flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/16/85)
In article <1127@vax135.UUCP> cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: >I agree with Rich and Paul that people do make choices; furthermore, >that these choices are ultimately the result of chemicals and neurons; >furthermore, that these chemicals and neurons became the way they >are through the action of external influences. Looking at how much Rich & I agree about, isn't it amazing that we're still arguing? Actually the only remaining disagreement in this field is purely verbal: it concerns the definition of "free". We even agree that the non-existence of what *he* calls "free will" is nothing to worry about. But I think that fact shows that something is wrong with his definition, for surely most people want to be "free". >[...] Paul says the concept "free will" means >that a person makes choices, based on those influences she has >"accepted" (or perhaps "internalized" is a better description), and is >able to "reject" other influences. Subject to a subtle interpretation >of the words I quoted in the preceding sentence, I agree with Paul that >this proposition is quite reasonable[...] Actually, the important point is that influences are accepted or rejected on a rational basis, after an evaluation of their consequences. Based on any given set of past experiences and knowledge, there are certain things it make sense to do and certain influences it makes sense to accept; and if one's actual actions proceed on that basis, they're free. We are not made unfree by the fact that there are some influences on us which we haven't rejected (if that did make for unfreedom, freedom would be impossible because we cannot reject ALL influences collectively (though we can reject any one of them)). We are made unfree only when there are influences on us that we *should* reject but *don't*. --Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink