Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: freedom and reason (attn russ, rich, & laura) Message-ID: <766@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 22:06:49 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.766 Posted: Mon Mar 25 22:06:49 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 06:47:01 EST References: <362@aesat.UUCP> <5272@utzoo.UUCP>, <734@pyuxd.UUCP> <5312@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY: We have no slogan Lines: 169 >> This is truly sad, because I fail to see why Laura (or anyone) >> should kill themselves because they don't have free will? > [Why not? it is just what my chemicals make me do...] It is the fact that your own thoughts as stored in your chemical makeup "make" you do this (i.e., lead you to that conclusion) is what is so sad. >> I feel quite glad that I am fortunate enough to be alive and to >> experience life and live through and gain from and enjoy those >> experiences. Regardless of whether I "will" the things I do or >> not. The danger is not in denying free will (for good reason, >> I'd say) causing despondency and despair owing to "lack of >> ???"; the danger is in allowing such a notion, that without >> "free will", I am nothing, to be perpetuated! [RICH ROSEN] > Rich, it is a very strange notion of ``I'' that you have that can exist > without a belief in free will. What does ``gain'' mean in the absense > of free will? what does ``enjoy'' mean? More importantly, what does > ``I'' mean? Very little, I would say. To you, I would say. The "I" is that which engages in and feels the experiences, and gains from them and learns from them and acquires pleasure from them. The gain is in the enhanced experience of life itself. The enjoyment is in the pleasure of those experiences as experienced by me. > Why learn? You cannot influence your actions through your learning. I don't know where you get that notion. It is only through learning that your experience of life becomes fuller. You don't "change" anything (from a deterministic standpoint, i.e., you would have "learned" anyway), but your actions are in part determined by what you learn and you gain from that. > Why love anyone? If you don't it is no reflection on you. Because it can be such a joyful and enjoyable experience and can lead to growth in both people's lives. > Why care about how elegant your code is? It is easier to be sloppy, and no > reflection on you if you are. You couldn't change it -- it is just how your > chemicals came out. Why are you trying so bloody hard to forcefit your notions of "without free will I wouldn't do any of these things". If your chemical makeup was such that you enjoyed and took pride in your work, you most certainly would. For someone who demands that I go off and read, you'd be advised to check out Smullyan's "The Unfortunate Dualist" before slitting your wrists, Laura. > Without a sense of > personal meaning, I see no reason to hold onto a belief in the self at > all. It was a mistake to ever think I had one -- so I think that I will > just go out like a candle now and enter into nirvana. Life is pointless > and I quit... It's as pointless (or point-ful) as you decide to make it to be. If you've already decided that it's pointless, then there's not point in talking to you, but if you realize that your life is as full as you make it, and don't go off half-cocked depressed about not having "control" of your actions, there's plenty of life to make the most of out there. > I am not defining things after the fact. If you want to > go after this one you are going to have to prove that ``knowledge'' is > meaningless. Is Knowledge then meaningless, Rich? I don't think so, and > I don't think that you think so either. Your actions in posting make > you out to be in contradiction if you say this. Why are you asking me to prove something I don't believe? To what end? Knowledge is as meaningful as its usefulness, as useful as its application. Even without application, pure knowledge can have beauty. >>>I do not think that you can ask the question ``does man have free will'' >>>without using the free will whose existence you are questioning. >> If I program a machine to ask the question, does it have free >> will? > Now, here is an instance where we must be careful of what we mean. what > do you mean by ``ask''? If you mean ``print out the question on a > terminal'' then I would say ``no''. On the other hand, if you > programmed a machine and then it spontaneously came up with the > question ``does man have free will'' then I would have to answer that I > do not know -- but I would be inclined to suspect that it does. What makes you think that human beings don't ask questions by simply going through a series of internal processes and then "printing out the question" or "asking it orally"? Straw man. What makes you think that humans "spontaneously" ask such questions rather than going through such processes as I describe above to do so? > All I am assuming is that either men have free will or they don't, > and that the expression ``men have free will'' is meaningful. It is just an utterance of sounds. It is only as meaningful as its veracity. If it is false, then it is false. > I am not assuming that the answer is going to be ``true'', it could be > ``false''. This is the case with any question I pose (since I do not > pose questions which I think are meaningless). If I ask ``Does Rich > have blue eyes'' then I am assuming that the sentence has some meaning, > and that there is an answer to this question -- either ``yes'' or > ``no''. [If you happen to have one eye, or one brown and one blue, then > you can call to my attention that my question is ill-formed, but that > is entirely beside the point. *I* think that the question has meaning > as it stands, and is either answerable in the affirmative of the > negative.] As are most questions. The act of asking it does not imply its truth or falseness, as any question that can be formed of words can be asked. >>>But why should knowledge interest you? >>>Because it is possible to make mistakes, and you are trying to avoid >>>making them. Aha! By your own effort, in searching for the truth, it >>>is possible to influence your actions so that you will make fewer >>>mistakes! ... This is an implicit assumption in asking any question. So, >>>in asking the question you are either performing another meaningless >>>action, or you are demonstrating the free will whose existence you >>>are trying to prove. >> What am I demonstrating when I ask "Does man have snerdfelb?" It's >> no more or less meaningless than asking "Does man have ANYTHING ELSE?" > Are you going to play Humpty Dumpty again? I do not have any concepts > which I do not believe are grounded in reality. Therefore I do not > think that nonsense is as meaningful as my concepts. If nonsense became > meaningful it would no longer be nonsense. I am *not* claiming that > there is anything special about the words I am using to represent my > concepts, but I am claiming that there is something special about the > concepts themselves. ``Unicorns'' and ``horses'' are both instances of > concepts. The first do not exist, and the second do. But neither of > them are nonsensical. In the absense of a definition, ``snerdfelb'' is > nonsense. My sentences were not nonsense -- though I had not gotten > around to demonstrating that they are true. The point was that your statement claiming that because I am seeking knowledge I am using free will was totally erroneous, plugging in random words to suit the conclusion you want to reach. My asking questions to gain knowledge does not imply use of free will, but somehow you claim to reach that conclusion above. I am politely trying to say "What the hell are you talking about?" It is YOU who are playing Humpty Dumpty here. Any question I ask (about free will or about snerdfelb) have equal POTENTIAL meaning. Only the reality of the answer shows how meaningful the information obtained really was. Remember, though, that even asking a "stupid" question can result in useful information. > But this leads us to wonder why a man has engaged in a meaningless > action. Well, if the answer is no, then I argue that all actions are > meaningless. However, if the action is meaningful, then this would > imply that the answer was not no. [By denial of the consequent]. I know > that I cannot prove that all actions are not meaningless, but I think > that I have proven that either all actions are meaningless or man has > free will. No it doesn't, and I fail to see where you draw such conclusions from unless you're working backwards to get to them. As I said above, meaning and worth of an action are human-based concepts: the meaningless question I ask may have meaning to you based on your situation. Could you please more clearly how this seemingly convoluted logic leads you to a conclusion that because some actions are deemed meaningless/not meaningless somehow leads one to the conclusion of free will. The only thing that's clear to me is the convolution of your own logic in an attempt to "prove" free will. > WHich moves us back to the top of the article. If I believed that I did > not have free will, I would also believe that all actions are > meaningless. Time to quit again... But that's a crock. The actions are meaningful as they are made to be. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr