Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: net.ignorant.opinion Message-ID: <525@spar.UUCP> Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.525 Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 03:49:44 EDT References: <1495@pyuxd.UUCP> <2197@pucc-h> <1510@pyuxd.UUCP> <1001@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <1562@pyuxd.UUCP> <164@gargoyle.UUCP> <1663@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 114 >> There seems to be a consensus in net.philosophy that "free will" in >> the sense preferred by RR is incompatible with determinism of any >> kind, and also that some form of determinism holds true for the real >> world (perhaps one or two people would take exception to either of >> these statements). [CARNES] > >Unfortunately, it is precisely because that definition is incompatible with >the form of determinism seemingly present in this world, AND precisely >because that IS the definition of free will (and its implications) that leads >us (at least me) to the conclusion that this phenomenon called free will does >not exist. Those that it doesn't lead to that conclusion have unilaterally >altered the definition so that it does exist, which by the rules of language, >it just plain playing dirty. [Rosen] Huh? Playing dirty!!?? You claim that your pet definition is the ONE TRUE DEFINITION -- yet when practically everybody here disagrees, you accuse us of PLAYING DIRTY? May I humbly suggest that you are simply ignorant? Since you have previously criticized Dennett's book on free will without ever bothering to read it, by empirical induction, I conclude that you have read very little about free will in general. As the most vocal critic of free will in DrivelNet history, I hope to correct an appalling gap in your philosophical knowledge. Here are some quotes from Copleston's `History of Philosophy' regarding the views of some of the classic philosophers regarding free will. Each view is quite different, and you will notice that all of the ideas presented to date in this newsgroup (rational choice, spontaneity, lack of constraint, the subjective nature nature of mind...) all appear. Remember that divine omniscience and/or strict determinism were the fashion of the day for most of these folks: Descartes: That we possess free will is self-evident: We had before a very clear proof of this; for, at the same time as we tried to doubt all things and even assumed that He who created us employed His unlimited powers in deceiving us in every way, we perceived in ourselves such a liberty such that we were able to abstain from believing what was not perfectly certain and indubitable...We are in a special way the masters of our actions and thereby merit praise or blame. Leibniz: Though it was certain that Caesar would resolve to cross the Rubicon, his decision was a free decision. He made a rational decision, and therfore acted freely.. To ask whether there is freedom in our will is the same as to ask whether there is choice in our will. Hobbes: Effect follows necessarily from cause..all the effects that have been, or shall be produced, have their necessity in things antecedent. This at once rules out all freedom in man, at least if freedom is taken to imply absence of necessity.. A man's volitions, desires, and inclinations are necessary in the sense that they are the results of a chain of determining causes; but when he acts in accordance with these desires and inclinations, he is said to act freely. A free man is thus "he that in those things which by his own strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has the will to do. Hume: Necessity makes an essential part of causation; and consequently, liberty, by removing necessity, removes also causes, and is the very same thing as chance. Free action would be uncaused action...the assertion of freedom involves denial of necessity. Voltaire: The idea of free will is absurd; for a free will would be a will without sufficient motive, and it would be outside the course of Nature... It would act by chance, and there is no chance. Rousseau: Every free action is produced by two causes. One is a moral cause, namely the will which determines the act; the other is the physical namely the physical power which determines the act. Both causes are required. A paralytic may will to run, but, lacking the physical power to do so, he stays where he is. Kant: ..the idea of freedom involves.. our regarding ourselves as belonging, not only to the physical world of sense, the world ruled by causality, but also to the intelligible or noumenal world. How can a man be called completely free at the same moment and in regard to the same action in which he is subject to an inevitable natural necessity? In so far as a man's existence is subject to time-conditions, his actions form part of the mechanical system of Nature and are determined by antecedent causes. But the very same subject, being being on the other hand conscious of himself as a thing-in-itself, considers his existence also in so far as it is not subject to time-conditions, and he regards himself as determinable only through laws which he gives himself through reason. And to be determinable through self-imposed laws is to be free. Of the above, Hume and Voltaire seem closest to your position -- likewise, their anti-libertarian arguments are weakened in light of 20th century physics. The others hold free will as reasonable in spite of their belief in the same strict determinism that upholds your Behaviorist position. Modern philosophers are similarly varied, although few since ~1930 are foolish enough to deny free will using deterministic arguments. If there is the time and interest, I might dig up some more for you. >They have "only" had one very general (yet very specific) definition: the >ability of human beings (or possibly some other sentient organisms) to make >decisions "freely", independently, without the constraints of either the >impositions of the external environment upon them. In light of the quotes from Descartes, Leibniz, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Kant (all of whom believed in strict determinism), not to mention many recent philosophers I could supply, and the overwhelming opposition from contributors to this newsgroup, I can only wonder how you can support this blatantly false statement. -michael Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com