From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Sean's delusional nature 
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:42:24 GMT

I had written, contra Sean:
>> Precisely. Steve, and most other people (I would hazard) who believe in the
>> concept of moral agency, require the concept of `free will': at least a
>> `limited free will'.
>> 
>> The fact remains (as it always does for Sean (much as he might protest)
>> and any non-schizophrenic) that we all act as if we have free will, and
>> in the end isn't that all that matters?

In article <1993Jan8.164354.10007@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>I don't want to deny intentionality. But to say that _choice_ is
>a conscious act is just inaccurate.  Decisions _just happen_. 
>Otherwise, you'd have to decide to decide, and decide to make that
>decision, and that one, ad infinitum.  

Nice try, but no cigar. This is akin to Zeno's paradox wherein to get
from Point A to Point B it is first necessary to travel half the distance;
but of course in order to do that it is necessary to go half the distance
of half the distance, necessitating an INFINITE number of steps to get
from Point A to Point B. Since each step takes some amount of time, 
Zeno points out that it takes an `infinite' amount of time to get from
Point A to Point B, so we never do.

We know that this is not true however, and we can `solve' Zeno's paradox
by saying that although there really are an infinite number of steps
between Point A and Point B, as the number of steps approaches infinity,
the time required to traverse each step becomes that much smaller,
resulting in an infinitely small amount of time to cross an infinitely
small amount of distance (do we arrive instantaneously? - no).

Anyway, choice IS sometimes a conscious act (extended voluntary non-
breathing wouldn't be, e.g.). Sometimes decisions SEEM to just happen,
but that's like saying that a man just up and killed his wife because
of the way she picked her nose. My, it `just happened'. Well that's
untrue -- there are all sorts of factors that resulted in that action,
including their years of acrimonious fighting (in this hypothetical
example).

>I say: we are neither free nor determined. We just are. Our thoughts arise,
>we don't know where from. Our intentions emerge, but why, we don't know.

The study of psychology can be remarkably instructive here.

>Also, I don't think everybody acts as if they have free will. To say that
>is to say that everyone is deluded, because belief in free will is a
>delusion. I don't intend that in a pejorative way. 

Yes, but you're saying free will is a delusion is disingenuous, because
you believe everything is delusion; yet you (and most everyone else)
live your life as if your life mattered. So in the end your assertion
is meaningless.

This gets back to Steve Adam's thought about moral agency. Some
people disavow free will in order to disavow responsibility. Some
people (as Paul Harvey points out) are authentic people living 
inauthentic lives: pretending a dis-entreprenurial attitude: this
is perhaps because a familiar hell can be more comforting than
change. Change is Death.

>A little test: compose a truly beautiful poem  within the
>next 10 seconds.  Can't do it? Heck, exercise your free will and do it!
>Still can't? You mean you have to wait until it _comes_ to you? 

Yes, I can do it; have done it, and so can you or anyone else if
they choose to: see Paul Harvey's posts, eg.

>All thoughts, intentions etc. arise in the same way. They just come to
>us or they don't. "I didn't think of it" is a good excuse! Can you help
>it if you didn't think of something? No -- you just didn't. 

I wonder if you are trying to get me to show that determinism factors
in (to some degree) here; obviously, things don't just `happen', there
are causes. And YET, this does not obviate `free will'.

Dano