rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/13/85)
> Third -- just what is the connection between the chemicals' `random > behavior' and the `agent of choice'? Blind insistence that such > randomness is the cause of the agent's choice, rather than the effect, > (or even something else..) seems most unconvincing to me. Of course it does. You already have a specific conclusion in mind. That's hardly an example of logical reasoning and rigorous scientific method to understand the universe. >> 2) If the agent of choice does not reside in the physical world, then >>it is an external agent... > >>{Furthermore a `ghost-in-the-machine', in turn, must have some >> mechanism itself that causes it to decide, thus, it does not >> have free will} > > This presupposes that all phenomena, even in a hypothetical universe, > must be reduceable to causal connections among mechanistic parts. > > Suppose that `in the non-physical universe' of the `ghost-in-the-machine', > agents have no `internal mechanisms'? Or if they do, that such mechanisms > do not fully `determine' the choice of the agent? Describe what you mean by "non-physical universe". I contend that such an obliquely defined term has its basis in wishful thinking that leads to a preconceived conclusion. Where is the boundary between physical and non- physical? At the limits of human observation? But that changes with each generation, taking the microscope as an example of the alteration of that boundary. If not that boundary then what? I contend "no boundary at all". That which is simply is, and the desire to distinguish between a "physical" and a "non-physical" is bogus in the extreme, seeking to prove a presumption about what one desires in the "non-physical". > Rich has pointed out that one of the problems with Free Will is the > inability of its proponents to supply an adequate noncontradictory > definition. I concur with this criticism, and wish to add that existing > philosophical language seems to be unable to grasp known scientific > phenomena as well. On the contrary, I have pointed out that the definition as it stands directly implies the whole "ghost in the machine" phenomenon. What Torek has referred to as rational evaluative capabilities I agree DOES exist, but that alone doesn't qualify as the free will that people have been debating about for centuries. > Many intuitive ideas force themselves upon us, not because they are > consistent with our flawed preconceptions of the universe, but because > they suggest a deeper truth than our language and philosophical > notions can capture. > > Maybe `Free Will' is such an idea. > > SMASH CAUSALITY!! Many such ideas are also rooted in wishful thinking. "SMASH IRRATIONALITY!" would seem a better cause to put exclamation points after. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr