HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Summary: Smithsonian Institute study discovers free will in dogs.
Keywords: free will cause study
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:42:16 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle


     In article <18kupoINNrh3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai245@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Chris Thomas) writes:

=
=In a previous article, ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis)
=says:
=
=>I claim that people really do not believe in freewill.  When considering
=>someones action, after asking what happened, the next question is,  "Why
=>did he/she do that?"  This question in itself precludes the concept of
=>freewill in the questioners mind for an answer is expected.  Furthermore, 
=>I have never heard anyone in commenting on someones actions say he/she 
=>did it because of his/her freewill,have you? 
=>
=>
=
=Quite an astute observation!  :)
=
=To quote Earl Babbie's book "Social Research for Consumers" (a book used
=to teach empirical methodology to undergrads):
= 	Similiarly, social scientists find environmental
=	explanations for why women did or didn't have babies, why
=	workers were employed or unemployed, why voters went for
=	Reagan or Carter.  Women have babies, for example, because of
=	cultural norms, peer pressure, and so forth.  You will never
=	find a social scientist concluding that "17 percent of the
=	women had babies because they wanted to".

     I think we all agree that there are times when it can be said that
our choices are caused by our environment, or our nature.  But it certain-
ly can be said that free will exists if there is even one single act that
cannot be said to have a cause.

     Whether such an act exists is a very interesting question, but with
all deference to the views set out above, I must point out that a study by
the Smithsonian Institute into the question of "why dogs bark" finally
came to the conclusion that they bark "for the hell of it."

                                     ---Kevin Simonson
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: schaerer@isibee (Thomas Schaerer)
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:49:21 GMT

Rob Sperry (Temp) (sperry@sdd.hp.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Sep4.121542.659@bernina.ethz.ch>, stettbac@isibee5 (Juerg Stettbacher) writes:
: |> 
: |> Hello world
: |> 
: |> Does anyone now about any event, thing or what ever, that happens,
: |> exists, or simply is, with no cause. 
: |> In other words: Do you know an exemple of an effect without cause?
: |> 
: 
:    In some sense we do not know the cause of any event.  From the world from 
: the quantum level up we have no idea what causes any event.  We know what
: will happen when an electron hits a photon.  We can calculate the probility
: amplitude of the event occuring under diferent circumstances.  But we have
: know understanding of how the electron decides which path it wants to take.

	For a little moment away from main-subject:

		You wrote:  We know what will happen when an electron hits
			    a photon.

		My question:	Is this possible? The only I know is,
				an electron causes a photon by jump of
				this electron from a higher-energy- of a
				lower-energy-level.

		Your answer:	I am interested in such things!
				
				Thomas Schaerer (schaerer@isi.ethz.ch)

Sallue Juerg, Wirklich interessant das Thema welches Du startest !
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Summary:  Existence of free will not as relevant as whether we should believe.
Keywords: free will existence meaning
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 14:42:37 GMT

     In article <cjenning.1hug@terapin.com> cjenning@terapin.com (Craig
Jennings) writes:

=In article <0096075D.6F4145A0@Msu.oscs.montana.edu>,
=uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu (Me) writes:
=>
=>      I find it an untennable position to deny the existance of
=> Free Will. To say that you have no free will implies that only
=> outside events affect your actions. In this case, "you" do not
=> have any impact on anything. If a thing has no influence what-
=> soever, it may as well not exist, as you can never say anything
=> about it.  You effectively commit suicide.
...
=The rest of the premise looks shaky: "if a thing has no influence whatsoever,
=it may as well not exist." But the picture this suggests doesn't look right
=for Determinism. In my interpretation of not having any free will, we become a
=tool for the controlling forces of, asy, genetics and responses to our
=environment. So it is not necessary to *I* be here to type in this post, I am
=doing it only because of causal forces stretching backwards beyond my control.
=BUT what IS necessary is someone wiht relevant genetics in the right
=environment. I have become a cog in the machine, even a replaceable one. So in
=this sense, I may as well have not existed, but this does not mean that I have
=effectively committed suicide.

     I think that if the question is, "Does free will exist?" then the
original poster does not give a convincing answer.  I don't find denying
free will as untennable as she/he does.  However, when I first read that
paragraph I believe I had a little bit of insight that might be worth add-
ing.

     Let's forget about the question of whether free will exists, for a
minute.  Instead, let's deal with the question of whether we _should be-
lieve_ that free will exists.  For some people, the two are the same ques-
tion.  If your quest is for the absolute truth about whether free will
exists, then you can ignore this post.

