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: External Influences Message-ID: <1807@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 02:18:28 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1807 Posted: Sun Sep 29 02:18:28 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 01:14:28 EDT References: <3518@decwrl.UUCP> <1451@pyuxd.UUCP> <661@psivax.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 91 > Most people consider themselves to be constrained only when unwanted > realities compel behavior against their will. Dennett offers a strong > argument of this point: > > Jones hates Smith and decides, in full possession of his faculties, > to murder him. Meanwhile, Black, the nefarious neurosurgeon.. , > who also wants Smith dead, has implanted something in Jones' brain > so that just in case Jones changes his mind (and chickens out), > Black, by pushing his special button, can put Jones back on his > murderous track.. Black doesn't have to intervene; Jones does the > deed all on his own. > > Jones could not have done otherwise, yet he behaved according to his own > choice! Black's total control never subverted Jones decision process. > I'd say that Jones behaved of his own free will. Yes, I'd guess that you would regardless of the outcome. I see little connection between this analogy and the issues of free will, except in your own mind. > Likewise, even if I am constrained by physical causality, I only > consider such constraints to be external when they prevent me from > following my will. But your will itself is constrained by that same causality: why is it that you want to do THIS and not THAT? > The below are not `obvious tautologies', they are a priori assertions: > > (1) Our minds are totally determined by our brain state > (2) Our brain states are totally determined by antecedent causes > > I'm willing to suppose (1) if that's what it takes to hold a > philosophical discussion with you, Rich. Michael, this ceased to be a "philosophical discussion" when you lowered yourself to abusive namecalling because I disagreed with your holy religious beliefs. > Especially since I can offer no > evidence that it is obviously wrong. However, I'll gladly drop this > assumption in philosophical discourse with those who are more skeptical > than yourself, since subjective decisions clearly affect physical > events. (1) is reasonable, but not yet fact. > However, (2) has been scientifically disproven. First off, if they're not determined in this way, how does this "get" us "free will"? All it gets us is another dependency. Not only are we dependent on how our brains have come to be configured through our experiences in life, we are also dependent upon random quantum fluctuations which are more analogous to a banana peel on the floor than to the making of a "free" decision. Remember that "choice" is the selection of an alternative after consideration. If the "consideration" is a quantum phenomenon, you have lost your freedom, not gained it. > Nobody knows what determines the outcome of individual random quantum > events, but those occurring in our brains arguably can and do manifest > themselves as high-level conscious phenomena (unlike the quantum > phenomena in rocks, which have no perceptible effect on a rock's > high-level behavior). Arguably can and do? I wonder who's asserting what now? > Strict behavioristic assertions that one's choices are totally > determined by past causal chains rooted in the past would have been > clearly validated by strict causal determinism. > First, quantum considerations provide empirical evidence that events > are apparently not totally determined by known physical causes > (admittedly, future discoveries may change this). > Secondly, rigorous analysis proves that any future deterministic > theories will have to be noncausally deterministic (ie- not determined > by spatially and temporally impingent events). Michael Ellis predicts the future of science, describing (nay, DEMANDING) what future theories "will have to be"! >>> Furthermore, I am frequently quite successful at NOT monitoring my >>> behavior -- except when I really need to. >>Your articles here are evidence of that. :-( > At least I restrict my flamage to the only flamer here (besides myself). > I'll correct that omission -- Ellis, you are an ignorant and arrogant > fool!! Congratulations! :-? I much prefer your public self-abuse to your abuse directed at me, for obvious reasons. I have to wonder if the only reason for the abuse in the first place is the fact that I disagree with you. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com