From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Foundations... (Was Re: Reply to Steve Adams (LONG!))
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:21:20 GMT

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <adams.715614187@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>> 
>Look - when you make a choice, do you have to CHOOSE to make a choice,
>or does it sort of "just happen?" 
I can decide to chose or procrastinate.  Decide not to decide, as it were.

>When you think "Here I stand, a free moral agent!" do you have to 
>DECIDE to think those thoughts, or do they sort of just come out of
>nowhere? (perhaps triggered by previous thoughts...)
I'd say triggered by other thoughts.  I never implied that every single
action was based on a concious decision, just that we are free to decide to
do or not to do something.

>The myth of free will comes from the myth of the decision. There is no 
>such thing as a decision, not in the sense that a free will-ist would
>say there is. There is only the process _which is you_ taking it's course.
Gack.  This is too deterministic for me...sorry.  I'll just have to say I
cant' accept this view...

>The "controlling agent" that you feel yourself to be is
>just another manifestation of the ongoing process which is _you_. 
Hmm.  I wonder if I can get the admin to load up a new program...;-)  So
your saying that more or less we're just AI experiments gone horribly
wrong?

>My words have only one purpose: to act as guideposts for you. They exist
>only to point you towards what I see, so you can see it too. And I mean
>_see_ not _know_.  I am not looking for "answers..." I'm looking to
>see "what is."  I don't care two hoots whether I'm free or not - but I want 
>to see what's what. Do you?
Ah.  Now I've got it!  The difference is that I search for answers....you
search for unfilterd information...right?  If so, hmm.  Interesting concept.  

>Come on - when you taste a chocolate ice cream and it tastes good, it has to 
>be agreeable to your values, self-image, and frame of reference?? 
Sure.  It is part of the frame of reference.  That consists of all
knowledge and experiences.  In the past I experienced chocolate.  My senses
report that it was a pleasurable experience...every time after the first
time I remember this...conditioning.  Damn.  Just followed my logic to
another of your conclusions.  This is getting sickening.

>frames of references. Just not do them anymore. This takes a special
>kind of effort...but learning to make this effort is necessary if we
>are to wake up from our long, restless, uncomfortable dream.
Well, something to work on, I suppose.

>>Yes, and I rejected it...;-)  Just as I rejected the Pythagoran Reformed
>>Church. ;-)

>You'll regret that one, bub, when you're standing before the Divine
>Dodecahedron and he asks - "Why should I let you into heaven?"

Same answer I'll give the Christian God : You shouldn't, but please have
mercy on me, a sinner. ;-)

>>>Comrade, even if you decide you WANT to dump your foundation you will
>>>find that that's just the START of the fun...! 
>> 
>> Perhaps this is the crux of the matter...fear of the unknown...

>Fear of the unknown has to be balanced against love of the Unknowable.
>Whichever of these two forces triumphs in you will determine your
>fate.  I don't like to use this kind of language normally, but
>that first line sounded so...so...so....DEEP that I just had to
>say it...! :)
It is an interesting comment...and it does certainly bring the matter down
to a single sentence.  That is what we're talking about here...love of the
unknowable...whether that's God, true reality, etc, etc.

>>Little tougher for me...I couldn't care less what my parents think.  It's
>>closer to home: my wife.  And it's kind of hard to hide your philosphy from
>>someone you live with intimately...know what I mean?  She has expressed her
>>concern about my 'quest'.."You get too deep into things"...no kidding.
>>She'd freak if she read the stuff I was writing with Paul Harvey on
>>Genesis.  Or parts of this conversation.  Gack.

>That would indeed be harder, I think. A tough row to hoe...:(
>Sounds like she might find it a bit frightening. What if he changes? she
>might be thinking. Or maybe she sees you changing already. I hope things
>turn out okay for you both...
This is exactly the thing that is happening.  She is concerned about all of
the changes...and is concerned about how far it will go.  I used to be a
lockstep, knee-jerk reactionary right-winger.  Thank God I discarded that
mess...

>> Them:  Immaginary people.  Discussions with these 'people' he doesn't know 
>>        and has never met.  Get the strait-jacket.  This guy's hallucinating!
>> ;-)
>There is something a bit weird about this whole business, isn't there?
Yep.  Exactly....that was the point..;-)

>>>Free will AND an actual, logical possibility of evil - in the same creation!
>> Nope.  See aboove ;-)
>        
>You know, I think you're ALMOST right about this. 
>You're insisting that if nobody wants to sin, then there is no chance for sin
>to exist. I agree with this. BUT you also insist that this means that free will
>has therefore been violated.  

>HERE is where I disagree. Your argument rests on the assumption that
>if people will always make the same choice, then they do NOT have free will. By
>definition. I am saying - people with free will CAN always make the same
>choice, providing that they remain motivated to keep making the same
>decision. God provides the motivation and the free will - voila, no sin.
>So. I think our disagreement resolves into a debate on the nature of 
>(surprise!) free will!  You insist that a motivated free will is not 
>really free. (although it eludes me how an unmotivated free will could
>choose at all...) 

>Is this a fair assessment of the situation?  Now - you correct MY erroneous
>ways for a change! :)

Ok.  Here is exactly what I am postulating:

God can create beings with free will.  There are two possibilities:

    a. Creation of beings that will always chose not to sin
    b. Creation of beings that chose sin or not sinning, in various degrees.

In proposition a, there is NO chance that sin will occur.  God has ordered
creation so as to prevent it.  Thus, there is NO possibility that any
created being will sin.  Hence, there is no true free will, since God set
up the situation where no sin could ever happen.

In proposition b, beings sin or don't, in varying degrees.  There are
beings who chose to sin, and those who don't.  There is the actual
possiblity of sin, since God has not acted to prevent it, IN ADVANCE.

That's all I'm claiming.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558