From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Mon Mar  9 18:33:57 EST 1992
Article 4147 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
References: <1992Feb27.180818.37011@spss.com> <1992Feb27.200814.9895@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb28.013430.15621@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Message-ID: <1992Feb29.002301.8724@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 00:23:01 GMT
Lines: 91

In article <1992Feb28.013430.15621@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>In article <1992Feb27.200814.9895@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>
>>  Further, this leads me to an interesting question:  "What role does
>>freedom of the will have in understanding, if any?"  I think, at this
>>time, that freedom of the will is a vital concept in understanding becuae
>>it would deny determined algorithms any understanding at all.  However,
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Just because you wish it were so does not make it so!
  You have misunderstood the statement.  Perhaps clearer wording on my
part would help:  If freedom-of-the-will exists and is a necessary 
component to understanding, then it is vital because it would deny
understanding to a determined algorithm.  I am not trying to make a 
stance one way or the other.
>>I have not worked anything up on this at all--I wonder what everyone
>>else thinks.  The other thing is, that if one admits that understanding
>>doesn't require freedom of the will, then they are in fact, calling
>>to question their own freedom of the will; which, in turn, calls into
>>question morality, free economic and political systems, etc.  
>>
>
>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
of a relationship, not in the final decision made.  That is to say,
when a person decides to have sex with another person it wasn't 
exactly at that moment that the will was most freely excercised.  The
point at which it was most freely exercised was at the acceptance of the
date, the acceptance of "comming up for coffee," at the acceptance of a 
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.

>Morality has no basis where it not for deterministic action, what
>would it mean to tell someone about morality if the very next 
>action they produce is completely free of your influence?
>What meaning has punishment if the person is free (as a random
>element) you should not be trying to correct the persons 
>behaviour since you cannot have any effect on his future behaviour
>(it is then merely vengence!)
  This is an assumption about the above, of which, I do not agree therefore
this argument makes no sense in my understanding of freedom-of-the-will.
See above.
>
>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.
 

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu


"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


