rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/28/85)
> A) freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior > causes or divine intervention > B) the belief that man's choices ultimately are or can be voluntary, and > not determined by external causes > > (B) was generally selected as the topic of discussion. > > The indomitable Rich Rosen has argued more ferociously than most. > His argument seems to run, roughly: > > If you have free will, the `agent of choice' must either reside > within the physical world, or without. > > 1)If the agent of choice resides within the physical universe, then it > is just a bunch of chemicals. But chemicals have no power to decide > which course they take: > > ...since their behavior is fully determined. { LATER AMENDED TO: } > ...since their behavior is fully determined by biochemical equations > up to quantum randomness, after which behavior is nondetermined > rather than chosen by an agent. Not "later amended to". I never implied a "fully determined state" at any point. The word "determined" by the way, may erroneously imply some form of "determiner", which I also find no reason to believe in. > 2) If the agent of choice does not reside in the physical world, then > it is an external agent. QED. > > {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} > > Rich, have I represented your arguments accurately? > -michael Aside from the comment above, yup. Any comments from Mr. Torek? -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr