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!allegra!bellcore!sabre!zeta!epsilon!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: <916@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 10:50:14 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.916
Posted: Fri Apr 19 10:50:14 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Apr-85 07:16:13 EST
References: <362@aesat.UUCP> <5272@utzoo.UUCP>, <137@ubvax.UUCP> <5343@utzoo.UUCP> <883@pyuxd.UUCP> <266@h-sc1.UUCP>
Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY:  We have no slogan
Lines: 43

>>The knowledge base, the current chemical state of the brain,
>>results in a "resulting" decision.  The desire to (or not to) increase
>>one's knowledge base (by asking questions) would also be determined by a
>>current chemical state.  The willingness to believe and incorporate the
>>acquired knowledge is determined similarly, as are any preonceptions and
>>patterns which you might associate the new knowledge with.  Where is the
>>"free will", the choice, in this?  [ROSEN]

> Prove it.  Do you really know how the brain works?  Please publish this
> information, so the rest of us can have the benefit of your supreme
> knowledge.  [DESJARDINS]

The point is that my model makes use of fewer preconceptions and assumptions
than any you might be proposing.  To believe otherwise is to insert your
own chosen assumptions (borne of wishful thinking as to how you might LIKE
the world to be) into a model UNNECESSARILY.

>>Any judgment you make will be the result of a
>>chemical process based on that state, and thus so will any action you take.
>>If you're trying to say that because we use the word "mistake", we are
>>implying "a bad choice that we made", and thus we must have free will,
>>then I hope I've shown that that's erroneous.  If that's not what you're
>>saying, I don't understand what you mean.

> Come on, Rich.  You just don't know.  Neither does Laura.  It's fine to 
> argue that "this may be the case," but unless you have proof of some kind,
> you can't say "Any judgment you make WILL be the result of a chemical
> process...."  From what I can tell, there is certainly room for uncertainty
> in the brain (it's not as simple as a computer! :-)) and if there *were*
> something in this universe akin to a soul, that nobody understands, then
> it could well control that uncertainty.

The point is that my model makes use of fewer preconceptions and assumptions
than any you might be proposing.  To believe otherwise is to insert your
own chosen assumptions (borne of wishful thinking as to how you might LIKE
the world to be) into a model UNNECESSARILY.

(Sometimes you have to say the same time more than once before it's
 acknowledged.)
-- 
"When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer.
 Superstition ain't the way."		- Stevie Wonder ("Superstition")
	Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr