cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (07/15/85)
This is my first contribution to Rich Rosen's and Paul Torek's epic discussion of "Do people have free will?". My hope is that it will lead to a swift and inconclusive conclusion. 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. None of this contradicts most people's subjective perception that they have something we call a "will". Whatever causes and mechanisms brought a person to her current state, that state is *the person*'s state. The choices made by that person are *the person*'s choices. Note, I have not said that they are *free* choices, I am just trying to work toward definitions of "person" and "will" in the proposition "Does a person have free will?". At this point, my definitions are very sketchy but I make a start at it here, frankly, to forestall anyone accidentally defining "person" or "will" out of existence. I claim that in order to continue meaningful discussion of the proposition, we have to refine what we mean by "free will". My perception is that Rich and Paul are using substantially different meanings. Let me, at considerable risk, say what I think they are thinking. Rich says the concept "free will" means that a person makes choices without having received any instruction, guidance, help, opposition, or other influence from outside. I agree with Rich that this proposition is absurd. 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. (I apologize in advance if I have misstated anyone's position, including my own.) I think I will pause here to allow Paul and Rich a chance to respond, and also to collect my thoughts on how people internalize influences: how one distinguishes what one calls "oneself" from something *external*. To just seed this discussion: I think it is a fundamentally subjective distinction. *Objectively*, a person is nothing *but* a collection and digestion of external influences. Charles Poirier (decvax, ucbvax, ihnp4)!vax135!cjp Disclaimer: The above opinions aren't really my own, I was externally influenced. (c;