Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!wex
From: wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Causality corrected
Message-ID: <973@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Aug-83 10:58:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: ittvax.973
Posted: Thu Aug 25 10:58:10 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Aug-83 20:26:12 EDT
Lines: 103

Reply to Rich Rosen:

	[In this article I am referring to points made by ittvax!vex...

First of all, it's "ittvax!wex"; it's my oppponents who are vex'ed (:-).  
Second, I sign my name at the end of all my articles, but just for you, 
it's "Alan Wexelblat."

	I will use the term "external agent" to describe that which 
	causes intelligent beings to make decision and do things 
	without natural physical cause.  This term is probably an 
	exact equivalent functional definition of "soul", without 
	the religious/afterlife connotations.

Fine, so long as you stick to it (which you don't; see below).

	Free will advocates declare that the actions that intelligent 
	beings take are not /predictable/ by using physical laws...

Wrong.  Free will advocates (in the philosophical sense) argue that the
all actions of an intelligent agent are not *causally determined* by physical
laws.  Some actions may be so determined; these are called involuntary.  For
example, if someone pushes me down a flight of stairs, my actions are fully
determined by the laws of physics.  Therefore, my falling is an involuntary
action.  Some actions may be partially determined by causal influences.  For
example, if, when I am falling, I decide to tuck my body and roll, then the
fall-roll that follows is voluntary to exactly the degree that I am able 
to influence the involuntary fall.

	Determinists claim that ALL actions and decisions are the 
	result of physical and chemical processes and thus all of 
	history has already been written (in effect).  
	
Correct, except that for "the result of physical and chemical processes," 
I would substitute "fully determined by physical and chemical processes."

	Freewillers, having read articles on quantum mechanics...
	say that the unpredictability at the subatomic, "fundamental" 
	particle level /proves/ that, since the universe is not 
	"pre-determined", there is free will.

This is, of course, a completely false statement.  Let's take the errors in
order:
    1) "fundamental" is quoted to indicate that the author really doesn't
       beleive that the particles are the most fundamental possible.  If he
       knew anything about physics, he would know that quarks are (by 
       definition) one-dimensional particles; that is, they are points, in
       the mathematical/geometric sense.  In order to define a particle more
       basic than a point in space-time, the entire concept of space-time
       as we know it will have to be revamped.  Most physicist don't think
       that this is possible, let alone likely.

    2) I said nothing about "freewillers" in general.  I just said that in
       *my* discussions with people who knew physics...  Please watch your
       generalizations.

    3) It is a fact that the universe cannot be causally determined in the
       way that determinists would have it.  If determinism is correct, then
       all of quantum physics is wrong, an instance I consider highly unlikely.

    4) Determinism, when applied to the internal workings of the brain, 
       requires analysis of very low-level items (DNA bits, and 
       neuro-transmitters, for example).  And, as we have already seen, when
       you get down to that level, quantum indeterminacies become large.
       Causality only appears to work at a macro-level.

	There IS a middle ground that is probably more believable.  
	The course of the events in the universe cannot be predicted, 
	but this does not mean that the "choices" that we make are 
	ordered by 'free will' (they are just as much rooted in 
	physical/chemcal laws as a ball falling from the top of a building).

This is a claim without support.  I've supported my side, why do you not
support yours?

	You separate "desires" from "causality". Why?  
	
This is a mis-interpretation on your part.  What I said is that desires can
exist, and be quite strong, without having any causative force.  I said
nothing about the origin of desires.

	Remember that desire without cause implies an external agent,
	and you have refuted the notion of a soul.

First, desire without cause DOES NOT imply any such agent, and second, I
have yet to say ANYTHING about a soul.  You are committing the error you
earlier said you wouldn't make.

	...it is reasonable to believe that [biochemistry] DOES 
	WORK to perform the functions that you attribute to "
	beings with enough intelligence to esape the chain of causality".  
	
Why is this reasonable?  I have already given reasons why I do not think 
that it is reasonable.

	Just because we don't understand the fundamental processes 
	behind something doesn't mean that its roots lie in something mystical 
	
Who said anything about mysticism?  This is the "error of the assumption of 
soul" again.

--Alan Wexelblat
decvax!ittvax!wex