flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/29/85)
In <536@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >Second objection [to Frank Adams's analysis of free will]... If I make a >conscious decision to buy a candy bar, I may be being influenced by the >subliminal advertising. To which I reply, so what? As Rich has so often >reminded us, we are the product of a great many influences; why is a >recent and specific one more significant than older and less specific ones? I think an important lesson of the "subliminal advertising" example is, as I put it before, you are made unfree (to some extent) if there is some influence on you which you *should* reject but don't. Subliminal ads generally fall in this category, I think. >. On a more practical level, one cannot do even >a minimal evaluation of the facts in many situations. Consider: I see >a person trapped in a burning building. There are number of reasons >why I might choose to rescue or not rescue that person. I might get >killed trying. The person may die anyhow. He might be a millionaire >and give me a lot of money. But I don't have time to consider these >possibilities; I must decide immediately what action to take. Does >anyone (who believes in free will) care to argue that whatever decision >I make is not the product of free will? You make some analysis instantly (you'll probably notice, e.g., whether the building is completely engulfed in flames), and you bring some with you, as you point out: >Contrariwise, when one takes action immediately in a situation, it is >generally because some analysis has gone before; one recognizes the >situation as one requiring certain actions. If neither of these applied -- though this is very hypothetical, since it is hard to see how a person could miss these -- I don't think your reaction would count as a free choice. --Paul V Torek