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 (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Science & Philosophy vs Rosenism Message-ID: <1806@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 02:17:22 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1806 Posted: Sun Sep 29 02:17:22 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 01:13:44 EDT References: <1495@pyuxd.UUCP> <2197@pucc-h> <1510@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 144 > Similarly, the unpredictability of human behavior was explained as due > to lack of knowledge. Such mere lack of knowledge is referred to as > `classical indeterminism'. [ELLIS] Was? How is it explained now? "We don't know, so it must be caused by this"? Another example of Ellisist science in action (hey, if he can label my thinking as "Rosenism", I'm within my rights to invent Ellisism). > But when science finally reached the level of quantum phenomena, > our ability to predict outcomes encounters an empirical limit -- > a point where `chance' persists despite continued refinements in > scientific technique. Consequently, the strongest advocates of determinism > had to abandon empirical arguments in favor of metaphysical ones > and hopes that the barrier might someday be overcome. Funny how when *I* speak absolutely about such things, I am "obviously" wrong for doing so, and perhaps I did speak too strongly. Yet when Ellis states the existence of an absolute empirical limit, no one flinches an eyebrow... >>..and by many of the philosophers you quoted in your last article, whom you >>use as "ammunition". > I think you failed to perceive the purpose of those quotes -- note > that I included two anti-free-will arguments as well (Hume, Voltaire) > -- what I first showed is that free will has had many definitions. On the contrary, you showed just the opposite. You showed that all your friends shared a definition, and they either agreed, disagreed, or built new axiomatic systems to "get it to exist". > I fail to see how the above arguments imply that free will > necessarily entails a belief in souls. Because you haven't been listening (apparently). Free will means the ability to act independently of physical constraints, whether from the surrounding environment, or the insides of one's own body. Think about what religionists mean when they speak of "free will" to choose between right and wrong. Clearly they are referring to an ability to make a choice regardless of one's physical make-up: choosing not to sin despite the physical desire to do so. Can you act contrary to your physical make-up without an external agent to do so for you INDEPENDENT of your make-up? >>>>...It's just a sign that they haven't thought things through. >>> As a libertarian (=freewiller), I take that as an insult! >>Now you know how your choice of words sounds to me. > You repeatedly dumped insults on others (me included) long before > they were ever returned. Frankly, I take it as a compliment to > receive verbal abuse from one who will not read or think. I'd like to see some of the insults that I offered first. "Wishful thinker"? Your own Feyerbandism shows that you glorify wishful thinking, so I would hardly think you would be insulted by that. However, words like "fool", "one who will not read or think", etc., all of which came from you, are clearly abusive and insulting. Obviously it is more important for you to preserve your sacred religious beliefs at all cost, even if it means abusing your "attacker" and engaging in namecalling to "prove" your point. >>You could of course, >>show me how you HAVE thought these things through rather than just >>asserting that you haven't. Your avoidances of consequences and >>implications of beliefs has been astounding. > Baloney! What arguments have I ignored? The one I offered above (and many times before) on free will, for example. The fact that you engage in the very same despicable absolutism ("an absolute definitive limit of knowledge") you accuse me of, and refuse to acknowledge that. I could go on... > I hardly deny that strict > determinism is the conclusion of the classical sciences up to and > including Einsteinian relativity. My point is that the conclusions of > the vanguard of modern thought (relativity and Skinnerism excluded) > convincingly demonstrate that strict causal determinism cannot > disprove spontaneous behavior (your definition of free will). Obviously (from this) you never read my definition of free will, otherwise you wouldn't have mislabelled it so blatantly. > I have backed up my assertions with empirical evidence that is > widely accepted within scientific community; and my philosophical > claims are supported by quotes from well respected sources -- all of > which required extensive outside research on my part. Bravo. It's always easy to find sources that support one particular position and ignore the rest, though. I haven't been ignoring yours, though. I've been answering it. Which is more than I can say for you. > For what good? To have them glossed over by a person who would > rather fill this newsgroup with opinions based on obsolete science > and reluctance to read any philosophical literature whatsoever? I.e., to have them answered by someone who disagrees with the conclusions and says why. > May I humbly infer a desperate attempt on your part to justify your > intellectual fossilization. Do you fear new ideas that might force > you to reevaluate your moldy opinions? Have you lost all trace of > youthful curiosity about the nature of things? New ideas with substance behind them certainly merit such re-evaluation. After your quoting of Feyerband, in which you glorify believing in what you want to believe in rather than what is uncovered by investigation (if it contradicts your desired beliefs) AND working backwards from the conclusion to build axioms, I think the problem is that you have a completely different set iof axioms than I do. They are clearly counterrational and counterscientific in the extreme. > Several of us have REPEATEDLY presented hard scientific evidence which you > simply ignore -- evidence that, by the way, not only also explains your > precious causal determinism, but which has been rigorously shown to be > inexplicable by causal determinism. And I have acknowledged the current state of scientific knowledge regarding quantum phenomena. And you have failed to show how they ipso facto "prove" your point. You must have forgotten that. Often we forget to state what is obvious to us. > *I hold no belief as to the absolute existence of free will; instead, > I insist each definition and corresponding set of assumptions should be > analyzed on its own terms and given credence according to the > explicative value of that philosophical framework. > > For example, if free will is "spontaneous choice", then it does not > exist in systems where causal determinism runs everything. > > Conversely, if free will is "rational choice of a conscious agent", > then it would seem to exist within any system where consciousness > and rationality are real entities. Finally, if free will is "hot fudge sauce", or "a Porsche 924", or "left shoes", then free will obviously exists. The moral: define it as you like to get a given result, regardless of the real definition. > "What's so great about science?" -- Paul Feyerabend What's so great about Feyerband? -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com