Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site aero.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack
From: warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: Is what Torek calls "free will" really "free"?
Message-ID: <276@aero.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 15:26:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: aero.276
Posted: Wed Jul 17 15:26:50 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 00:19:12 EDT
References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1208@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734))
Organization: The Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 38
Keywords: levels of explanation
Xref: linus net.philosophy:1810 net.religion:6842

[Avast ye scurvy dogs ...]

In article <1208@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>> 	1. No one chooses all the influences on her development.
>> 	2. [implicit] Unless one has a choice in all the influences on
>> 	   one's development, one's later actions are not free choices.
>> 	3. Therefore, no one has "free will".
[Paul Torek denies premise 2]

>Good for you!!  Your denying it doesn't change its veracity one bit.  Since
>free means "independent of external influences, unfettered, etc.", and since
>you now seem to at least agree that such things directly influence later
>choices, THEY ARE QUITE SIMPLY *NOT* *FREE*!!!  It's that simple.  No matter
>how much you choose to use the word "free" to describe them.  Since you
>cannot simply refute premise 2 by asserting its falseness, premise 3 does
>follow quite logically.  You put it very well yourself:  Unless one has a
>choice in ALL the influences of one's development (and life), which one
>obviously cannot, one's later actions are NOT free choices!

Maybe what is need here is a time frame.  The definition of free given above
doesn't deal with this issue and two such definitions will make either
argument correct.  If the definition means independent of external
influences at the present [def 1], then argument 3 doesn't follow because
past influences don't influence the FREE will of a present choice.  If the
definition means independent of external influences at all times, then the
argument follows.  We should next abolish the term 'free will' and replace
it with a phrase which carries the meaning that everyone associates with it
anyways.

I myself feel that either definition may be applicable, depending on the
discussion.  It seems unnecessary though to prove one correct and the other
false.

Chris Warack
warack@aero.UUCP
warack@aerospace.ARPA