flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/27/85)
Subject: Re: More Rosenisms on freedom? Message-ID: <1262@pyuxd.UUCP> >> Examples of unfree behavior are: being forcibly >> dragged where you don't want to go, being locked behind bars and thus >> confined, etc. >I find that my body "forces" me to go where I "want" to go, to do what I >"want" to do. I have no choice, I can't stop it!! Help!! :-) The smiley is absolutely right -- the idea of being "forced" to do what you want, is a joke. >> In all these examples the DIRECT cause of the behavior >> is external to the man and his volition, THAT is what makes them unfree. >> Conversely, when the direct causes are internal to "man's volition", the >> behavior is free. >Help!! I can't escape my own "volition"!! I want to want to do other things, >but I just can't. I want to want to like apricots. But I can't. Help! :-) You can go against your urges, and you can change your habits and dispositions. Subject: Re: Levels of Explanation and Definitions of Free Message-ID: <1275@pyuxd.UUCP> >> You're talking about a hypothetical AI project but, yes, it would be. > >Oh. A machine programmed to pick the best possible decision is free? >Come on! What force-fitting! You're the one who always complains about "anthropocentrism", yet when I refuse to rule out the idea that machines may some day be equally free...? >> But the Oxford English Dictionary and World Book Dictionary definitions were >> compatible with my view, as was definition 1 of the American Heritage >> Dictionary quoted by Poirier (sp?). > >Let's hear them. Poirier's quoted definition was clearly NOT at all close >to your asserted view, so I'm not sure what's going on here. World Book: FREEDOM, 1. The state or condition of being free: "In this consists freedom ... in our being able to act or not to act, according as we shall choose or will" (John Locke). FREE WILL will free from outside restraints; voluntary choice; freedom of decision. Comment: The definitions don't mention r-e-a; that's an addition of mine to rule out counterexamples like unconscious suggestion (showing pocorn for a microsecond in a movie theater, etc.) Rich will say that chemical causes of behavior are outside "restraints". But as I've already shown, the definition of "constraint" (sorry, I didn't check "restraint") makes nonsense out of the notion of being "constrained" to do what you WANT. I gave you the Oxford English definitions long ago; if you want, go dig that article up. >> Your definition implies that people with no input from the external world >> are more free (less unfree). This shows that something is wrong with your >> definition, because that's NOT the way people use the word "free". > >Not at all. Those people are not constrained input-wise, but they are most >certainly constrained by the possible actions open to them. So clearly this >is a straw man. But since those people have *fewer* constraints, your definition implies that they are *closer* to being free. Which is nonsense -- a lack of any way of knowing about reality is a guarantee of UNfreedom. >> But he CAN want what he wants. He can be satisfied or dissatisfied with >> the way his motives work. And that's what free will is all about: in >> Trivers's words, "reviewing our behavior and modifying it in ways that >> seem desirable". > >Funny, I still can't seem to want to like apricots. Could you help me? I thought you already did want to like apricots -- which makes sense, since they are worth something as a food, and your choice among enjoyable foods would then be broadened; etc. I agree that it might be impossible to *like* them, but liking is an *affection* not a *volition*. Liking something is not the same as wanting it. >> The absurdity I was referring to was not the absurdity of >> believing that what-you-call-free-will exists -- I grant you, that IS >> absurd -- but the absurdity of your calling *that* free will. > >Sorry, that wasn't my doing. That was the doing of philosophers and thinkers >throughout past centuries. To suddenly say "No, free will means THIS" is >abhorrent to the notion of language as a common means of communication Ah, but they were distorting the previous meaning of "free" to reflect their religious views. Now, either we have the right to change the meaning again; or they didn't have it, in which case I have a right to complain about the assumption of "freedom requires acausality" which they eventually got the public to accept. You can't have it both ways, Rich -- either tinkering with a language is wrong, or it's not. --Paul V Torek