esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (11/02/84)
From: baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) > If my behavior can be accurately predicted, one of two things must be true: > either my behavior is deterministic or the predictor has precognition. Let's consider the case where it's deterministic: then SO WHAT? I thought I just got through with this issue with Rich Rosen. > Predictability has rather more to to do with free will than slavery does. Why on earth would you think so? From: unbent@ecsvax.UUCP (Jay Rosenberg) > Whatever else "determinism" requires, it surely > requires that I *couldn't* behave other than I do. No. It requires only that your actions have causes and that the relation between cause and effect is (contrary to quantum mechanics, at least under the Copenhagen interpretation) non-probabilistic. From: merrill@rex.DEC (Rick) > "Free" will does NOT mean free-of-any-influence chemical, psychological, > political, emotional, even physical; the "free" in "free will" refers to > freedom from ANOTHER person's will ( Mother, God, Freud ... ). I agree with the first clause but reject the second. There is more to it than that. From: jon@qusavx.UUCP (Jon Lewis) > It was Hegel who gave what I believe to be the first step in > the right direction with regard to ascertaining free will. His > philosophy required that no one could act freely unless they were in > possession of the truth. This ... makes an > essential point: you cannot be said to be acting freely if your > actions are being determined or channeled by some other forces, EVEN > IF you are totally unaware of these influences. I think Hegel was getting warm at least. As to your last sentence, I think the crucial word is OTHER in "other forces". As long as the forces determining your decision are truth-respecting (i.e. rational, learning from experience) you're free. In summary: I will not give the incompatibilists (those who hold that determinism (see above definition) is incompatible w/ freedom) an inch. In spite of the fact that current physics disavows deterministic causa- tion, in case current theory is replaced I don't want people to start disbelieving in their own free will. Besides, anyone who thinks that incompatibilism is true is not likely to believe that their freedom lies in quantum uncertainty; at least not if they have any understanding of freedom. --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks. "What is the opportunity cost, in lives saved, of your current action?"