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 (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definitions of free, esp. mine
Message-ID: <1389@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 14:31:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1389
Posted: Fri Aug  2 14:31:15 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 10:37:00 EDT
References: <1019@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1351@pyuxd.UUCP> <1057@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 178

>>> 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.

General way or not, it implies it, and incorrectly so.

>>> 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.

Mass hasn't been changed in definition so that it now refers to speed.
It refers to the same aspect of an object, no matter how it winds up
being "measured".

>>>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!!!
>>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 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.

If the conscious thought can determine behavior choice, and if that conscious
thought is determined by the prior circumstances, in what way is it free?

>>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).

Wait a minute.  "Get some freedom"?  You mean (by the way you word it,
and apparently by the way others seem to be doing the same thing) that the
goal is NOT to find out whether or not there IS any true freedom involved,
but rather to BUILD THE MODEL in such a way so that freedom is "retained",
regardless of the accuracy of the model?  It sounds like a religious argument
about god:  let's build our model of the universe to be consistent with the
view of the god we believe in and want.  Sorry, Charley, no dice.

>>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.

Is the cart before the horse here?  Is it abnormal because it is not free
(as opposed other "normal" behaviors), or is it just a "slave" to a different
master?

>>> 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.

Freedom is a lack of restraint preventing you from doing things.  "Wanting"
to do certain things is just as much a restraint as anything else.  In fact,
the neurotic and psychotic behaviors Charley mentioned are a *result* of
their wantings.  If THEY are not free because of that, neither is anyone else.
The fact that some people simply want to exclude "wants" from the list of
restraints and say "that's different!" (despite the origins of those wants
and their effects) is silly.

>>>>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.

Recognizing that he would "prefer"?  Says who?  Would the wife-beater "prefer"
not to beat his wife?  Hell, no, he enjoys it.  How do you know he would
"prefer" to do something else?  If he is getting satisfaction out of his
behavior that he has learned, and if no one stops him (he might have married
a woman who has learned, in the same way he has, to ACCEPT that of part of
marriage [sad]), why "prefer" anything else?

>>>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.

Say what, Chucko?  If my experience has NOT involved my having learned to
be able to control my emotional reactions and responses, if I have learned
negative behavior traits, if I have NOT learned control of such behavior,
in what way am I "responsible" for that?  Should I have taken my parents in
to the Consumer Complaint Bureau, sued them for malpractice?  (Malparenting?)
How would a child who has learned NOT to think rationally, NOT to behave
sociably, change him/herself if not owing to some outside impetus to do so?
(e.g., negative experiences from the behavior, external force)  I know,
Charley, that you have expressed the opinion that you "don't like" certain
world views because they "exclude responsibility".  If you can show evidence
why it should be INcluded, based on your knowledge of whatever, especially
in light of examples given above, I'd be interested.

>>> (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?

I am berating Paul's ideas, not Paul.  And I am making claims about the
nature of "responsibility"-based belief systems.  If you claim that someone
is "responsible" for his/her actions, and they do something negative, then
when you say they are "responsible" for a negative thing, you are BLAMING
them.  Quite clear, I think.  What's more, if you proclaim "*I* am responsible
for *my*self, why isn't *she* responsible for *her*self?", you are implying
some superiority to that person---YOU have taken charge of your life, and SHE
is too XXXXX to do the same.  (Or so you say, or imply.)
-- 
"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
 to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
 being can fight and never stop fighting."  - e. e. cummings
	Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr