flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/18/85)
Rich Rosen asks: >Can you show definitions of free based on rational evaluation, or show >examples of such usage other than your own? Here's an interview with evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers in *Omni* magazine, July 1985, p. 80: Omni: Is free will in human beings an acceptable notion to a sociobiologist? Trivers: What do you mean by free will? There's no question that human beings have been selected to review our behavior and alter it in ways that seem desirable. There's no question that we sometimes set ourselves against ourselves, so to speak, and try to mold ourselves differently from the ways we are naturally inclined. Apparently, individuals who have reviewed their own behavior and sometimes acted in opposition to it have outreproduced those who haven't bothered. So evidently, natural selection has found useful a degree of self-consciousness and ability to redirect our efforts. If that's what you mean by free will, fine with me. On the other hand, nat all self-review is necessarily being directed by the individual. You have to bear in mind that we all have the potential to be parasitized by others, so to speak, [...] Trivers goes on to explain how parents and others can influence an individual's behavior, but nowhere does he mention an alternative conception of free will (re: "if that's what you mean by free will, fine with me") involving non-causality, "external agent", or such. In fairness to Rich's position though, I should note that I recently found a dictionary definition that gives at least some support to his view; it referred to "choice not constrained by divinely imposed or physical necessity ... or partly exempt from causal law" (not an exact quote). --Paul V Torek "Waaahhh! Mommy! Paul took my bubble gum and stuck it in his hair!"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/21/85)
> Rich Rosen asks: > >Can you show definitions of free based on rational evaluation, or show > >examples of such usage other than your own? > > Here's an interview with evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers in > *Omni* magazine, July 1985, p. 80: > > Omni: Is free will in human beings an acceptable notion to a > sociobiologist? > Trivers: What do you mean by free will? There's no question that > human beings have been selected to review our behavior > and alter it in ways that seem desirable. HAVE BEEN SELECTED? Mighty presumptuous there. I'm not sure what is meant here. > There's no > question that we sometimes set ourselves against ourselves, > so to speak, and try to mold ourselves differently from the > ways we are naturally inclined. Apparently, individuals > who have reviewed their own behavior and sometimes acted > in opposition to it have outreproduced those who haven't > bothered. So evidently, natural selection has found > useful a degree of self-consciousness and ability to > redirect our efforts. If that's what you mean by free > will, fine with me. I still contend that those who can and do engage in this behavior (that of going "contradictory" to "natural inclinations"), do so as a result of their experiences and inner chemical workings combining fortuitously to give them the opportunity to do so, not by a mechanism of "free will". Remember, I've ALWAYS been in absolute agreement with you that this thing you describe above is a GOOD thing, but that it is not a faculty possessed by everyone universally (owing to circumstances) and it is NOT free will. > Trivers goes on to explain how parents and others can influence an > individual's behavior, but nowhere does he mention an alternative > conception of free will (re: "if that's what you mean by free will, > fine with me") involving non-causality, "external agent", or such. "Authorities" often make the same sorts of erroneous statements as you and me. It seems, though, that if he had spoken to YOU, and you had told him about your notions, he might have said the same thing. ("if that's what you mean..."). None of this magically makes free will appear. It sounds to me from the tone of what he is saying that if someone were to call that free will, he would agree that it existed. Nowhere does he seem to make a value judgment about its "free will"-ness. > In fairness to Rich's position though, I should note that I recently found > a dictionary definition that gives at least some support to his view; > it referred to "choice not constrained by divinely imposed or physical > necessity ... or partly exempt from causal law" (not an exact quote). Sounds VERY close to the definition Charles Poirier quoted the other day, and almost as close to the one I've been quoting. -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr