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,net.religion
Subject: Re: External Influences
Message-ID: <1804@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 02:12:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1804
Posted: Sun Sep 29 02:12:52 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 01:12:24 EDT
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 75
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2754 net.religion:7827
In-Reply-To: your article <678@mmintl.UUCP>

> I believe the situation is as follows.  There is a common use of the term
> free will, which is not well defined.  There have been a number of attempts
> to define the term through the years, in a way that conforms to the common
> usage.  The most common one philosophically is that free will is acausal
> action (not *completely* acausal, just not *completely* deterministic).  I
> have argued that in light of modern physics, this should be modified to
> "acausal and non-random" (that is, having a (primitive) component which is
> neither deterministic nor random).  There is no evidence that free will,
> in this sense, exists; and I believe the burden of proof lies on the side
> of proving it.  (This does mean that it doesn't exist, just that its non-
> existence is the simpler assumption.) [FRANK ADAMS]

If anything, Ellis' extended diatribe did a lot to convince me that, yes
indeed, the meaning you describe is the meaning ascribed to free will
throughout the ages.  Everyone Ellis quoted/paraphrased took this as a
jumping off point and either agreed with its existence (for whatever
reason), disagreed, or built some whole new system of axioms to "make" it
exist.  Bravo, for noting where the burden of proof lies for this.

> The second most common definition, historically, is some variant on "free
> will is doing what is right", or "free will is doing what God says to do".
> I have heard no arguments for this class of definition here, so I will
> not bother trying to refute it.

It sounds a little like Torek's "making the rational choice/decision" in a
way.  In any case, the religious view on free will centers on the ABILITY
to make a decision between "right" and "wrong", where those two are determined
by some moral code.  The ability they speak of is exactly the same ability
you describe in your earlier paragraph.  Thus, no real conflict at all.
One in the same.

> So, if free will is not either of these things, what is it?

H O L D   I T ! ! ! !   If the definitions of a word do not describe something
that exists, are you at liberty to simply say "let's make it mean something
else"?  Because the word unicorn doesn't represent a real object, can you
just "reassign" the "pointer" for the definition of unicorn to something
else because you feel like it?

> I think I agree
> with my earlier posting, and Paul Torek, and Dave Hudson (if he said it),
> that free will is the action of a conscious mind which is (partly) free from
> current external influence.

My other complaints aside (for the moment), why the arbitrary demarcation of
"current external influence".  So as to "get" free will?  If you are going
to build a system of axioms and definitions such that you get what you want,
of course free will will "exist".  But is that a legitimate thing to do?

>>And how do you now define a conscious mind, as opposed to something else?
   (THIS IS THE QUESTION I ASKED EARLIER.)

> A good question.  I don't really know how to define a conscious mind.  I do
> know of a good many cases where I know a conscious mind is present, and a
> good many others where I am reasonably certain it is not.  Thus I know it
> is a real object.  I suspect more scientific research will be required before
> I could attempt a definition.  Ask me when the first artificial intelligence
> is functional.

>>Does a cat have a conscious mind?

> This is one of the cases where I'm not sure.  When (if) I find out, I will
> be able to tell you whether it has free will.

You omitted the most important part of my article, and in so doing ignored the
conclusion it came to:  that such a definition of free will (in any case)
is hopelessly obscure, vacuous, and circular.  "What's free will?"  "The act
of a conscious mind."  "And how do you define conscious mind?  Does, say,
a fish have one?"  "No, of course not, obviously, it doesn't have free will,
so it can't..."

Not to mention that it doesn't cover the bases of the definition.
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com