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!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Definitions of free, esp. mine Message-ID: <1057@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 09:03:59 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1057 Posted: Wed Jul 31 09:03:59 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 21:24:26 EDT References: <1019@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1351@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 186 [Just passing through this argument, folks...] In article <1351@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>>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] >> Natural selection, as in evolution. Not presumption, fact. [TOREK] >Not with that wording it ain't. "Have been selected" implies a selector. But it does so only in the most general way, and it's YOU, Rich, who is attaching this implication of purposefulness. In every form of evolutionary theory, there are many, many selectors. Most of them are situational in nature. People avoid the tremendous circumlocution needed to avoid that word "desirable" because it should be fairly clear that it is used metaphorically. >>>Now, new meanings for words do crop up. But if there's one thing >>>scientific endeavor 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. Rich has fallen into an important pitfall. There is an important sense in which mass is NOT a physical phenomenon at all. Remember that you cannot measure mass directly; you can only measure some of its effects (primarily in relation to energy, momentum, and gravity). Mass itself is simply a construct which is postulated to explain a variety of real physical phenomena We presume that it is exactly analogous to whatever the true phenomena are, but we can't tell. Because of this, Einstein did indeed change what mass is, because he used it to explain more physical phenomena. >>>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!" It doesn't matter, really. The point is that such a person can in fact sit down, review their life, and decide to undergo treatment (such as psycho- therapy) to change their own behavior patterns. Whether or not it is "rational" to make such a decision is quite irrelevant. Humans have this ability to step back and review their own nature. Whether or not it's all determined, it's quite clear that subconcious forces do not hold absolute power in all individuals. The concious thought (and again, "rationality" is not important) of most individuals does in fact seem to control at least some of their behavior. So in this sense, the example is rather flawed, as it ignores the actual outcome in many similar cases. >>>>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. I don't know about this; I think you can trim away at rationality and still get some freedom (which is all we're looking for, Rich). Consider a number of people with psychological disorders, ranging from almost none through neuroses, delusions, on up into full-blown schitzophrenia. Now it seems to me that there is a progressive loss of freedom as one goes through this sequence, precisely because thinking processes are more and more interfered with as you go along. Equally so, there is a gain in freedom when one sees smaller and smaller disturbances. For the person with a mild neurosis, the determining force of the neurosis may only manifest itself in certain situations, for instance. And the resistance of schitzophrenia to analysis, it sharp contrast to the extreme responsiveness of neurosis to the technique, suggests that there is indeed a corresponding loss of freedom; the damage is on a different level, and does not respond to internal mental manipulations. >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. But precisely because you apply this only to abnormal behavior, you have destroyed your argument. I don't think anyone is arguing that these people are not seriously less free. But you've failed to demonstrate that ALL behavior is like this. It's fairly clear that even all mental disorders aren't like this; if they were, then psychotherapy would be useless. >Thus one cannot set up a point at which "freedom" takes over. He's not. >> 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... I think it's sufficiently intuitively obvious that a man in a cage is more free than one chained to a post. It is threfore clear that it is Rich who has this notion of absolute freedom, and no one else. >>>>[...] 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? I think it's well established that neither Paul nor I denies that some people are not free. Rich is also (again) ignoring the fact that a person is capable of recognizing that he would prefer to behave differently from the way he behaves when he is not thinking about it. There is therefore indeed a responsibility there, because the person is failing to use this facility. Certainly in some cases he is not free to. But there's big jump from that to the assertion that in ALL cases they are not free to. >> 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. Go ahead, prove it. I think this is just a value judgement on Rich's part. >> (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. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is YOU, Rich, that attached blame to responsibility. Not Paul. You impute to him someone else's morality. (Certainly not mine.) And besides, Rich, why are YOU suddenly so judgemental? Is not the pot a little singed himself? You are acting, in fact, as if Paul WAS responsible for his ideas. Isn't this rather inconsistent? Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "I've never seen a guy with purple underwear before."