ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (07/31/85)
>> A cause of behavior is not strictly external if it operates through "man" >> and his "volition". The DIRECT causes of intelligent behavior are INTERNAL >> to "man" and "volition", even if those causes have in turn other causes >> which are external. [Rich] > >However, once you admit that they do... GOTCHA!! Ain't no "freedom". 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. -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/02/85)
>>> A cause of behavior is not strictly external if it operates through "man" >>> and his "volition". The DIRECT causes of intelligent behavior are INTERNAL >>> to "man" and "volition", even if those causes have in turn other causes >>> which are external. [Rich] <==== actually Paul, but who's counting? >>However, once you admit that they do... GOTCHA!! Ain't no "freedom". >> {THIS was me -- RLR} > 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. > > -michael 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. Now, who's assuming what? -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/05/85)
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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/07/85)
>>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. [ROSEN] > 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. > [WINGATE] (I'm so tempted to say something on the order of "net.jokes is upstairs, two newsgroups to the left", but I'll resist.) "No evidence against the *possibility*"? Surely there's also no evidence against the possibility that submicroscopic giraffes from space hidden in our brain perform all our "free will" functions for it, connecting the wishes of our "soul" to the physical body (their necks, of course, reaching into hyperspace to a realm we know not of, ooh!). Yes, indeed, plenty of human behavior APPEARS to be random, Charley. Plenty of lots of things APPEAR to be random, but on closer examination, we find something holding it together. A bit more complex than some people who prefer one-sentence explanations for things ("God did it!"), but perhaps they're just too lazy to examine things in that dreaded "scientific" way. One look at the universe, one careful look, will show you how many "random" things really have very simple physical processes at their root, complexly interweaving with each other to give the illusion of "randomness" to the casual (or causal---oh, I used that one before, sorry) observer. > Therefore this hypothesis cannot be ruled out-- until experiment demostrates > either its truth of falsity. Until then, Rich, your claim has no basis. Nor my giraffe hypothesis, Charles. It does (and should) have equal weight to yours. All these systems make assumptions. The "scientific" one makes the "assumption" that the same things go on in the brain as everywhere else, and no evidence has been shown to give the brain some special status separate from the rest of the world. The "quasi-religious" one, regarding acausally connected souls and wills and stuff, makes the blatant assumption that the human brain is somehow very different from all other matter (can you say "anthropocentrism"?), without one shred of evidence or even solid speculation into what this very different human brain matter is made up of. > The reader should note that souls never entered into the above discussion. > Why does Rich keep hallucinating them everywhere? A soul is an entity separate from causal reality that foists its "will" onto the physical body, independent of biochemical causality. Since that is the side of the stick you are arguing on, souls are very important to your side of the argument. No, I haven't "seen" souls anywhere in this discussion, so I'm no hallucinating them. The "acausalist" perspective muse of necessity HIDE them from the discussion because the notion is so absurd. That's why we don't "see" them. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/12/85)
In article <1431@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >A soul is an entity separate from causal reality that foists its "will" onto >the physical body, independent of biochemical causality. Since that is the >side of the stick you are arguing on, souls are very important to your >side of the argument. >-- That is actually a rather late definition of "soul". The original definition refers to the "core" of persons self, what we might call "personality" or perhaps "the Id". So even here there is no implication of supernatural acausality. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (08/13/85)
>>>> A cause of behavior is not strictly external if it operates through "man" >>>> and his "volition". The DIRECT causes of intelligent behavior are >>>>INTERNAL to "man" and "volition", even if those causes have in turn >>>> other causes which are external. [Paul] >>>However, once you admit that they do... GOTCHA!! Ain't no "freedom". >>> {THIS was me -- RLR} >> 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. >> >> -michael > >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. Plusgood bellyfeel duckspeak, Brother Rosen. But doubleplusungood oldthink!! Unfortunately, you still speak of the `realm of cause and effect' as if the venerable but obsolete Doctrine of Causality is the one and only reasonable description of the universe. This is neither philosophy or science -- this is defunct religious dogma -- and it is as silly as insisting that Newtonian mechanics is the only true description of the `real world'. Newer Dogmas assert many strange and disturbing things, some of which are at variance with the Holy Reductionistic Principles. For example, compare classical analysis of the solar system to modern analysis of the atom. The solar system can effectively be viewed as an illusion created from genuine worldstuff like mass-energy and time-space. Such orbiting systems possess a fuzzy sort of integrity, indeed, but it is difficult to distinguish or categorize the continuum of macroscopic all such gravitational systems. It is understandable that a person might prefer to view such systems as `nonentities' that are `truly composed of real things' like mass-energy and space-time. Atoms, on the other hand, are highly cohesive entities that display integrity perhaps equal to that of their constituent subparticles. They can absorb disturbances and eventually return precisely to their original states, unlike classical orbiting systems. This integrity, which results in the macroscopic reality of our periodic table of elements, not to mention the entire stability of our macroworld, is historically the reason for their discovery. Are {protons, electrons, neutrons, &c} the `illusions' and atoms the `real identities' or vice versa? Why must we select any level of description as `real', when presented with reliably cohesive entities that can be understood on their own terms? What profoundly distinguishes quantum systems from classical ones is the amazing emergence of totally unanticipated properties when systems of quantum objects fuse. Individual photons blend into `real' waves. Electrons merge into undifferentiated fuzzy clouds. Quantum systems DO instantaneously comunicate state information across macroscopic distances acausally. The bizarre unity predicted by Bell's interconnectedness theorem is a now another genuine quantum giraffe for you to kill, Rich. There is hard Scientific Evidence. QM as a description of the Evidence is as perfect a tool as science has ever created. John Von Neumann, also of computer science fame, has proved that no traditional model based on `common sense' objects and causal descriptions can possibly underlie its verifiably correct assertions, and this proof is widely accepted by the QM community. Bell's interconnectedness theorem PROOVES that `acausal connections' must be present at all levels, macroscopic or otherwise, independently of the validity of QM. There is Rigorous Analysis. (BTW, Von Neumann also proposed a theory that human consciousness somehow underlies `reality', which is not so widely accepted..) I recommend that you spend more time reading about the Evidence and using a bit of Rigorous Objectified Thought and less time expelling Archaic Dogma. How can we encourage Correct Understanding of the Evidence evolve when our Mouthpiece is deluded by obsolete Heresies? >>Does Michael have an example of such acausality? Evidence that it holds >>in the human brain? It is hard scientific fact that a single quantum event can be consciously perceived by the human sensory apparatus. Under certain circumstances, humans can see individual photons. [While I have been writing this article, Todd Moody has submitted two excellent articles titled `Acausal Brain Activity', wherein he discusses the relevance of QM to electron transfer across synaptic gaps] You must demonstrate some rigorous analysis if you wish to slay the evil quantum giraffes, Rich, and cease chanting ineffective assertions of faith. >>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. [ROSEN] Thou oldthinkest doubleplusungoodwise, Brother Rosen! Your `Crusade against Theology' is inspiring, Brother Rosen, and your enthusiasm is to be commended. Keep those Wishful Metaphysicists out of here!! But your ignorance is damaging the Glorious Crusade against the Evil Religionists. Brother Rosen, do you know that the Sacred Causality of the Macroworld is but a (HORRORS!) lowly emergent phenomenon? And your same reductionistic argument that has been repeated in this newsgroup ad nauseam: one's high level behavior must be causal because it is composed of causal subphenomena ..can just as handily be employed to argue the converse: one's high level behavior must be acausal because it is made of acausal subphenomena They both have truth, and there is no point choosing sides. Several months ago I presented another argument (taken from Ilya Prigogine's `Order out of Chaos') which you totally ignored, Rich. I will repeat it: The behavior predicted by linear thermodynamics is stable, predictable, and tends towards a minimum level activity even though it is based on acausal quantum behavior. But biological systems possess nonlinear thermodynamic behavior, full of feedback loops and catastrophes that MAGNIFY whatever randomness exists at points of bifurcation. The predictability of Carnot's linear model is thus IN PRINCIPLE impossible in nonlinear thermodynamic systems. Prigogine goes on to explain how unity can emerge from the chaos of far-from-equilibrium states, and, if fed by a constant energy source, ultimately give rise to evolution. This is sloppy, I know, but I am not a scientist. You might read it yourself, though you probably won't, as you are so busy writing articles denouncing acausality. I'll offer this quote Prigogine's book: "Both at the macroscopic and microscopic levels, the natural sciences have "rid themselves of a conception of objective reality that implied novelty "and diversity had to be denied in the name of universal laws. They have "rid themselves of a fascination with a rationality taken as closed and a "knowledge seen as nearly achieved. They are now open to the unexpected, "which they no longer define as the reult of imperfect knowledge or "insufficient control. omnia ex nihil -michael
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (08/13/85)
>> But there is no evidence against the possibility >> that some behavior does in fact (for instance) reflect quantum fluctuations. >> [WINGATE] > >"No evidence against the *possibility*"? Surely there's also no evidence >against the possibility that submicroscopic giraffes from space hidden in >our brain perform all our "free will" functions for it, connecting the wishes >of our "soul" to the physical body (their necks, of course, reaching into >hyperspace to a realm we know not of, ooh!).[ROSEN] I would agree that quantum uncertainty is not a very powerful argument for free will, but that just makes your insistance on pure determinism that much harder to understand. Do you have some "wishful- thinking" attachment to pure determinism, or have you simply failed to realize that allowing a random factor in physical events does not equate to allowing free will, or any kind of will for that matter? The two issues are slightly related, but only slightly. I'll concede this much: it's possible your juggernaut approach to arguing free will, your way of crushing the life out of anything presented as being pro-free-will on a sentence-by-sentence basis, has simply obscured your real opinion on this side-issue of QM. If so, perhaps you should clarify: do you *really* equate the idea of genuinely random events with "submicroscopic giraffes", or is it just the supernatural implications you see in any notion of "free will" that you want to ridicule? If you think QM is off the topic, fine; but say so. If you're really disputing the validity of QM, though, how about some reasons? >Yes, indeed, plenty of >human behavior APPEARS to be random, Charley. Plenty of lots of things >APPEAR to be random, but on closer examination, we find something holding >it together. A bit more complex than some people who prefer one-sentence >explanations for things ("God did it!"), but perhaps they're just too lazy >to examine things in that dreaded "scientific" way. One look at the universe, >one careful look, will show you how many "random" things really have very >simple physical processes at their root, complexly interweaving with each >other to give the illusion of "randomness" to the casual (or causal---oh, >I used that one before, sorry) observer. 20th century science does *not* come down on the side of strict determinism. Quantum effects are not just things that appear to be governed by statistical processes because of the inadequacy of our ability to make fine enough measurements; they *are*, *fundamentally*, statistical in nature, with a genuine random element. There *is* no cause for some specific atom of U-235 to decay at the precise moment that it did; it was random, uncaused. Yes, there is still a minority view in physics that holds to a strict causality. But if your intent is to support that position, you should really at least take the trouble to address yourself a bit to the issues, which are physical, not philosophical. This arrogant insistance that pure determinism speaks with the Voice of Science is simply wrong. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/16/85)
> I would agree that quantum uncertainty is not a very powerful > argument for free will, but that just makes your insistance on pure > determinism that much harder to understand. Do you have some "wishful- > thinking" attachment to pure determinism, or have you simply failed to > realize that allowing a random factor in physical events does not equate > to allowing free will, or any kind of will for that matter? The two issues > are slightly related, but only slightly. If at all. I don't know where you get my "insistance on pure determinism". What I insist on is a little rigorous thinking, not "well this isn't true, this bit about determinism, so surely MY idea that I like so much must be true". Perhaps you are wishfully thinking that I am wishfully thinking? > I'll concede this much: it's possible your juggernaut approach > to arguing free will, your way of crushing the life out of anything presented > as being pro-free-will on a sentence-by-sentence basis, has simply obscured > your real opinion on this side-issue of QM. If so, perhaps you should > clarify: do you *really* equate the idea of genuinely random events with > "submicroscopic giraffes", or is it just the supernatural implications > you see in any notion of "free will" that you want to ridicule? If you > think QM is off the topic, fine; but say so. If you're really disputing > the validity of QM, though, how about some reasons? I'm really sorry. The notion of submicroscopic giraffes was NOT (repeat, NOT) intended to be some sort of analogy to QM. Apparently some people seem to have gotten that impression. It was just a fun fabricated notion like Ubizmo (uhoh, now I've incurred his wrath!! :-) . The point was that anybody could take any notion and proclaim that "there is no evidence against this possibility". When I hear people scream this in support of some notion that depicts the world the way they like to think of it regardless of reality, I cry a "wishful thinking" foul. And rightfully so. This holds for the notion that "well, there's INdeterminism at the quantum level, therefore we have free will". >>Yes, indeed, plenty of >>human behavior APPEARS to be random, Charley. Plenty of lots of things >>APPEAR to be random, but on closer examination, we find something holding >>it together. A bit more complex than some people who prefer one-sentence >>explanations for things ("God did it!"), but perhaps they're just too lazy >>to examine things in that dreaded "scientific" way. One look at the universe, >>one careful look, will show you how many "random" things really have very >>simple physical processes at their root, complexly interweaving with each >>other to give the illusion of "randomness" to the casual (or causal---oh, >>I used that one before, sorry) observer. > 20th century science does *not* come down on the > side of strict determinism. Quantum effects are not just things that > appear to be governed by statistical processes because of the inadequacy > of our ability to make fine enough measurements; they *are*, *fundamentally*, > statistical in nature, with a genuine random element. There *is* no cause > for some specific atom of U-235 to decay at the precise moment that it > did; it was random, uncaused. Within what frame? I mean, how are you sure (if not by faith) that factors in dimensions/whatever unobservable (currently) by us are not causing the cause? But more importantly, in what way does this relate to what I describe above, the way some people simply don't want to get down to the root of what's going on and say "Oh, the human brain (ENVISION MRS. CONCLUSION OR SOME OTHER PYTHONITE IN DRAG HERE), well, that's got so many complex factors controlling what goes on, it must be random." "Or free will." "Or God." "Oh, intercourse the photino!" > Yes, there is still a minority view in physics that holds to > a strict causality. But if your intent is to support that position, > you should really at least take the trouble to address yourself a bit > to the issues, which are physical, not philosophical. This arrogant > insistance that pure determinism speaks with the Voice of Science is > simply wrong. To quote Michael Ellis, THIS IS RELIGION (actually to quote John Lydon, whom Ellis failed to credit, surprisingly). "Simply wrong"? Hmm, isn't that awful religious sounding to you? -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/17/85)
First, I already said that the "submicroscopic giraffes" line was NOT an allusion to quantum theory, but was simply an example of another wishful thinking notion for which there was "no evidence against the possibility". (Big deal.) Second, these two things could equally be referred to as "religious dogma". 1) The notion of holding to causality as a dogma even though it has been proved not to exist. 2) The notion of causality being "proved" not to exist because science has ultimately shown acausal phenomena. The second one sounds awful dogmatic, too, don't it, Mike? -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr