In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:42:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > Derek > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >> >In article >,
> >> > Derek > wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Then forced complicity
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is no such thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> >> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> >> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> >> >
> >> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> >>
> >> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> >> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> >> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> >> person can be forced to comply with brute force
> >> and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> >
> >Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> >
> >I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
> >situation. I have choice of enduring your actions, risking a broken arm
> >and seeing you prosecuted for assault. I have the option of matching
> >your force to free myself. I have the option of escalating my forcing to
> >counter act your force. I have the option of calling out for help. I
> >also have legal options and illegal options to counter your act of
> >aggression such carrying a knife, gun, pepper spray. I have the option
> >of disabling you by attacking your kneecap, striking your nose with an
> >upward thrust, gouging your eyes, or crushing your testicles.
>
> All that, for friendly half Nelson? A bit rough. Seriously though,
> despite any struggles, if Tyson decided you should stand with
> your arm up your back, I'm sure he could force both of us to
> comply and stand with our arms up our backs for however
> long he wanted. In physical terms, then, forced complicity does
> exist, but that's being a little unfair on my part because I'm sure
> you were actually referring to our choices, and whether we can
> be forced to comply with someone else's choices regardless of
> our own. Enter free will. Do we really have it, or could it be that
> we are compelled to act according to external influences and
> antecedents?
>
> I've often argued that the act of acting indicates free will cannot
> exist. I believe that if our will to act was truly free, set like a
> balance scale in equilibrium with no external forces or antecedents
> acting upon it, we would not act. We would remain at rest, and,
> as I'm sure you're already aware, if something is at rest it cannot
> be moved unless an external force acts upon it.

You could have saved us both time, by simply stating this.

If I were a ball, or a rock then, I might agree with you. While I can
think of examples where a human acts in response to external forces,
there are examples where humans act into their environment.

For example, I just returned to my chair after making a cup of coffee.
For your theory to hold true, we would need to identify what external
force that causing me to respond. I listen to a particular type of music
daily. Again, I cannot see the external force that I am responding to in
this case either.

This is at least causes me to wonder how you are using the term force.