Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!pyuxmm!pyuxnn!pyuxi!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Causality corrected Message-ID: <175@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Sun, 28-Aug-83 18:16:01 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.175 Posted: Sun Aug 28 18:16:01 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Aug-83 22:44:45 EDT References: <973@ittvax.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway Lines: 82 To Alan Vexelblat (ittvax!vex): in response to his response to ... 1) You say that free will claims that 'the actions of an intelligent agent are not causally determined'. Fine. You then say that there ARE actions that are causally determined, and these are INVOLUNTARY (e.g., being pushed down a flight of stairs). But then you say that your decision to tuck your body and roll is somehow outside of the causal realm. What about your acquiring that knowledge that tucking and rolling is a good idea in such a situation? What about that knowledge being stored away in the furrows of your brain? What about your brain, working as it should, recalling that knowledge and causing you to employ that knowledge? I think even you would agree that these events had to have taken place before you could make such a decision. We diverge when you say 'I decide' and we mean two different things. I claim that the 'I decide to...' is perfectly understandable through cause and effect: the 'knowledge' stored in your brain, and the chemicals therein, made the choice.. What if you were drunk/stoned, or thinking about something else entirely during the event, and your brain couldn't handle that sort of quick processing to recall the needed knowledge? The 'I' that does the 'deciding' is nothing more than your current biochemical state. I'm not saying that we know what really goes on at that level, or even (based on modern physics theory) that it can be determined in advance. Just that your decisions are just as much within the realm of causality as other actions. 2) You say that, in my article, "...'fundamental' is quoted [in reference to 'fundamental' particles] to indicate that the particles are not the most fundamental possible" in my opinion. Well, it's not just MY opinion. The field of particle physics has found many other sub-sub-atomic particles including the wino (pronounced weeno), the gluino, etc. I shared a house with a particle physicist who has worked at Stanford, Princeton, and CERN in Geneva, and he agrees that the trend in particle physics is that we may never find a truly fundamental particle. So there. It looks like you are one of those that I referred to in my article, with regard to reading about quarks in People magazine (or was it the Enquirer?? :-)). (By the way, we've also (my friend and I) discussed the notion that particle physicists, theorists and experimentalists work together. A theory is formulated, and experimentalists work to prove it through observation. They discover the new particle as predicted by the theory, but wait... there's mass left over. There must be another particle!!! In this way, particle physicists ensure their permanent employment by never finding a fundamental particle :-) By the way, the DNA bits you speak of are not quite small enough to fit into the area of physics you are talking about where "quantum indeterminancies become quite large". Even if this were true, doesn't that mean that your actions are caused by these very "indeterminancies" and not by your free will?? 3) I have said over and over again----Just because modern physics refutes determinism, that doesn't mean that you have free will!! (Just because the water isn't hot, that doesn't make it cold!!) 4) You claim that I do not support my notions of "indeterminism", or modified determinism, or whatever someone chooses to call it (the originator of ideas often has no control over what people eventually call them). Yet you state quite clearly "I said nothing about the origin of desires." That is the truest thing you HAVE said. You HAVE said nothing about the origin of desires. So when do you start supplying support for your ideas? In reality, my idea of the middle ground between determinism and free will is not an idea in and of itself. I am only claiming that current scientific understanding applies to what you choose to call 'thought', 'desire', etc. YOU are the one claiming otherwise. 5) I will ask one more time, and this time I hope to get a reasonable answer----If "desire without cause" does not imply an external agent, then what is doing the desiring? Surely not our physical selves; they exist in the physical and obey physical laws. Also please [re]phrase your reasons why you think that attributing it all to biochemistry is unreasonable. You say that you have stated your objections to this, but I don't remember seeing any. 6) Finally, you accuse me of re-using and abusing the word soul. I used the word 'soul' in a paraphrase of your previous article where you said that you refute that notion. Elsewhere in the article I use the term 'external agent' to refer to that which does the desiring and deciding outside of the physical realm. I'm sorry if this confused you. I'm also sorry for the tone of this article. If it seems a bit abrasive, it's partially because it's late, and partially because I'm frustrated in getting answers. I use this abrasiveness not to attack, but to drive the point home and hopefully get some thinking (and answers) out of you. I'm sorry, your time's up and I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr