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: <1752@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 17:12:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1752
Posted: Sat Sep 21 17:12:36 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 06:44:51 EDT
References: <3518@decwrl.UUCP> <1451@pyuxd.UUCP> <661@psivax.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 40

>>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). [Rich]

>     I wouldn't call it free will either; however, those who stress
>     rationality as the highest possible virtue would be entirely
>     justified in selecting r-e-a as their definition of free will. [ELLIS]

I don't understand, you mean based on our other beliefs, we get to "select"
the definitions we like for given words or terms?  Hmmm.  Thank you for
clarifying (at last) your position on language and definition.

>>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...

>     I challenge you to prove this highly dubious assertion!!

Highly dubious?  If you don't believe in a non-physical soul as the cause of
the willing of your actions, then clearly our actions are determined by the
make-up of our brains, which are determined by what we have gone through
throughout our lives.  I wasn't aware that obvious tautologies were
"assertions" that are "dubious" and must be "proved".

>     At most, the empirical evidence shows that past experiences only
>     partially restrict my behavior -- and QM downright contradicts
>     strict behaviorism.
    
It does?

>     Furthermore, I am frequently quite successful at NOT monitoring my
>     behavior -- except when I really need to.

Your articles here are evidence of that.  :-(
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com