Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Cohesive Unity
Message-ID: <1100@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Aug-85 23:47:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1100
Posted: Sun Aug  4 23:47:18 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 01:45:31 EDT
References: <1386@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 33

In article <1386@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>> I cannot accept this argument, since it appears to require the a priori
>> assumption that the behavior of a complex phenomenon be reductionistically
>> determined by that of its components.

>Uh, yeah, right.  Let's be sure we know who's assuming what here.  Only in
>your little "smash-causality" mindset, in which you ASSUME the existence
>of something outside the realm of cause and effect in order to make your
>wishes fit, does this make any sense.  Does Michael have an example of
>such acausality?  Evidence that it holds in the human brain?  More and
>more people (thankfully) seems to be realizing that just because something
>appears to be so complex that we cannot understand its inner workings and
>make predictions from them, that does NOT mean the innerworkings are 
>"acausal".  It only seems that way to the casual (or causal) observer,
>especially the ones who WANT to see that mystical soul or force as part
>of the conclusion.

Sorry, Rich; the burden of proof is on you.  Plenty of human behavior appears
to be random.  YOU need to demonstrate that this is an illusion, by showing
the basis for such behavior.  At present there is no such theory which has
truly been subjected to experimental verification.  Therefore you must be
asserting a priori that, since outside of quantum fluctuation physics as
we see it seems strictly causal, we can assume for the moment that this holds
in the brain as well.  But there is no evidence against the possibility
that some behavior does in fact (for instance) reflect quantum fluctuations.
Therefore this hypothesis cannot be ruled out-- until experiment demostrates
either its truth of falsity.  Until then, Rich, your claim has no basis.

The reader should note that souls never entered into the above discussion.
Why does Rich keep hallucinating them everywhere?

Charley Wingate