merrill@raja.DEC (Rick - Font Mgr. for Hardcopy Engineering) (07/26/85)
This "freewill" discussion is fine for pre-teens but adults are supposed to understand that "freedom" doesn't mean *disconnected* but means freedom from someone elses will: i.e. FREE WILL IS the ability to not do what you do not WANT to do. >> 1. No one chooses all the influences on her development. It is obious that your current wishes (will) are a function of your past. >> 2. [implicit] Unless one has a choice in all the influences on >> one's development, one's later actions are not free choices. NOT true (although a clever argument): people DO change habits; a deaf person CAN play music;... >> 3. Therefore, no one has "free will". BUT YOUR concept of free will is useless. It does not explain HOW people search for NEW ways of life. >... free means "independent of external influences, unfettered, etc.", ... The dictionary definition is implicitly refering to NOW, the PRESENT. I agree with Kenn Barry. ( I dont' HAVE to, I want to because I like his writing!) >we have argued that Free Will is a term usefully applied at a macro level >as *relatively* descriptive of decision processes. The nearly tautological >statement that these decision processes have mechanical origin is not one Sounds like highfaluting bombast to me! >>Why stop at the comma? If it's DEPENDENT, it's not FREE, no matter how much Puerile argument to assert that "dependent" is the antonym of "free": "dependent" can mean a function of or an influence, NOT the same as "determinant". RMM
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/28/85)
> This "freewill" discussion is fine for pre-teens but adults are supposed > to understand that "freedom" doesn't mean *disconnected* but means > freedom from someone elses will: > i.e. FREE WILL IS the ability to not do what you do not WANT to do. > [RICK MERRILL] Oh, I'm sorry, it's this simple, us preteens have been shown the light by this "adult", so let's all go home now. That goes counter to everything I've ever heard on the subject, but obviously you're an "adult" and I'm a "preteen" and you MUST be right whenever you assert something. >> 1. No one chooses all the influences on her development. > It is obious that your current wishes (will) are a function of your past. Good. I'm glas you agree. >> 2. [implicit] Unless one has a choice in all the influences on >> one's development, one's later actions are not free choices. > NOT true (although a clever argument): people DO change habits; a deaf > person CAN play music;... I'm not sure what deaf people making music has to do with free choice. If that person WANTS to play music, he/she might be likely to try. But as you said above, one's current wants are a function of one's past. >> 3. Therefore, no one has "free will". > BUT YOUR concept of free will is useless. It does not explain HOW people > search for NEW ways of life. Oh, gee, you're right, I'm sorry. "My" concept is flawed, therefore we must change all the words around to mean something so that we can "find new ways of life". The concept as it stands is indeed flawed and thus by that definition it does not exist. Perhaps some OTHER things (that might, to avoid confusion with things that DON'T exist, be given OTHER names) do exist. Like those things Paul and I have been discussing. (Decision from stored knowledge constructs, r-e-a, ...) >>... free means "independent of external influences, unfettered, etc.", ... > The dictionary definition is implicitly refering to NOW, the PRESENT. Sez who? To whom is that "implicit"? It sounds like it's only implicit to you so that it would satisfy your definition. >>we have argued that Free Will is a term usefully applied at a macro level >>as *relatively* descriptive of decision processes. The nearly tautological >>statement that these decision processes have mechanical origin is not one > Sounds like highfaluting bombast to me! Probably ANYTHING you don't understand sounds like "highfaluting bombast" to you. What was said above sounds quite clear to me. What's your problem with it? Too derned many big words?? >>>Why stop at the comma? If it's DEPENDENT, it's not FREE, no matter how much > Puerile argument to assert that "dependent" is the antonym of "free": > "dependent" can mean a function of or an influence, NOT the same as > "determinant". Puerile assertion that what I said is not so. Read a dictionary. Analyze what people mean when they say "free". Then return with more puerile assertions. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr