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!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Definitions of free, esp. mine Message-ID: <1351@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 28-Jul-85 22:51:02 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1351 Posted: Sun Jul 28 22:51:02 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 01:16:23 EDT References: <1271@pyuxd.UUCP> thru <1274@pyuxd.UUCP> <1019@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 194 > Subject: Re: Example of my usage of "free" by someone else >>>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. [TOREK] >>HAVE BEEN SELECTED? Mighty presumptuous there. I'm not sure what is >>meant here. [ROSEN] > Natural selection, as in evolution. Not presumption, fact. [TOREK] Not with that wording it ain't. "Have been selected" implies a selector. >>[...] 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. The way he suggested it was in a pseudo-third person mode: "if someone said this, he could agree with it". Still doesn't sound like anything but a humptydumpty way of dealing with language. > Subject: Re: Is what Torek calls "free will" really "free"? >>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. Though it still referred to the same physical phenomenon, only utilizing a different perspective. >>>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". "Reformed" term? You sent it to prison and rehabilitated it? Do you often do that with words? > Subject: Re: free choice as rational evaluation and action >>>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. Excuse me, but who are YOU to tell this person what they WANT? Aren't they "free" to be irrational? Who are you to proclaim what they "really" want? Maybe they're perfectly happy beating their wives and kids, getting a lot out of it? THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT!!!!! This is your version of freedom!!! "IF" they thought harder? What if they don't get the opportunity? What if they're perfectly happy with the situation? Do you still believe that THIS is free will in action? If not, if you believe only when people behave "rationally" are they exercising free will, what is the difference? In one case, they are constrained by their internal essence which causes them to behave a certain way, in the other, they are constrained by their internal essence which causes them to behave in a certain way ("All that they can do is, act rationally!" from that old song Ringo used to sing :-). >>>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. As I said above, those who behave rationally are constrained by THAT, just as those who don't behave that way are constrained by THAT. >>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} Thanks for making my point. Like "a compulsive gambler", "a compulsive drinker". people WANTING to do those sorts of things, CONSTRAINED by their wants. Really, thank you for supporting that with your quoted definition. > The non-tautologous part of the definition clearly shows that constraint > involves having wants thwarted -- ain't no "constraint" without that. Not just wants. I don't see anything there mentioning one's wants being exempt from being a factor in constraint. Unless, of course, as I said above, you assume that for your conclusion. >>>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} Funny how you only use "independent" as a synonym of "free" when it suits you. I wonder if, by this definition, the "Democratic Republics" of Eastern Europe are "free". In AUTONOMY, "independence" refers to independence from externals, but the internal "self-government" may not br quite free. > In the case of an individual, self-government means self-control; thus > free = independent = autonomous = self-governing = self-controlling. Free will = dark chocolate gloop on ice cream = hot fudge sauce. Come on!!! There's only so much stretch applicable in using third and fourth definitions cascadingly until the last doesn't refer to the first at all. > Subject: Re: More ... definitions of free >>(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. Thus one cannot set up a point at which "freedom" takes over. > 2: I never claimed that ALL humans are free, or had perfect freedom; I > explicitly stated that freedom comes in degrees. One hand shackled to the wall... >>>[...] 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. Oh, now your definitions of free will only apply to a subset of humanity, and one arbitrarily defined at that. ("Who's sane? Anyone who acts in a way I consider responsible, and, thus, free.") There are lots of "sane, normally intelligent adults" for whom the choices you describe are not available. In what way do compulsive gamblers, drinkers, or even wife-beaters disqualify themselves from the aforementioned category other than your say-so? > 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's a crock. People CAN engage in such examination, they CAN change the way they think, it IS a viable way to live. But to claim that anyone who doesn't, due to their lack of exposure to the possibility of doing it or whatever, is "responsible", is a crock of shit. > (That doesn't necessarily mean that they should be blamed or punished, unless > there is no better way to change their behavior.) Now, *there's* a sudden change of tune. If you label them "responsible", it is just an excuse for blaming them, for putting yourself in some position of superiority for having been lucky enough to have had the experience that enabled you to think that way. Such "blaming" belief systems went out with old time religion, my friend. -- "Because love grows where my Rosemary goes and nobody knows but me." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr