich, I have never said that human beings *don't* do that. I do not think that
> this notion of doing things is incompatible with the notion of free will.  I
> do not know whether a machine can or can not have free will. When I used the
> term ``spontaneously'' I meant to distinguish it from the case where I
> (using the bourne shell) type:
> 
> PS1="Does man have free will?"
> export PS1
> 
> There. My terminal will print out ``Does man have free will'' a lot, but
> I don't think that the 11/44 in the department of Zoology has it. On the
> other hand, if you wrote an AI program that produced a machine that
> passed the Turing test, and, if one day you walked by it and it typed
> out at you ``Does man have free will'' then I would have to wonder about it.

Yeah, me too.  I'd have to wonder was it planned like a $PS1 prompt, or
did it arrive at it on its own through an elaborate process.  Neither is
free will.

>>> All I am assuming is that either men have free will or they don't,
>>> and that the expression ``men have free will'' is meaningful.
	
>> It is just an utterance of sounds.  It is only as meaningful as its
>> veracity.  If it is false, then it is false.

> No. No. No. No. No. Veracity has nothing to do with meaningfulness.
> ``My father has blue eyes.'' This is a wonderfully meaningful statement.
> It is also completely false, since my father has brown eyes.

Then all properly constructed sentences are meaningful, even though their
meaning may be incorrect.  Semantics...

> In addition,
> I would contest that it is just an utterance of sounds. It must be more. I
> never spoke it out loud, and there is no reason to assume that you did
> either. You interpreted the string of letters in a certain way -- you
> saw that it represented certain concepts that you already had. I am not
> asking you to evaluate a string of letters, but rather the concept that
> that string represents. 

You have no idea what an imbecile I am, Laura, I have to read these things
out loud to understand them (esp. your articles :-).  Whether an aural
or visual medium, the words are just utterances of sounds and/or configurations
of visual symbols that REPRESENT concepts.

>> The point was that your statement claiming that because I am seeking
>> knowledge I am using free will was totally erroneous, plugging in random
>> words to suit the conclusion you want to reach.  My asking questions to
>> gain knowledge does not imply use of free will, but somehow you claim to
>> reach that conclusion above.  I am politely trying to say "What the hell are
>> you talking about?"  It is YOU who are playing Humpty Dumpty here.  Any
>> question I ask (about free will or about snerdfelb) have equal POTENTIAL
>> meaning.  Only the reality of the answer shows how meaningful the
>> information obtained really was.  Remember, though, that even asking a
>> "stupid" question can result in useful information.

> If ``truth seeking'' is significant, and it is significant because it
> enables one to avoid making mistakes, then it follows that it is
> possible to avoid making mistakes. But this assumes that choices are
> possible, that is that the future is not fixed as is the past, but
> rather that there are possible futures -- one in which a mistake is
> made and one in which it is not. It also follows that through one's
> own thought one can influence which of the possible futures is the one
> that becomes the present and eventually the past. This is all I want
> from free will.  Therefore:	[Little Conclusion Time]
> 
> In asking the question ``does man have free will'' one is implicitly
> assuming that the answer to this question is yes.

One's own thought?  You're assuming your own conclusion here:  that the
thoughts voluntarily influence the behavior.  The information
obtained through knowledge-/truth-seeking influences the choices you will
make in the future.  BUT:  in what way is that VOLUNTARY, or FREE?  The
act of seeking knowledge, the method of acting on that knowledge, all are
determined by one's existing chemical state, no?  One's thought causes
the change in influence on your potential behavior, but does one "choose" to
make that change or does the change come about through a "natural" process?
You can choose to seek knowledge and thus produce hopefully beneficial
(involuntary) influences on your behavior and your life.  But if you have
the outlook you describe earlier, you might not do such seeking, and you'll
be the lesser for it in life.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr