ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (05/14/85)
>Hindu religion is based on the concept that the universe is one huge >pulsating brain... They refute any basis for the universe being >continuous, and instead of acknowledging that there are some truths >that are inaccessible, they prefer to fill in the blanks with >mumbo-jumbo. If there is a superior being, it most likely isn't the one >they describe. >... >If you are here to introduce us to christianity, believe me, most of us >have seen it many times before. What I doubt is that you have ever >consciously seen any of *this* before. You see, the " bitter " >conflict is a result of isolation, a lack of communication, and I grow >tired of listening to you. Perhaps you should try listening to us for a >while. > >-- John Williams John, I fail to see how Hindu thought is at variance with the religion you apparently espouse -- `continuity'. A deeper analysis than you have provided should prove illuminating. Please explain your flamage. Furthermore, Bill Gates' essay on Fundamentalist Christian vs. scientific modes of thought seems hardly less dogmatic and irrational than your rebuttal. You seem to use `continuity' as your ultimate criterion for validity. In this, you appear to be at variance with the vast majority of modern scientific opinion. Compared with the most reasonable modern Christian and Hindu philosophies, which have at least taken care to disentangle themselves from controversy with modern science by remaining within the realm of subjective experience, your utterances would appear to lack either scientific or metaphysical validity. BTW, materialists may be frustrated by the presence of any sort of metaphysics in net.philosophy. Such cynics should be reminded that: 1. Metaphysics IS a branch of philosophy, regardless of the antimetaphysical trend that has characterized modern thought since Hume. It is ironic that though empirical philosophy such as that of Carnap, Ayer, Dewey, &c., may label metaphysics as `bad poetry', physicists themselves often appear in the vanguard of the growing interest in Eastern mysticism and other `oh wow' tendencies that materialists so scorn. Why? 2. There has been an upsurge of Bad Metaphysics in this newsgroup. This is, I believe, a backlash due to the short-sighted materialism that has denied any validity whatsoever to Metaphysics. Can we have some balance, please? 3. Metaphysics and science can work in harmony. Many of the most profound ideas driving science in the past ~100 years were essentially metaphysical in nature -- eg. Mach's principle that `entities do not twice express themselves' as the force behind General Relativity, or Darwin's principle of Evolution. Such ideas have no predictive ability and are not subject to objective verification; nonetheless they have created a fertile environment for philosophical contemplation. In this spirit, one might hope to find much of value in both Hindu and Christian modes of thought. As to the universe being `one huge pulsating brain', there are phenomena in modern physics to which this description may be relevant -- one's subjective knowledge of objective phenomena does in fact seem to have influence on subsequent objective phenomena. Those possessing greater familiarity than I have with Hindu philosophy are encouraged to describe its most universally applicable concepts. On the other hand, though I found Bill Gates' recent essay `Penses' accurate as a description of how truth is perceived by certain members of the scientific and Christian communities, I believe that he has unfairly stereotyped both viewpoints by blindly omitting the center ground: >Science, by its very nature, refutes the existence of a God, or, at the >very least, limits His power to the provable and understandable. Examples: > > Man is ultimately responsible for his own fate. > vs. > God is ultimately responsible for everything's fate, including man's. > > Man evolved from other, lower life forms. > vs. > God created man, just as he created all other life forms. >...Scientific theories such as these (remember, they're just hypotheses) >directly oppose what we as Christians read to be true in the Word of God > - the Bible. Humankind and the physical universe itself can be viewed as but different descriptions of the entity you call `God'. When Rich Rosen says `everything is just interreacting chemicals', then one must assume he prefers to attribute qualities to chemicals that some of us typically associate with other levels of description. Whatever it is that Rosen calls `matter and energy' possesses to have evolved into the phenomena we see around us today, it must certainly have possessed the qualities you prefer to bundle together into the entity you call `God'. Science DOES NOT refute the existence of God, neither does it limit His power in any way. Science is simply an attempt to understand a part of the universe by restricting one's focus according to a carefully chosen discipline. You might say it has placed God outside its realm of study, or else beyond the horizon of its present capability. Christianity, like Science, has many myopic advocates who would claim they alone possess the One True Knowledge, that anything inconsistent or irrelevant to their worldview is either false or nonexistent. My opinion is that such folk are the unknowing `Allies of Satan', a scourge on this planet who are in league with the forces of Oppression. Such microencephalic misunderstanding will bear little besides the bitter fruit of Intolerance. >Thus, if we really believe, we have to stick by what's written in the Bible >over what Science has decided to be true, because man is the origin of >one, and God is the origin of the other. The conclusions of Science can just as easily be perceived as the revelations of God via the divine inspiration of Einstein, Schroedinger, Darwin, &c. Not all Christians see Science as contradictory to the Bible, only the Fundamentalists and Rabid Antihumanists. The Bible, like the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, or the Diamond Sutra can provide vast insight into human experience in a way that science must forever remain ineffective. Misapplying the wisdom of such texts to realms in which they were never intended is to pervert their purpose. Those who insist that Christians pluck out their own eyes and embrace the false witness of blasphemers whose interpretations of the Bible are at variance with God's most glorious creation -- the Universe itself -- have transformed their church into the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth. Khronos estai ouketi -michael
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (09/26/85)
>>>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.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/01/85)
>>>>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. [ELLIS] Well, that's very nice, Michael, because the definition of free will is NOT "spontaneous behavior". And I never said that it was. Perhaps you should go back to your days of strange and unexplained (acausal?) "Praise Nihil" poems as a means of argument. The fact that you believe that I claimed this about free will may explain some of your bizarre invective. > 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. First, you really have yet to show the former definitively, but in any case (second) you have never shown how lack of determinism (as you see it) has anything to do with what I have said about free will. It is not (as you assert that I said) "spontaneous behavior"; it is (as all your choice philosophers agreed) the ability to make choices (look up "choose" for further elaboration) independent of physical constraints including (but not limited to) one's environment and internal physical (brain) make-up. Some simply believe in that and assert its truth without explanation. Others disbelieve it and state reasons why. Others build entire systems of new axioms for no reason other than to "get" the conclusion to be true. >>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 would love to hear your definition of "supernatural" as contrasted with "natural". What is the grand demarcation line? But, again, you state that the lack of pure determinism due to quantum level phenomena somehow means that there IS free will despite the evidence I have presented, without ever quite showing how that happens. Again, you have attributed a notion to me (free will = spontaneous behavior) that has nothing to do with the points I have made, thus a possible reason for your rather strange tone of late. > Several bits of advice to Rich... > (1) Physical assertions cannot be disproved by defective or obsolete > scientific arguments. Which assertions are you talking about? Are you deliberately being vague (rapidly become the required status quo among neomystics)? > 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? But I have shown repeatedly that what you call spontaneous behavior is not representative of either the known definition of free will or even of any of the new "proposed" definitions designed to replace the existing one so we can "get" free will. If anything, the fact that you claim quantum phenomena introduces a new variable into brain action indicates to me that we are LESS free. It means our actions are dependent on fixed chemical states in our brain, but also on the chance that someone may put a banana peel under our feet. That would hardly make us free. In fact, even by Paul Torek's "definition" of free will (r-e-a), you are less free, because even if you set yourself up to make a "rational" decision through analysis, you are subject to some random phenomenon making mincemeat of your choice. > (2) Hypocrisy breeds contempt. Is this why I have grown so contemptuous of you? Have I? I don't know, Michael, from someone whose arguments in favor of his position have ranged from "you are a jerk" (or other randomly non-caused insults) to "Praise Nihil" poems of dubious content, it sure seems that you are flailing about madly lately. > 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? No, it isn't. It's called projection. I have never seen an example from you that showed me engaging in any of these actions, while I have gone to great pains to show examples of your doing these very things. > (3) Arguments from faith are ineffective You mean arguments based on working backwards from the conclusion are invalid? Great!! Finally, we're in agreement! > 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: ... The fact that you feel wishful thinking of any sort is "far more acceptable" than debunking wishful thinking notions has very ominous consequences, Michael. It means that, by your reasoning, no one is obliged to justify their thinking or beliefs (or actions) based on any facts, it is just "OK" to believe whatever you want. Nazis? The Moral Majority? Their beliefs are fine; who am I, the feeble Rich Rosen (or you, the equally feeble Michael Ellis), to question these "philosophies"? How dare I!!!!!!!!!! Like this... >> 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. > (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. Unfortunately for your "side", Michael, I don't hold any "geocentric" (or anthropocentric) theories. Even if you are given your exception (fine), do you have any means of showing how this affects the mind THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO, TO ACHIEVE THE EFFECT YOU WANT? You are indeed working backwards from a desired conclusion, and that is neither scientific nor logical, and in my opinion it barely qualifies as rational thought at all (it does in that it shows enough knowledge of reason to attempt to manipulate it in a bizarre way to "prove" an idea). > (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. And how does this provide us with an enhancement to our choice processes to allow us to choose to do things without regard to the way our brains happen to be made up? Or isn't that relevant? Or have we deliberately changed "our" definition so that this no longer matters? > Clearly you have read these arguments. I have never seen any > rebuttal from you. You most certainly have, time and again. Your response consisted of nonsense poems and insulting attacks for not listening to you. So much for your desire to have a reasoned "philosophical argument". You apologized once before for going off into some other world and behaving weirdly. Perhaps a re-examination (and apology) is in order again. > Yet somehow you continue to insist that indeterministic arguments are > illogical. Why? Gee, Michael, I'm beginning to see your point. An "indeterministic argument" can be used to prove anything. With that sort of reasoning, it's no wonder you "reach" the conclusions you reach and then feel nothing wrong in working backwards to (at will) building new axioms to suit you. > (3) The `mechanisms of indeterminism' are not defined? Huh?? :-) Thought you'd like that. Was wondering if you'd catch it. Actually, that's the point I make above. You have no idea how these indeterministic phenomena in turn cause the free will you "want". But to you it's irrelevant: with indeterminism, you don't have to explain anything, do you? What caused that? Nothing... > Do you mean that there is no mathematical model? If so, > you are wrong -- QM is an extremely accurate mathematical model. Where is your mathematical model for how THAT mathematical model causes the effects that you desire in the human brain? > Or do you mean that until deterministic description is > found, indeterminism is invalid? No, I mean that until you have a model that is viable and shows how your pet phenomenon causes the effects you "want", your theories are nothing but wishful thinking. Period. > 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? I don't. I never have. Probably never will. (Unless someone comes up with an explanation for hidden variable causes for quantum phenomenon currently unknown to us---something you are so sure will never happen, you say it in an almost (nay, in a more than) religious tone!). But, again, I have never denied the existence of quantum phenomena, yet you have never shown how such phenomena affect the definition or my position. Considering that so far you've gotten both the definition of free will and my statements about QM totally wrong (and in so doing, deliberately denigrated my intellect to the readers of the newsgroup for no reason), I think a re-evaluation of what you've been saying is in order. > 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 doubt Michael intended to have these questions answered; they are phrased so as to seem rhetorical and shed a bad light on the "askee". No, I only read the net; no, I never doubt my own beliefs/opinions; no, I don't know what empirical evidence means. Are those the answers you wanted so as to "get" your conclusion (this time about me) to be "true"? -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (10/03/85)
>>>>>All those who believe in free will must of necessity and implication >>>>>believe in souls. >> 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 ... One of my pet projects is to try to have the "existence of the soul" (or the non-existence of the soul) added as an axiom to various theories in order to investigate the consequences. (without any religious doctrine or speculation about God included, hopefully.) Anyone willing to comment? Does the above lead to logical contradictions? Thanks very much, -Tom tedrick@berkeley