     I think the question comes down to, "Why not believe in free will?"
What harm can it do?  If free will exists, then believing in it certainly
won't hurt.  If free will doesn't exist, and yet we've decided to put
faith in it, then it must have been the case that our decision was the re-
sult of the "relevant genetics," etc.; that is, we never really made a de-
cision to believe in free will.  The decision to believe in it was some-
thing that had to be, so once again no harm was done, since the "decision"
could not have been different.  We had no real "control" over the matter.

     So I say, let's believe in free will, whether it exists or not.  We
can't lose.

                                     ---Kevin Simonson
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Assasination  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:05:50 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> In article <MZ.panix.com>   
  
Mikhail dramatizes:  
>   
> Say I'm standing in front of an attacker who has just poured a gallon of  
> gasoline on me, and is about to light it with a torch.  It seems to me that 
> it would be morally justified of me to shoot him, even though in falling  
                                         ^^^^^^^^^  
now, who's allowing you to have a gun Man :->)?  
  
> down he is certain to set off the fire.  Hence the distinction between  
> morality and prudence.  Ex hypothesi, whereby we assimilated assasination  
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^  
> to self-defence, the same goes for our topic.  
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^  
plus soical-suicide:-> BTW why bother to take a chance shooting him Man ?:->  
better go to embrace your attacker :-> and say "PUFF!"  
  
"one can philosophize just being :-> .."  
M Ztitgenstein, Frucktatus-Dramatico-Tackticus 0^0.  
  
> cordially,  
> mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu  
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: psgoh@pieman.compserv.utas.edu.au (Pauline S.C. Goh)
Subject: Re: **VIABILITY OF MORAL EDUCATION**
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 23:09:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.094630.227@news.wesleyan.edu>, RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:
>
>oh, i wasn't going to post anything to this group any more, but i'll bite...
>
>In <1992Sep2.232537.25518@cam.compserv.utas.edu.au> psgoh@pieman.compserv.utas.edu.au writes:
>
>> Sometimes I wonder what we mean by moral education in our society that is
>> so changing and uncertain. In most democratice countries, adults are
>> allowed to voice their opinion and to take part in making government
>> policies and decisions that will affect their lives. Democratic society
>> allows its citizens a certain degree of freedom to control and make 
>> choices that they are conscious of, to decide what is right and wrong.
>> To make such moral decisions, they should have the ability to think 
>> rationally, intelligently etc...
>> 
>> SO - my question is HOW DO WE then proceed to educate our future
>> children in aspects of rationality..???? Hmm..??
>
>ok, a couple of questions for you:
>
>1) in a democratic society,(a) do things BECOME right or wrong by virtue of the
>majority of folks voting to make them so, or (b) will the vote of the majority
>just happen to correspond with what actually IS right or wrong, perhaps because
>of some embedded wisdom in the populace, or (c) can the majority make an error
>about what it (mistakenly) BELIEVES is right or wrong?

Although it is very difficult for anyone to make a distinction between what
is considered right or wrong. But don't you think that it is morally correct 
to say that, it is our choice to choose whatever convention that society
tells us in spite of the temptation to avoid them? We may on the other hand
decide not to follow or not to conform but choose to do better (or sadly
worse) than what the society tells us.

How do we help our children/adolescent make this choice, how do we even 
begin to help equip them to acquire such skills. Don't we have that 
responsibility? 
Education has (more or less) demanded opinion that are a matter of facts,
or opinion that are already widely accepted. The emphasis are on technical
competencies. How much has schools provided opportunities for them to 
make up their own mind?

Most of us more often than not make cold reasoning for ourselves based on
our feelings and our insights.

It is little wonder that everyone suffers from confusion when it comes to
what is right and what is wrong. We advocate slogons such as 'be responsible',
'have critical thinking', 'mental and spiritual health', etc, etc...
And where do we even begin?

>3) do you think that rational, intelligent thinking, alone, will provide for
>the most moral world, 

It may be better not to have any at all??

P.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: ai245@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Thomas)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Date: 6 Sep 1992 14:41:22 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ai245@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Thomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bf479@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Russell Jackson II) says:

>
>I am new here so don't flame me if I'm saying something that has already 
been noted.
>
>There appears to be the question of the meaning of "freewill."
> 
>Freewill is a will that is free. Free from what? Obstruction? No, freewill is 
a will that is free from cause.
> 
>What does it mean to be free from cause. It means spontaneaous generation. It 
means something from nothing. Who could ever offer the slightest proof of 
such nonsense?
> 
>Russell Jackson II
>bf479@cleveland.freenet.edu
>

I agree with this above in its entirety!

Chris
From: sperry@sdd.hp.com (Rob Sperry (Temp))
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Date: 9 Sep 1992 03:26:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdlg17.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep4.121542.659@bernina.ethz.ch>, stettbac@isibee5 (Juerg Stettbacher) writes:
|> 
|> Hello world
|> 
|> Does anyone now about any event, thing or what ever, that happens,
|> exists, or simply is, with no cause. 
|> In other words: Do you know an exemple of an effect without cause?
|> 

   In some sense we do not know the cause of any event.  From the world from 
the quantum level up we have no idea what causes any event.  We know what
will happen when an electron hits a photon.  We can calculate the probility
amplitude of the event occuring under diferent circumstances.  But we have
know understanding of how the electron decides which path it wants to take.

   As for things, take the quantum fluxuations.  We know they occur, but we
don't understand what causes one to happen at a paticular time and a paticular
place.

note- I am a junior physics major, the majority of my knowledge on the subject
    comes from the reading of "popular" books on the subject such as Hawkings 
    A Briefe History of Time and Feynams QED: The Strange theory of light and 
    matter.  Thus, My statments are made and should be taken with some 
    reservation, for I am not am expert in the field.

Rob Sperry
-/\-
-\/-


|> 
|> Thanks for any ideas.
|> juerg at ethz switzerland
From: jtchern@ocf.berkeley.edu (Joseph Hernandez)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:01:37 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility

In article <1992Sep4.121542.659@bernina.ethz.ch> stettbac@isibee5 (Juerg Stettbacher) writes:
>
>Hello world
>
>Does anyone now about any event, thing or what ever, that happens,
>exists, or simply is, with no cause. 
>In other words: Do you know an exemple of an effect without cause?
>
>
>Thanks for any ideas.
>juerg at ethz switzerland


If the English philosopher David Hume is correct, then the concept of ccause and effect is actually rather empty. We call something a cause of something else only because we are accustomed to that particular set of circumstances immediately preceding another set of different circumstances, which we call an effect. That is, there is no logically necessary reason why when one billiasrd ball strikes another that the other billiard ball must fly off according to the so-called laws of physics. As Hume says, the



re is no reason why it can't turn into a bouquet of flowers when it is struck. 
Thus, in response to your question, no effect is really preceded by a cause.It's all a matter of being accustomed to the second billiard ball moving away when struck by the first. There is no reason why it couldn't be otherwise.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Joseph TeleCommunications Enterprises World Headquarters
*****  *****  *****  jtchern@ocf.Berkeley.EDU          jtcent@soda.Berkeley.EDU
    *    *    *      jhernand@nyx.cs.DU.EDU                    josephhz@IDS.NET
    *    *    *      cb085@cleveland.Freenet.EDU      jph@m-net.ann-arbor.MI.US
*****    *    *****  University of California, Berkeley, California, USA  94720
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:1712 soc.men:16007
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,soc.men
Subject: Re: Shmamily Values
Date: 5 Sep 92 07:19:30 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Sep4.220259.5033@col.hp.com>, mikel@col.hp.com (Mike Lopke) writes:

[original statements by Rohit Parikh, with which I agree, deleted]

> My understanding is that politics does three things with language.  To appeal
> to the masses with minimal effort.
> 
> 1) simplify  - catered to short attention spans
> 2) codify    - catered to mental lazyness 
> 3) identify  - create (hopefully) a warm fuzzy with the voter 
> 
>    simplify + codify -> identify
> 
> The statement "I believe in family values" is just that, a simplified code
> designed to win people over.  No issues are really discussed reguardless
> of which meaning one gives to such a statement.  The amount of information
> and content of such statements is minimal and vague.  

All true--but, of course, also true of the "codemakers and
codebreakers" who assign their own self-serving "meanings" to the
terms.  For me to tell you "Here's what you really mean by that term
you just used" is a political trick and I'm sure it's as obvious to
the public as anything can be.

At the level of sloganry, I personally don't see why "family values"
is any more vague than any other.  (How about "new covenant" or
"racism" or "homophobia"...?)  For years, movie reviewers and TV
critics have spoken of "family shows" and so on, with no one
complaining that it didn't mean anything.  It seems to mean something
like "decent; traditional; bourgeois"...

> I suggest that the existance these slogans does not in itself impoverish
> vocabulary.  Reliance on them for any type of discussion, however, can.  
> Personally I try to first recognize such phrases for what they are, and
> avoid them.

Obviously US politics needs to get (and may finally be getting) below
the slogan level.  New methods of communication--like Usenet,
C-Span--should help.  This year, I think Perot has helped.

But Parikh has a valid point.  Terms like "racism" etc. need to be used on
occasion with their customary dictionary definitions.  When they have 
for many people been converted into political buzzwords, it *can* make
it harder to communicate.  Is that perhaps an actual *goal* of the ideologue?

********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+

Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: don@syscon.rn.com (Don McLane)
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Organization: Syscon Corporate Headquarters - South Bend, IN USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:07:22 GMT


cjenning@terapin.com (Craig Jennings) writes:

>"Hard to discuss philosophy if you don't exist", then, doesn't follow. I do
>exist, even if as a replaceable cog, and philosophy is discussed because even
>this too has been determined long before.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You make it sound like someone set it all up a long time ago; which I find
hard to believe.  Given our current understanding of quantum mechanics and
chaos theory, it appears that one in fact can't predict the future (very
far) from the present state of things.  Yet I think our notions of causality
remain intact.  Perhaps we need to define Determinism, I propose:

			Determinism == follows causal principles

Determinism is often interpreted as Fatalism, which is the notion that we
have preordained fates which we cannot escape.  So, we have to be specific
about what we mean here.

>I want to say that I agree with some of this argument, that Determinism has no
>place in it for a person with decision-making powers, a person with a real
>choice. I just don't know where to find the room. 

Where to find the room? ... Read "Elbow Room, The Varieties of Free Will
Worth Wanting" by Daniel Dennett.  A readable book which directly address
your point.  Someone on the net (Bill Skaggs, I think) recommended it
a couple weeks ago, I got it, and now I'm seconding the recommendation.

I always hate it when someone recommends you go off and read some other
author, so I'll try not to be that way and address your point myself.

If we consider the mind to be a black box for a moment, we note that
it has decision-making powers and makes real choices.  By simply
saying that what's in the box follows causal principles doesn't change
change the fact that it's making these choices.

	  --- Don

	  don@syscon.rn.com
From: cjenning@terapin.com (Craig Jennings)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:58:44 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Sep10.151228.29297@news.eng.convex.com>, cash@convex.com (Peter
Cash) writes:
>
>What if the discussion had been about astrophysics, and people had been
>arguing about whether the sun burns coal or oil to produce its energy.
>Would you say that this was a delightfully naive discussion that was
>"uncorrupted" by scientific inquiry? That we should let it proceed because,
>after all, everyone has to start somewhere? I rather think that if you had
>any respect for the participants at all, you would point out that
>astrophysics has something to teach them, and that they would benefit by
>studying this discipline.
>
>I think philosophy also has something to teach, and that people who are
>interested in such questions as "free will" would benefit by studying this
>discipline, and by learning what others have said about this set of issues.
>Sure, people have to "begin somewhere"--but the way to make progress isn't
>to keep saying the same things over and over. 
>


But what is being learned here isn't always brute fact. In your science 
example, one might simply say; "Well, it has been proven otherwise." And it 
okay sometimes to look in a table or a chart to get an empirical answer, but 
not so in philosophy -- or at least this is my "naive" impression. 

Sure, someone could have looked up the "madman" answer  in a textbook full of 
articles on free will, but to reason it out makes the answer one's own while 
making the reasoning process clear. Although where you end up is important, 
 making the reasoning process clear. Although where you end up is important, 
knowing how you got there and coming up with different paths is exciting as 
well. 

-Craig Jennings   
e-mail cjenning@terapin.com
From: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu (Me)
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Reply-To: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu (Me)
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:20:38 GMT


      I find it an untennable position to deny the existance of
 Free Will. To say that you have no free will implies that only
 outside events affect your actions. In this case, "you" do not
 have any impact on anything. If a thing has no influence what-
 soever, it may as well not exist, as you can never say anything
 about it.  You effectively commit suicide.

      Hard to discuss philosophy if you don't exist, therefore
 I must have free will (yours optional).  QED

      Naturally we all feel constrained by the interactions we
 have with other people, but at some level there is a DECISION
 to act (or not act) in a given way.  There are few (if any)
 rules which you MUST follow, you can always choose not to. (For
 definitions, I claim that if anyone ever violates a given rule,
 it is not mandatory.) 

      Comments?

=========================================================================
Michael Kellen              | Quidquid Latinae Dictum Sit, Altum Videtur.
UPHRRMK@Msu.oscs.montana.edu|
   mike@inti.spa.umn.edu    |  (Everthing looks profound in Latin)
=========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: mih8447@usl.edu (Hebert Marc I)
Subject: Machiavelli
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:27:41 GMT

After reading The Prince, I would like to find more opinion on the premise of
the book, what I would naively call amoral pragmatism.  Anyone know of any good
writings on Machiavelli & ethics? 

Marc Hebert               +
mih8447@usl.edu           + "Tell your next-door neighbor, 'Life is very long.'"
                          +  
                          +                - Ken Nordine