flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/09/85)
Even no. of >'s = Paul Torek, odd no. = Rich Rosen >>>My point was and still is: the notion of free will as you describe it, >>>being free to engage in actions independent of any external or internal >>>interference, IMPLIES DIRECTLY some agent that is external to physical >>>cause and effect![...] >> But the IMPLICATION doesn't hold, DIRECTLY or otherwise. >It never ceases to amaze me that you, believing that logic proves its own >veracity, consistently answer positing of logical arguments with assertions >of "That's not true". If freedom involves a lack of dependence on other >variables, especially in the area of choice, then the only way for choice not >to be dependent on other variables is to be external to the "variable pool". The crucial word is "other" in "dependence on other variables". Only if "other" means "other than the variables that lead to rational choices" can you say that "freedom involves a lack of dependence on other variables". If you mean "other than the person's 'SOUL', if any", then you're wrong. Freedom does not require lack of dependence on the environment -- a free choice must TAKE INTO ACCOUNT one's circumstances. Thus, quite the opposite of what you seem to imply, freedom requires that one's choices DO DEPEND on one's environment. Yet environment is one of those "other" variables you spoke of. >>>I never claimed that the implications were imbedded in the definition! I >>>said that they were CONSEQUENCES of that definition. >> Oh really? I think your tune has changed. Time to peruse my archives of >> past articles... >And I think you'll find from the start that I said that they WERE >consequences of the definition. Yes, that's what I found. However, you did say "the definition of free will (that humans can make decisions independent of their current physical state and surrounding environment) directly implies [...]." So, my "OED vs. Rosen" article was not beside the point, since the dictionary definitions I quoted did not contain what you claimed (between the paren- theses) that they would. >>>(How can you be free to choose anything if the elements of choice and >>>decision are part of your physical make-up which is involved in the cause >>>and effect chain? {easy -- pt} >Oh, please. Another bold empty assertion in answer to an argument? A rhetorical question gets a rhetorical answer. Your QUESTION is hardly an ARGUMENT. WHY CAN'T such a choice be free?! >[...] If [Rich's argument] was so easy to refute the last time, do it again. If this is the same argument you rehashed in your article <1041@pyuxd.UUCP>, see my reply to that. If not, please explain the difference. >> [Rich's] inference to "chemicals have no power to decide which course..." >> from "their behavior is fully determined...", is a non-sequitur. >Then what is their basis for making these "decisions"? A rational evaluation. (Remember, we are talking about the chemicals that make up an intelligent human brain/mind.) (And, of course, the rational evaluation will be describable at the micro level in physical terms.) --Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-In-Chief