flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (05/30/85)
Even no. of >'s = me, Odd no. = Rich Rosen. > Agreed, free choice is exactly what people are concerned about in the notion > of free will. Now, demonstrate to all that what you describe as free choice > (again, I assume you continue using "rational evaluative analysis") is an > example of actual freedom. Can you? I doubt it. Note the dependencies of > the actions leading to r-e-a. You can only make such r-e-a if your > experience up to that point has not been fraught with inhibitive > preconceptions that impede the incorporation of useful knowledge into your > "stored constructs". So? > Could you have chosen not to have had a traumatic experience as a child that > tainted the way you look at the world and incorporate knowledge about it? But, in point of fact, I didn't have such an experience. > Could you have had the choice to have ignored that experience and not > fomented the preconceptions that would lay dormant in your brain throughout > your life? With this in mind, one cannot have free choice in any sense of > the word, no matter what words you choose to use. Wrong. You assume (at least, what you say makes sense only on the assumption that) being free now requires as a prerequisite that one was free to choose the influences on one's character in the past. Not so! One might just as well assume, that having language ability now requires that one was able to use language in the past. In either case, one can trace the origins of the ability back to a point where the ability didn't exist, but so what? It only shows that free choice, like language ability, is something we acquire during our childhood in the learning process. Big news! > Mind you, the degree to which one can circumvent preconceptions/ > ihnibitions is in fact the degree of one's freedom. No, the degree to which one can circumvent them OR TO WHICH ONE LACKS THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. ------------------------------------ >> And to say that one ought to avoid >> error is to say that one *can* avoid error: "ought" implies "can". > "Can" through addition of new knowledge into one's mind. Yes. And if she can do so, she is FREE to do so -- it's a tautology. >> Now suppose Laura believes she is free. Could it be that she ought to have >> believed the opposite? No: her belief is either true or false. If >> false, then she *couldn't* have come to the true conclusion (that she >> was not free). If true, then she believed what she ought. So her belief >> that she is free cannot be criticized (even if false). > If the belief is false (that free will does not exist), she could very well > have come to the conclusion that free will DOES exist because of the way she > individually interprets her information based on her experiences, her pre- > conceptions, etc. True, in which case her belief would be false but she could not rationally be criticized for it, since she would not be responsible for it, and my point is borne out again--believing one has free will is a can't-lose proposition. --The blooming iconoclast, Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec2!pvt1047
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/03/85)
Even no. of >'s = me, Odd no. = Paul Torek >>Agreed, free choice is exactly what people are concerned about in the notion >>of free will. Now, demonstrate to all that what you describe as free choice >>(again, I assume you continue using "rational evaluative analysis") is an >>example of actual freedom. Can you? I doubt it. Note the dependencies of >>the actions leading to r-e-a. You can only make such r-e-a if your >>experience up to that point has not been fraught with inhibitive >>preconceptions that impede the incorporation of useful knowledge into your >>"stored constructs". > So? So, that means that any r-e-a leading to a decision (e.g., to take action) is dependent on the prior experiences and xposures, and hence is not free. >>Could you have chosen not to have had a traumatic experience as a child that >>tainted the way you look at the world and incorporate knowledge about it? > But, in point of fact, I didn't have such an experience. They say birth is a traumatic experience. Can I take this to mean that, confirming my suspicions, you were not born (but rather hatched)? :-) The word traumatic was used to provide the most extreme and direct example of such an influence. The situation I describe applies to most all significant experiences in one's life. Will you now say that your life has been without "significant" experiences as well? >>Could you have had the choice to have ignored that experience and not >>fomented the preconceptions that would lay dormant in your brain throughout >>your life? With this in mind, one cannot have free choice in any sense of >>the word, no matter what words you choose to use. > Wrong. You assume (at least, what you say makes sense only on the assumption > that) being free now requires as a prerequisite that one was free to choose > the influences on one's character in the past. Not so! One might just as > well assume, that having language ability now requires that one was able to > use language in the past. Paul, to use analogy to prove a point, the two things being related must be SIMILAR. Got it? I don't "assume" that being free noe requires that one was free to choose one's earlier experiences. I state that the basis for the making of the choices that you make today is FUNDAMENTALLY DEPENDENT upon the past experiences, and thus (it follows logically, and you assume logic to be true, right? :-) the current choices cannot be considered free because they are DEPENDENT on other things. > It only shows that free choice, like language ability, is something we > acquire during our childhood in the learning process. Big news! You "learn" free choice as a child? Some points here. First, does everyone learn the same things as children? With this in mind, I could say that some people might learn free choice and others not. Second, remember what free choice is all about: one's choices not being dependent on other things. But I have shown that they are! Remember, I agree with you about rational evaluative analysis, and I agree that THAT *CAN* *BE* learned. What I object to is your calling THAT "free choice" when it is not free, except in that you LIKE to use the word "free" to describe for solely aesthetic reasons. >>Mind you, the degree to which one can circumvent preconceptions/ >>ihnibitions is in fact the degree of one's freedom. > No, the degree to which one can circumvent them OR TO WHICH ONE LACKS THEM > IN THE FIRST PLACE. The only way to "lack (?) them in the first place" is to die at birth, because from the minute you take your first breath, the experiences, and thus the preconceptions, the inhibitions, the patternings, and the modes of thinking, accumulate. >>> And to say that one ought to avoid >>>error is to say that one *can* avoid error: "ought" implies "can". >>"Can" through addition of new knowledge into one's mind. > Yes. And if she can do so, she is FREE to do so -- it's a tautology. To quote a famous philosopher, "AAAIIIEEE!!!" WHAT???? Ability to do something implies freedom to do it? Now that's assuming your conclusion in advance for you!!! Are inanimate objects free to do the things they CAN do? C O M E O N !!!! >>>Now suppose Laura believes she is free. Could it be that she ought to have >>>believed the opposite? No: her belief is either true or false. If >>>false, then she *couldn't* have come to the true conclusion (that she >> was not free). If true, then she believed what she ought. So her belief >>>that she is free cannot be criticized (even if false). >>If the belief is false (that free will does not exist), she could very well >>have come to the conclusion that free will DOES exist because of the way she >>individually interprets her information based on her experiences, her pre- >>conceptions, etc. > True, in which case her belief would be false but she could not rationally be > criticized for it, since she would not be responsible for it, and my point > is borne out again--believing one has free will is a can't-lose proposition. I can "rationally criticize" her for it because there are inherent flaws in the belief. I'm not pinning "blame" on her for believing it, I'm simply showing the fallacies therein. "Can't-lose propositions" aren't necessarily true (e.g., Pascal's reason for believingh in god), and someone else long ago pointed out to you that rational reasons for holding beliefs revolve around their truthfulness and not their utility. A point you passed by. -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr