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!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!flink From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Definitions of free, esp. mine Message-ID: <1019@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 20:18:36 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1019 Posted: Fri Jul 26 20:18:36 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jul-85 19:26:31 EDT References: <1271@pyuxd.UUCP> thru <1274@pyuxd.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 129 Summary: Response to a slew of Rosen articles, in half the bytes Subject: Re: Example of my usage of "free" by someone else Message-ID: <1271@pyuxd.UUCP> >> Trivers: What do you mean by free will? There's no question that >> human beings have been selected to review our behavior >> and alter it in ways that seem desirable. >HAVE BEEN SELECTED? Mighty presumptuous there. I'm not sure what is >meant here. Natural selection, as in evolution. Not presumption, fact. >[...] It sounds to me from the tone of what he is saying that if someone >were to call that free will, he would agree that it existed. Nowhere does >he seem to make a value judgment about its "free will"-ness. But he suggested that definition himself -- it wasn't the Omni reporter who gave that definition of free will. Obviously, Trivers is unsure about the proper definition; he recognizes (unlike some people around here! :->) that there is no such thing as THE right definition. But he must think that the definition he mentioned is the most common, or one of the most common, otherwise he wouldn't have singled it out. Subject: Re: Is what Torek calls "free will" really "free"? Message-ID: <1272@pyuxd.UUCP> >Now, new meanings for words do crop up. But if there's one thing scientific >endeavot has taught us, it is to be precise about definitions and not to >frivolously throw words and meanings. Not only do new meanings "crop up", they can be deliberately changed, as (for example) the meaning of "mass" was changed after Einstein's discoveries. >> What Torek and others are saying (I think) >> is that we can discard the non-material implications of free will, and >> still leave the term with a meaning that corresponds pretty closely with >> common-sense notions of what "free" means. > >That's what the argument has dissolved into, and at root level one finds that >the word free does not apply there, and that that lack of freeness percolates >through to all levels. The word "free" does apply, precisely because the reformed term "corresponds pretty closely with common-sense notions of what 'free' means". Subject: Re: free choice as rational evaluation and action Message-ID: <1273@pyuxd.UUCP> >> Anything reviewed and accepted by r-e-a is (becomes) free, including the >> r-e-a procedure itself. Consider: why should I regard any internal feature >> as making me unfree, when that feature is something *desirable*, something >> I *accept* and have every reason to accept? How is one "constrained" by >> something one *wants*? > >I went into this in another article, but I'll reiterate. Take for example >the child who is brought up in a violent home, with constant fighting by his >parents, etc. The things he/she learns are fmaily abuse, violence in >relationships, etc. as appropriate things. He/she learns to expect from >a relationship what the parents each expect out of their spouses, and >grow up expecting and in fact "wanting" such things. Clearly such a person >grows up "constrained" by what he/she wants. But equally clearly, this person's tendencies are irrational and result in consequences she doesn't want; and would be rejected if the person thought harder about what she was doing. >> But if one can act rationally then one *is* choosing -- the choices are >> *both* one's own *and* are those *determined* as you indicate. > >How so? How are they "choices" at all in the sense you describe? The >behavior described above might be perceived as quite rational to someone >brought up like that. You are not necessarily constrained to be what you >call "rational", you are constrained to be whatever your chemistry makes >you. That ain't freedom in the sense you're talking about. It might be perceived as rational; that wouldn't make it so. Not everyone winds up rational, and none completely so, but the vast majority are largely rational and very susceptible to reason's influence. Not everyone is free, but that doesn't mean nobody is. >You make a special case about "wanting" not involving constraint because >it's "what you want". But clearly that's just assuming your conclusion CONSTRAINED, 1. Of persons: Forced, acting under compulsion. ... 3. Of persons: Behaving under constraint, having the spontaneous and natural impulses checked, embarassed. {Oxford English Dictionary, 1933} The non-tautologous part of the definition clearly shows that constraint involves having wants thwarted -- ain't no "constraint" without that. >> Freedom = autonomy = self-control. > [...] where you get your "="s is truly beyond me! AUTONOMY, 1. independence, self-government. FREE, 1. ... SYN: independent. {World Book Dictionary 1983} In the case of an individual, self-government means self-control; thus free = independent = autonomous = self-governing = self-controlling. Subject: Re: More ... definitions of free Message-ID: <1274@pyuxd.UUCP> >(1) There is clearly no such clear "demarcation point", since anyone who >has learned r-e-a does so over a period of time, gradually, and no one ever >gets it perfect, there's always the set of irrational things you've learned >from your parents/etc. that have their effect, and (2) R-e-a is not a >universal. It is a POTENTIAL capability that humans have, but it is NOT >exercised by everyone, and not exercised by ANYONE in its pure perfect state. 1: Okay, call it a "demarcation slope". You're quite right, it's gradual. 2: I never claimed that ALL humans are free, or had perfect freedom; I explicitly stated that freedom comes in degrees. >> [...] Consider responsibility. If one of the causes of a >> situation was "internal" to my volition, doesn't that make me responsible? > >Not if many of the others are based on the way you've learned to react to >experiences. If you've learned from your parents that the way to react to >an argument with your spouse is violence, are you "responsible" when you act >that way? Do you "choose" to do so? Is there a force you can exercise to >react differently? Is your "choice" of reaction FREE? Yes to all the questions, assuming a sane, normally intelligent adult. The "force" you can exercise is rational self-examination, which enables people to get rid of malicious habits. If they fail, yes, they're responsible. (That doesn't necessarily mean that they should be blamed or punished, unless there is no better way to change their behavior.) --Paul V Torek