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!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!flink From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: More ... definitions of free Message-ID: <913@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 19:56:36 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.913 Posted: Fri Jul 19 19:56:36 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 02:35:23 EDT References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1212@pyuxd.UUCP> <864@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1231@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 57 Keywords: Definitions, definitions... In article <1231@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> [...] But what I'm saying is that when the *immediate* causes of one's >> behavior are internal, the action is free. Yes, there was a time when >> the factors that are now internal were externally caused -- in infancy, >> for example. And that means that *an infant's behavior* is not freely >> chosen. But it doesn't mean that the adult's behavior is not free[...] > >[...] You've claimed that >my "reductionism" doesn't show any flaws in the more "macro" level thinking. >But here, the fact that the baby's behavior is not freely chosen implies >that later behavior CANNOT be freely chosen. When is the demarcation point >at which the baby's/child's non-freely chosen behavior suddenly becomes the >adult's freely chosen behavior? There is no such point! [...] >the resulting [adult] actions/decisions/thoughts are dependent on all >of this [external influences on infant], and thus not free. I hate to beg the question, but since you started it... The demarcation point is the point where r-e-a is applied to behavior and to sifting out influences on oneself to be accepted or rejected. It all comes down to the definition again... >>But my point was that NONE of the chains of cause-and-effect in an ordi- >>nary choice are without some point at which an internal factor is involved. > >"Free" means "INdependent, UNfettered". Just because one element of the >set of the factors involved internal things (freely created?), doesn't >make it free. They'd ALL have to be "INTERNAL" factors for that to be true. >And since the internal factors themselves are not "freely created", even >that case is a wash. There's one other necessary condition for freedom beyond one element of each chain of causes being internal, namely that the internal factor not be some- thing which the person wants to be rid of but can't (such as a "compulsive desire" or mental illness, perhaps). But given that condition, I think it does make it free. Consider responsibility. If one of the causes of a situation was "internal" to my volition, doesn't that make me responsible? And if so, why doesn't freedom work the same way? >> >> ------- x ------- x x ------- >> | | x| |x x| | x >> | x | x x x x | x >> | x x | |x x| x |x | x >> | x x | | x x |x | x | x >> | x x | | x x | x | x >> | x x | | x x| | x | x >> | x x | | x x| | x | x > >You seem to be saying "Because 'your' (i.e., my) definition prevents us from >having any freedom, it must be false." Can you give a specific example of >the middle case? Most decisions fall under the middle case: they flow from internal factors which were caused by ... internal factors which were caused by EXternal factors which were caused by external factors ... (ad infintum). --Paul V Torek