From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!aunro!alberta!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Mon Mar  9 18:34:08 EST 1992
Article 4158 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!aunro!alberta!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb29.083155.10877@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 29 Feb 92 08:31:55 GMT
References: <1992Feb27.200814.9895@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb28.013430.15621@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Feb29.002301.8724@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 77

In article <1992Feb29.002301.8724@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>In article <1992Feb28.013430.15621@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>
>>I am not calling anything into question, I deny my freedom of the
>>*will*! It may seem to me that I am free to choose position A over
>>position B, but in the overall scheme of things my choice has
>>been determined by outside influences (over which I have no control!)
>>If the outside influence had been different I *would* have chosen
>>the opposite!
>  So, your responses to me, the language that you use, the thoughts that
>you have, the way you do things, are all determined? 
>>
>>I have a question for you, If indeed you have freedom of will, in
>>what form does it manifest itself in! Is it like a coin toss,
>>completely random. In that case how does it make you free?
>>No, all decisions are produced by influences that have nothing
>>to do with freedom!
>  By coin tosses I suppose you are making an allusion to the quantum
>randomness argument.  Some people use this argument to claim that 
>freedom-of-the-will exists; however this actually proves quite the 
>opposite.  After all, a thing that is random can not be controled--
>which is the point you are making, and a point that should be understood.
>I actually adhere more to a freedom of the will notion presented by
>Erich Fromm which holds that the freedom of will occurs at the outset

>Fromm, Sorry I could not look him up. I guess I have been exposed to
the wrong school of philosophy. (half seriously) I do believe that
your freedom of the will does not preclude determinism. It is simply
different from freedom-determinism, and I do not deny that an
individual has to make choices (be that individual a man/animal/machine
it simply must make those choices on the available data. So, yes
you must make choices - you have no other choice!
For once I find myself in agreement with you, if only you would
not use words such as freedom of will (since these words are loaded
for me to mean opposite of determinism-of-will) The fact that the
individual has chosen on the basis of evidence, does not in any way
imply that the outcome of his choice is not determined.
(Suffice it to say, I do understand this position you are getting at.
I have studied existentialism-et-al, but it is completely different
(as in 'no relation to') the current discussion freedom/determinism.
Perhaps we should say that your type of freedom-of-will is a WEAK
freedom, while I am talking of a STRONG freedom!

>kiss, etc.  The problem of freedom-of-the-will has been that it has usually
>been approach from an ends-analysis not from a beginnings-analysis.  If
>this is done, a beginnings-analysis, you will see how much more sense a
>freedom-of-the-will argument makes--further, you will see its implications
>on understanding.  I refer to you a rather obscure book, which should
>be available in most any university library hopefully, entitled 
>_The Heart of Man_ by Erich Fromm.  It is the final chapter of the book;
>it isn't necessary to read the whole thing as the final chapter is self-
>sufficient.  The rest of the book is a good read though--it might be
>good for you.
>
I will make an effort to find the book.
>>Freedom of will --> Pooh Pooh!
>Well, if there be no freedom of the will--this statement is empty.
>
>In fact, I would say that sans freedom of the will there isn't anything
>such as meaning becuase, in fact, everything will proceed in the 
>way that it does without alteration.  I guess you must really believe
>in fate.
> 
No, I do not believe in Fate (capital F) as that word is loaded with
the meaning of something controlling us! Instead, I believe in 
determinism (small d) with nothing controlling us!
What causes you to say that meaning is somehow interwined with
freedom/determinism? (I have heard this before from others, but am
really puzzled by this statement.)
>
>BCnya,
>  Charles O. Onstott, III
-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


