rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/01/85)
I just witnessed (by accident) the tail end of a discussion between Ray Smullyan and Mortimer Adler on Buckley's "Firing Line" program. Adler concluded by talking about free will, and claiming that belief in free will is impeded in so-called determinists because they fail to understand the possibility of non-materialist non-causational "causes" for decisions. It would seem that he is thus implying that free will requires a non-material, non-"cause-and-effect"-al basis for our decisions. One that I can only surmise would be described as "external" to "our" (so-called) material universe. (Whatever "external to all things" means?----do we define the material universe to be arbitrarily limited by our limits of observation, or do we define it to mean EVERYTHING, thus debunking the whole notion of "non-material", making the word "material" a redundancy? What exactly is this boundary between physical and non-physical, material and immaterial, if not arbitrary anthropocentric ones, and if this is true what is the basis for making them distinct?) Are you listening, Mr. Torek? It would seem that those who discuss free will are talking in these terms precisely, contrary to your claims. (Where have YOU been, anyway?) (Of course, Michael Ellis is out to smash causality in much the same way tht religious rightists seek to smash "humanism"... Oh well.) -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/04/85)
In article <1039@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >I just witnessed (by accident) the tail end of a discussion between >Ray Smullyan and Mortimer Adler on Buckley's "Firing Line" program. >Adler concluded by talking about free will, and claiming that belief in free >will is impeded in so-called determinists because they fail to understand >the possibility of non-materialist non-causational "causes" for decisions. > >It would seem that he is thus implying that free will requires a non- >material, non-"cause-and-effect"-al basis for our decisions. He didn't just imply that, he stated it in so many words. (I saw the same program.) So, Adler agrees with you -- and you're both wrong. Adler gave no argument for his view on "Firing Line", as far as I could tell. He gives some argument in his book, but not a convincing one. But why don't you read Adler (*Ten Phil. Mistakes*), and if you think his arguments are sound, I'll try to find the holes in them. >Are you listening, Mr. Torek? It would seem that those who discuss free >will are talking in these terms precisely, contrary to your claims. Not ALL of "those who discuss free will". Daniel Dennett is an example of someone who disagrees with Adler, and argues against Adler's position (quite well, I might add!). -- The Aspiring Iconoclast himself.
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/06/85)
>{Rich Rosen} >I just witnessed (by accident) the tail end of a discussion between Ray >Smullyan and Mortimer Adler on Buckley's "Firing Line" program. Adler >concluded by talking about free will, and claiming that belief in free will >is impeded in so-called determinists because they fail to understand the >possibility of non-materialist non-causational "causes" for decisions. >It would seem that he is thus implying that free will requires a >non-material, non-"cause-and-effect"-al basis for our decisions. An acausal connecting principal -- seems I've encountered that before.. >One that I can only surmise would be described as "external" to "our" >(so-called) material universe. (Whatever "external to all things" >means?----do we define the material universe to be arbitrarily limited by >our limits of observation, or do we define it to mean EVERYTHING... >.. thus debunking the whole notion of "non-material", making the word >"material" a redundancy? Individual subjective experience is by definition external to the universe of science, since the scientific method involves by definition phenomena that are verifiable by independent observers. Materialists who point out that all subjective phenomena are in principle manifested by `chemical reactions' should note that, should weird quantum effects play a major role in the chemistry of human awareness, they are dealing with some fairly spooky chemicals. Notably, the constituents of the chemicals behave `randomly' {leaving room for the agent to make a selection} and, apparently, in a way that thwarts reductionism. >What exactly is this boundary between physical and non-physical, material >and immaterial, if not arbitrary anthropocentric ones, and if this is true >what is the basis for making them distinct?) It seems clear to me that the objective and subjective realms are but two viewpoints of the same underlying phenomenon. Each view perceives its own kinds of things more clearly than the other. We keep them distinct because of the necessity of our situation. It is our `architecture' as human beings that cleaves the universe. SMASH CAUSALITY!! -michael
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/08/85)
In article <293@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > Individual subjective experience is by definition external to > the universe of science, since the scientific method involves > by definition phenomena that are verifiable by independent > observers. Does this mean that the social sciences aren't sciences?
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/08/85)
>/* flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) / 6:27 pm Jun 7, 1985 */ >> Individual subjective experience is by definition external to >> the universe of science, since the scientific method involves >> by definition phenomena that are verifiable by independent >> observers. >Does this mean that the social sciences aren't sciences? No, it only limits them.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/13/85)
> Materialists who point out that all subjective phenomena are in > principle manifested by `chemical reactions' should note that, > should weird quantum effects play a major role in the chemistry > of human awareness, they are dealing with some fairly spooky > chemicals. [ELLIS] *Should* they. It would seem that you are putting your cart before your horse. In your neverending vigilant effort to smash causality, you propose ideas that assume your conclusion. You speak of "weird quantum play[ing] a major role in the chemistry of human awareness" as if to say you WANT them to in order that your conclusions will "come true". > SMASH CAUSALITY!! Why? I have to say that anyone whose view of the universe involves a desire to destroy or promote a certain theory rather than seeking the truth about things is not using science, reason, or logic, but personal preference to define the universe. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr