jim@ISM780B.UUCP (07/16/85)
[Rosen] What about the evidence that all that goes on in the brain is purely chemical in nature, that the way decisions and thoughts are contained and organized in the brain has purely chemical roots, and the LACK of evidence pointing to anything otherwise (other than the old standby wishful thinking)? Doesn't that count as a reason to shirk obsolete and erroneous nomenclature? [Balter] This is seems to be the point that you continually try to drive home, but it is a straw man because neither Torek nor I have disputed it. Rather, we have argued that Free Will is a term usefully applied at a macro level as *relatively* descriptive of decision processes. The nearly tautological statement that these decision processes have mechanical origin is not one I consider relevant. You quote dictionary definitions which define freedom as independent of external influence, but treat them as absolutes; either behavior is absolutely free, or it is not; so if you show that all behavior has deterministic roots, you feel you can blast the word "free" from the dictionary. But I don't think the lexicographist would agree with your usage of his definition; the definition is intended as a relative term; actions are *relatively free*, within a *context*. If you say that satin is smooth, a microscopic demonstration of its graininess will not contradict your statement, because your statement was *relative*, within a context of *smoothness of fabrics*. Likewise, I say behavior is free, I am saying that it is relatively free within the context of other behaviors. Free has a meaning within that context which is independent of its meaning at a lower level of description, just as smoothness at the macro level is independent of smoothness at the microscopic level. If you want to debate or refute this claim about levels of discourse, please do it without again, repeatedly, pointing out that things are made up of their components, and of denying qualitities at the macro level via an inductive argument from the micro level. You have been doing so for months and months and it is really truly getting boring. Even if you are aboslutely completely right, and Torek and I are complete dunderheads, repeating it again won't make it any more right or suddenly blast through our dunderheadedness to enlightenment. [Torek] Now, you would probably argue that "root level" examinations show that we should ABANDON our concept of free will; I disagree -- what's your evidence? [Rosen] As I said above, what's YOUR evidence that something MORE goes on in the brain than the chemical processes therein? Unless and until you have some, I think we can shirk erroneous notions like "free will". [Balter] Just to reiterate in context: Torek and I consider the claim that nothing more goes on in the brain to be irrelevant, so asking us for evidence of more is silly. We consider the notion of free will *not to be "erroneous" even given that*. So, the burden is on you to demonstrate that the notion of free will is "erroneous" even given that all behavior is deterministic. You may consider it obvious, but you are clearly wrong operationally, since some reasonable people don't find it so, and have given reasons why they find the term relevant and useful even given determinsism, and even given your dictionary definitions. If you really believe that you are just arguing with blind silly people, then just say so and drop the argument, instead of repeating yourself. [Torek] Nothing ELSE is going on besides the chemical processes. BUT -- the "free will" is THE SAME processes accurately described on a "macro" level. [Rosen] Again, the sun is "rising" at a macro level. Is it in fact changing position at all (with reference to the solar system at large) in relation to the earth, or is it the earth that revolves causing a PERCEIVED rising and falling? Are you saying we should ignore what actually goes on in the solar system so that we can continue to claim that the sun "rises" and "falls"? Or that we have "free" "will"? [Balter] You have turned this totally on its head. Obviously Paul knows what really goes on in the solar system, and of course he (and I, and a whole lot of other people) wants to "continue to claim" (look at all that connotative slime!) that the sun rises and falls; it does rise and fall, in the sense that its vertical distance from the horizon changes; that is a useful notion. What *you* apparently want to do is deny that the sun rises and falls, because of what you know about its behavior relative to the Earth, just as you want to deny that "free will" can be descriptive, because of what you know of brain processes. But to claim that that the notion of free will is erroneous is about as silly as to claim that the notion of a horizon is erroneous, which you must do if you truly want to claim that the notion of a rising and falling sun is erroneous. They are all descriptive terms *within a certain context*. This is my last posting in this debate of whether free will is a meaningful or useful notion unless you or anyone else wish to introduce some new material or argument which has not been previously presented. I may continue to discuss details of defining the term in a useful way if I find the time. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/19/85)
> [Rosen] > What about the evidence that all that goes on in the brain is purely chemical > in nature, that the way decisions and thoughts are contained and organized > in the brain has purely chemical roots, and the LACK of evidence pointing > to anything otherwise (other than the old standby wishful thinking)? Doesn't > that count as a reason to shirk obsolete and erroneous nomenclature? > [Balter] > This is seems to be the point that you continually try to drive home, but > it is a straw man because neither Torek nor I have disputed it. Rather, > we have argued that Free Will is a term usefully applied at a macro level > as *relatively* descriptive of decision processes. The nearly tautological > statement that these decision processes have mechanical origin is not one > I consider relevant. That's funny. I consider it quite relevant. It would seem that the only reason you find them irrelevant is because they interfere with your belief in free will, and you don't seem to want anything to cause interference of any sort there. I have mentioned more than once that the description of the beginning of a day as the "sun rising" is "correct" on a macro level, but shown to be completely erroneous when we look at what's really going on. That's what I'm attempting to do here. > [BALTER]: You quote dictionary definitions which define freedom > as independent of external influence, but treat them as absolutes; either > behavior is absolutely free, or it is not; so if you show that all behavior > has deterministic roots, you feel you can blast the word "free" from the > dictionary. But I don't think the lexicographist would agree with your usage > of his definition; the definition is intended as a relative term; actions are > *relatively free*, within a *context*. Free has a meaning within that > context which is independent of its meaning at a lower level of description, > just as smoothness at the macro level is independent of smoothness at the > microscopic level. If you say that satin is smooth, a microscopic > demonstration of its graininess will not contradict your statement, because > your statement was *relative*, within a context of *smoothness of fabrics*. > Likewise, I say behavior is free, I am saying that it is relatively free > within the context of other behaviors. (1) A thing is smooth or not smooth based on the size of what is rubbing against it. To a paramecium it certainly wouldn't be smooth. Freedom is freedom at all levels or at none. (2) "Relatively free" sounds like "relatively pregnant". If only your hand is shackled to the wall, are you "relatively free". If your current actions are fully dependent on the content of your brain which was determined by previous actions, are you free at all? > If you want to debate or refute this > claim about levels of discourse, please do it without again, repeatedly, > pointing out that things are made up of their components, and of denying > qualities at the macro level via an inductive argument from the micro > level. You have been doing so for months and months and it is really truly > getting boring. Even if you are aboslutely completely right, and Torek and I > are complete dunderheads, repeating it again won't make it any more right or > suddenly blast through our dunderheadedness to enlightenment. If you are dunderheads, then it would nice to show your position as dunderheaded. I don't think you're dunderheaded, just under an incredible misconception rooted in a need for the world to HAVE to offer you "freedom". I will continue to point it out because, as I mentioned, it seems that the only reason the point is "not liked" is because it shows the flaw in the whole model of "free will", and some people JUST WON'T have that! > [Torek] > Now, you would probably argue that "root level" examinations show that > we should ABANDON our concept of free will; I disagree -- what's your > evidence? > [Rosen] > As I said above, what's YOUR evidence that something MORE goes on in the brain > than the chemical processes therein? Unless and until you have some, I think > we can shirk erroneous notions like "free will". > [Balter] > Just to reiterate in context: Torek and I consider the claim that nothing > more goes on in the brain to be irrelevant, so asking us for evidence of more > is silly. We consider the notion of free will *not to be "erroneous" even > given that*. So, the burden is on you to demonstrate that the notion of > free will is "erroneous" even given that all behavior is deterministic. > You may consider it obvious, but you are clearly wrong operationally, > since some reasonable people don't find it so, and have given reasons why > they find the term relevant and useful even given determinsism, and even > given your dictionary definitions. Wait a minute! Other people hold the same beliefs as you, therefore I am "clearly wrong"? My debate with Paul has centered on his definition of free, which seems to revolve around "free" = "ability to act rationally", and clearly (if anything is clear) this is what is wrong. In a physically determined universe (whether fully predictively determined by law or not), one cannot have free will precisely because the agent of action and choice is BOUND by its chemical make-up, which is determined by prior experiences of the person. One would require the non-causal external agent that Ellis speaks of in order to have free will, and I see no reason or evidence to support THAT. > If you really believe that you are just arguing with blind silly people, > then just say so and drop the argument, instead of repeating yourself. If I did believe that I would have done so long ago. It is precisely because I believe I am talking to people with brains capable of thinking once some presumptive and wishful thinking baggage is gotten rid of, that I continue ANY of the discussions I partake in. > [Torek] > Nothing ELSE is going on besides the chemical processes. BUT -- the > "free will" is THE SAME processes accurately described on a "macro" level. > [Rosen] > Again, the sun is "rising" at a macro level. Is it in fact changing position > at all (with reference to the solar system at large) in relation to the earth, > or is it the earth that revolves causing a PERCEIVED rising and falling? > Are you saying we should ignore what actually goes on in the solar system > so that we can continue to claim that the sun "rises" and "falls"? Or that > we have "free" "will"? > [Balter] > You have turned this totally on its head. Obviously Paul knows what really > goes on in the solar system, and of course he (and I, and a whole lot of > other people) wants to "continue to claim" (look at all that connotative > slime!) that the sun rises and falls; it does rise and fall, in the sense > that its vertical distance from the horizon changes; that is a useful notion. But clearly a false one. That's my point. It is "useful" TO HUMANS for descriptive purposes, but it is still hugely inaccurate in reality. It is the same with "free will". > [Balter] > This is my last posting in this debate of whether free will is a meaningful > or useful notion unless you or anyone else wish to introduce some > new material or argument which has not been previously presented. In other words, you choose to ignore my points because they interfere with your beliefs, so you're leaving the argument. Fine. Sounds like we're in the wrong newsgroup. :-? -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr