Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: net.philobotomy Message-ID: <544@spar.UUCP> Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 10:59:32 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.544 Posted: Thu Sep 26 10:59:32 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 07:37:26 EDT Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 139 >>>All those who believe in free will must of necessity and implication >>>believe in souls. There is of course nothing to stop a person from >>>holding two contradictory beliefs. It's just a sign that they haven't >>>thought things through. [ROSEN] >> I see. "I don't care what they say, I know that they believe in souls!" >> I always wondered why I never understood Objectivity. I always that it had >> something to do with evidence, but obviously I was wrong. [WINGATE] >God, you are a flaming asshole. Can you read? Honestly? I'll go through >that whole three sentence paragraph very slowly. (I'm sorry to all readers >for the tone, but the sheer arrogance of Charle's invective smacks of crude >stupidity and not much else.) [ROSEN] Even assuming (free will = spontaneous behavior), how can you possibly call Charles a `flaming asshole' when the empirical evidence, from electrons to galaxies, is entirely against you, Rich? Denying spontaneity is as stupid as denying (weak) determinism. Of course, you are free to hold two contradictory beliefs (knowledge of the world is derived from empirical evidence VS. the universe is totally deterministic), but then that makes your arguments no more valid than those from spiritualists who believe in noncausal supernatural entities. >Souls are a required implication of belief in free will by the definition. And strict determinism, unsupported by empirical evidence, is a required implication of belief in a universe totally knowable by human rationality -- even more anthropocentric than a universe run by a supernatural but unknowable consiousness. I do not believe either way -- however, the analogy is offered to illustrate that strict determinism historically represents the gutted remnants of our JudeoChristian religious heritage. Several bits of advice to Rich... (1) Physical assertions cannot be disproved by defective or obsolete scientific arguments. At best, you may demonstrate the possibility of the existence of a phenomenon to the degree that it behaves according to those defective/obsolete scientific laws. For example, classical determinism only explains certain physical phenomena (and not perfectly). Why then, must anyone be compelled to accept the nonexistence of spontaneous behavior when the brain, whose behavior was impervious to the classical approach, is known to exhibit high level nondeterministic behavior? (2) Hypocrisy breeds contempt. You frequently accuse others of wishful thinking, misusing science for nonscientific purposes, non-rigorous thought, ignoring evidence, twisting your words, falsely attributing beliefs you, or using abusive arguments, yet you refuse to see these precise qualities in yourself. Is it any wonder that people flame at you? (3) Arguments from faith are ineffective You frequently harass others for holding nonlogical axioms -- such as faith in God. But as long as such ides are openly and honestly admitted to be axioms, not presented as propaganda, not contradictory to the either science or logic, AND NOT CLAIMED TO BE SUPERIOR TO OTHER POINTS OF VIEW, they are far more acceptable in what purports to be a philosophical forum than your usual repeated insistence that others OUGHT TO BELIEVE SUCH ANTI-SCIENTIFIC baloney as: > Fine, but you miss two things. 1) You have think you have found > some exception to the "rule" of determinism (say, for example, > quantum phenomena), but it is only wishful thinking (and assuming > your conclusions) to believe that some unrelated phenomenon > affects the "mind" in the way that you seem to want it to, to > achieve the effect you want. Aside from the apparent inability > of antideterminists to define mechanisms of indeterminism, all > you have left is your wishful thinking and working backwards from > your conclusion to "support" your claim. Comments: (1) We think we have found "some exception to the rule of determinism"? Is Rich now going to tell us that the world is flat? After that, I suppose he will also tell us about his latest geocentric theories. (2) Empirical evidence shows that individual quantum phenomena affect high-level conscious behavior, both in the visual apparatus, and across synaptic gaps (see [1] attached). Finally, nonlinear thermodynamic arguments require that whatever fluxuations occur at bifurcations determine the macro-behavior of biochemical systems. Clearly you have read these arguments. I have never seen any rebuttal from you. Yet somehow you continue to insist that indeterministic arguments are illogical. Why? (3) The `mechanisms of indeterminism' are not defined? Huh?? Do you mean that there is no mathematical model? If so, you are wrong -- QM is an extremely accurate mathematical model. Or do you mean that until deterministic description is found, indeterminism is invalid? How can you say others are wishfully thinking, or assuming conclusions to achieve wanted effects, when you deny the validity of QM (an empirically accurate model) based solely on archaic deterministic preconceptions? Some questions for Rich: Do you ever read anything besides DrivelNet articles? Do you ever doubt your own beliefs and opinions? Do you know what `empirical evidence' means? I challenge you to read ANY vaguely reputable scientific journal (Science, or even Scientific American) for 3 consecutive months; likewise, any reasonable introductory philosophy text (Russell, Copleston, WT Jones). -michael [1] From Todd Moody: Rich Rosen has asked whether there is any evidence of acausal activity in the human brain. Well, the diameter of a synaptic vesicle is about 400 angstroms. The brain activity in which we are interested is electron transfer across synaptic gaps, via these vesicles. At this scale, this activity is subject to quantum indeterminacy (if you prefer, neural activity has a significant Brownian component). Thus, even though the relatively large scale, protein-type interactions within a single neuron are subject to classical causation, the interactions between neurons are not *entirely* explainable in classical terms. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com