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: Re: How much is that free will in the window?
Message-ID: <809@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Mar-85 19:57:24 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.809
Posted: Fri Mar 29 19:57:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Mar-85 02:24:07 EST
References: <1216@decwrl.UUCP>, <790@pyuxd.UUCP> <5367@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY:  We have no slogan
Lines: 41

> 	I'd be foolish to say that my actions are not dependent on the
> 	actions of the people and things around me, since those things
> 	influence my thoughts, my perceptions, my analysis, my
> 	reactions, my intuitions, and my actions.  Those who advocate a
> 	notion of free will would claim that there is something more,
> 	that allows a person, based on the same input in exactly the
> 	same environment with the same current "brain state", to have
> 	some sort of choice independent of those variables.  I don't
> 	see any reason to believe that.
> 
> No, Rich, this is not what (some of us) have been advocating at all.
> There is a difference between ``dependent on'' and ``determined by''.
> I do not deny that my actions are dependent upon such things, only that
> they are determined by them. What I deny is that when I feel as if I
> am ``making a choice'' that the outcome of that choice is determined
> by my current brain state. I am arguing that when I make a choice I am
> really determining which of 2 (or more) possible futures will become the
> real future in my deciding process, not merely going through a complicated
> song and dance whose outcome was determined before I was born. [LAURA]

1) Explain exactly where this difference between "dependent on" and 
"determined by" actually lies.  2) We've gone through the difference
between "I feel I am making a choice" and actually having the
capability to do so; having that capability directly implies an agent
beyond the scope of "physical cause and effect".  The determination of
two or more possible futures is in fact determined by the "current
brain state".  If you choose to cite Heisenberg to imply notions of
multiple possible futures, you are dealing in the realm of subatomic
particles that would seem to be non-determined rather than chosen by
an agent.  Unless you are implying that the agent directs the
actions of the subatomic particles.  (Based on/controlled by what?...
Oh, sorry, we're talking about agents outside of such a realm.)
More importantly, I see no reason for jumping to these wild conclusions
about the nature of such "choices".  It seems perfectly logical to
me that the same things that influence the movements of rocks and
streams influences the "brain states".  (That's Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin,
and Delaware. :-)  What reason do you have for feeling that there must
be some additional cause of such things?
-- 
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
					Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr