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: External Influences
Message-ID: <1678@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 21:03:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1678
Posted: Thu Sep 12 21:03:32 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Sep-85 05:15:23 EDT
References: <3518@decwrl.UUCP> <1451@pyuxd.UUCP> <661@psivax.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 46

>>... on the other hand, if you are going to allow memories of past events to
>>count as external factors, you have given away the whole argument.

>     Sorry again -- I'll try once more...
> 	What remains of past experiences has been incorporated into one's
> 	memory, habits, etc...  They were only external influences when they
> 	crossed from external to internal.
> 	Exactly where they `cross the boundary' and become integrated into
> 	the person is arbitrary, though I suggested later in the same
> 	article that this point occurs at the moment of one first
> 	becomes aware of the experience. 
>     Anyway, external or not, pleasant memories, knowledge, skills, good
>     habits, etc, increase one's freedom by opening the mind to healthy and
>     varied interests. 

I wouldn't call it "freedom".  What is increased is our flexibility in action,
that which makes us different from supposedly lower animals.  What Torek and
I have referred to as rational evaluative analysis of stored knowledge
constructs (possibly not even at a conscious level).  The moment one first
becomes aware is an arbitrary point indeed, because the stored experience may
have an effect on your decision making without your being aware of it at a
conscious level. But, back to the original point, calling it freedom sounds
Orwellian to me, because clearly we are "free" only to do what our experiences
and mind constructs lead us to do.  This may be perceived as a "conscious
choice" if the monitoring brain happens to be monitoring that process (i.e.,
is conscious of it), but...

>     In fact, LACK of past experiences -- parental neglect, poor education,
>     insufficient human contact, boredom, etc -- is probably as constraining to
>     personal freedom as traumatic or bitter experience. 

But there's no difference at all.  One case constrains you to do one set of
things, the other constrains you to do another.

>     Finally, the strict Behaviorist belief that past experience totally
>     determines one's actions is NOT fact.

So, what is "fact" here?  If "strict" behaviorism is not true, what are you
assuming to be true.  I assume that by "strict behaviorism" you mean that
all our behaviors are determined by things in our brains, which were
accumulated as a result of past experiences, which were...  If not this, what?
-- 
"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