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!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Science & Philosophy vs Rosenism
Message-ID: <1850@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Oct-85 23:49:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1850
Posted: Mon Oct  7 23:49:08 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Oct-85 06:43:13 EDT
References: <1495@pyuxd.UUCP> <2197@pucc-h> <1510@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 60

>>Because you haven't been listening (apparently).  Free will means the ability
>>to act independently of physical constraints, whether from the surrounding
>>environment, or the insides of one's own body.  Think about what religionists
>>mean when they speak of "free will" to choose between right and wrong.  Clearly
>>they are referring to an ability to make a choice regardless of one's physical
>>make-up:  choosing not to sin despite the physical desire to do so.  Can you
>>act contrary to your physical make-up without an external agent to do so for
>>you INDEPENDENT of your make-up?

> Rich, it is you who are not listening. This is the third time I have tried
> to make this point. If you will read philosophy for a bit you will see
> that this is *exactly* what a lot of philosophers are claiming.  They claim
> that you are NOT CONSTRAINED by either YOUR PHYSICAL MAKEUP or YOUR
> ENVIRONMENT when you make a FREE CONSCIOUS DECISION. Your free conscious
> decisions are not determined. That is the claim.

That is the ASSERTION.  In order for the choices (deliberated considered
choices) to be unconstrained, there must be more than an assertion that they
simply ARE unconstrained (which is what many of Michael's "choice"
philosophers asserted).  But thank you for (at last) confirming what I've
been saying: that free will represents exactly such a level of non-constraint
as I have described.  Philosophers can claim (assert) away just as
religionists have.  Makes for great conversation at parties, I'm sure.  But
does it reflect anything but their assertions?

> Not that they are
> determined by a physical agent external to your physical self (ie a soul)
> but that they are not determined at all. They either are self-determing (which
> makes human beings free agents) or they arise spontaneously (as in how an
> electron decays), but they are not determined.

Again, nice assertion.

> You are prefectly free to disagree with this. You are not free to reinterperet
> what everybody says in light of what you think they must mean.  

On the contrary, this is EXACTLY what I said was meant by free will for
the last n odd months.  When confronted with the rather blatant contradictions
in this, some have decided that in order to "keep" or "get" free will, it's
"OK" to alter the definition to mean something else.

No matter.  This whole discussion has become truly redundant.  There's no
point in arguing with someone who wants to believe particular things.
Any evidence, any logic, any reasoning becomes irrelevant and secondary to
the desire to believe.  Since such eminent scholars as Paul Dubuc (the one
who insists that there cannot be non-religious moral codes despite all
evidence to the contrary) claim that this newsgroup consists of "Rich Rosen
vs. everyone else", it is best that I just vacate the discussion.  Freedom of
expression, by what seems to be the moral code of so many in this newsgroup,
is secondary to the good (i.e., uniformity) of the community.  Who am I to
stop anyone from believing what they want?  Not that anyone has expressed
a desire to curtail my freedom of expression, heavens, no.  But how much
"you're an ass for disagreeing with me" can one person be expected to take?

Enjoy.
-- 
"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