ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (04/15/85)
>.. everyone is aware of the existence of randomness. Unfortunately >randomness is not useful for analyzing the concept of free will that >interests many of us (i.e. where it is the determiner of responsibility >/blame). > >If someone was discussing the difficulty getting to Finland, your response >is analagous to saying "but you're forgetting that you could just rent >a car !!". We're all aware that you can rent a car, but unfortunately, >the problem being discussed centered around how to cross the Atlantic, >for which the possession of a car is irrelevant. > Geoffery Clemm Please clarify -- I fail to understand this analogy, and I most definitely disagree with your conclusion! In the meantime, I'll expand my position, which is primarily directed at those who believe in a universe ruled by physical laws... ======================================================================== To date, I have heard NO arguments against free will except ones coming from those who accept the basic tenets and conclusions of science. Let's examine the scientific viewpoint in greater detail. In the one corner, we hear statements such as: > Those who advocate a notion of free will would claim that there is > something more, that allows a person, based on the same input in exactly the > same environment with the same current "brain state", to have some sort of > choice independent of those variables. I don't see any reason to believe > that. > Behavior is fully determined by one's chemicals Here we have the classical, mechanistic view of the universe which ascribes causal relationships between everything that happens. This view is very common today, given the overwhelming success of the western science. Some people find such a mechanistic viewpoint unsatifying, exemplified by statements such as: > Why love anyone? If you don't it is no reflection on you. > It is just what my chemicals make me do... > Why care about how elegant your code is? It is easier to be sloppy, and no > reflection on you if you are. You couldn't change it -- it is just how your > chemicals came out. I claim that the scientific worldview is hardly as depressing as the above statement would lead one to believe. In fact, such a viewpoint is profoundly unscientific, because of: 1. Quantum randomness -- not just loss of accuracy in measurement, but a total loss of definite meaning to such expressions as `the state of a particle at a moment in time' (check out any current discussion of `hidden variables'), the effect of which has been to limit causality such that the present no longer determines exactly what must happen in the future; instead, an infinite number of possible futures may arise from a given moment. The randomness IS NOT the randomness of a fully deterministic but unviewable world; it is the randomness of a world that will not, IN PRINCIPLE, allow the next moment to be derived from the present. Even hardcore believers in western science cannot escape the fact that this implies, philosophically: The scientific worldview is, by its own decree, incomplete. 2. The predominance of irreversible, nonlinear processes in our universe, having the property that an infinitesimal variation at time t0 can give rise to a large variation at time t0 + x. In human terms, this means that: * Single quantum events can and do cause macroscopic effects. The breakdown of causality is not confinined to the microscopic. * > The flapping of a single butterfly's wings may eventually result in > the change in global weather patterns everywhere. Thus, macroscopic events are unpredictable, nondeterministic, just as microscopic ones are. At every causal junction, there is inherent acausality. Whatever it is that `completes' the physical universe, it is not determined, it is not causal, it is not knowable. This randomness may or may not be of interest to the lover of free will. However, given the current primitive state of our knowledge of the brain, it is certainly too early to dismiss free will. More than ever before, science seems to allow a universe in which free will can exist; it demands that macroscopic, acausal phenomena must occur within the brain, as in everything. To those who find randamness unsatisfying in support of free will, I ask: `how else would free will manifest itself to a mechanistic viewpoint other than as random behavior?' ======================================================================== > Without evidence showing verifiable evidence of a thing's existence, or its > observed effect on the "physical" world, via Occam people would generally > assume that it does not exist until evidence of a viable nature presents > itself. The *possibility* that it may exist is left open, but such a > possibility evinces itself if and only if evidence is presented to support > it. Do you believe that you have thoughts? If so, why? Can you objectively demonstrate their existence? There is no way to objectively prove (or disprove) the existence of any subjective phenomenon. Sorry -- for us, the universe is forever split between the seen and the seer by our very nature as beings with outward-directed senses. Originally, the scientific viewpoint began as another way to see things. It developed into a powerful tool -- so powerful that nearly everyone who acquires this tool forgets that there is any other way to see things. It sounds as though you have irrevocably crossed outward and cannot get back in: > Rich, it is a very strange notion of ``I'' that you have that can exist > without a belief in free will. What does ``gain'' mean in the absense > of free will? what does ``enjoy'' mean? More importantly, what does > ``I'' mean? Very little, I would say. Regardless of how effectively objective analysis may describe HOW the chemicals in my brain may interact to behave as me, the analysis will forever be incomplete, since the description is inherently OBJECTIVE -- whereas I am at first principles a SUBJECTIVE phenomenon. If I behaved as Rich Rosen suggested -- if I denied everything that was unprovable by science -- in spite of the subjective facts -- would I not be any more foolish than those who deny everything not fitting into their religious dogma -- in spite of the objective facts? There are many things my mind can `feel' that science may never be able to explain, just as there are many things science can explain that my `spirit' will never be able to comprehend. Should I, as some suggest, discard evrything `unscientific', simply because it is not scientifically explainable today? If so, I must deny my passions, my inuitions, my thoughts, my self. I prefer to let my rationality and spirit each rule their appropriate realms in harmony. > Until recently...the external universe appeared to be an automaton > following deterministic causal laws, in contrast with the > spontaneous activity...we experience. The two worlds are now drawing > closer together -- Ilya Prigogine `Order out of Chaos' -michael
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/18/85)
I am not all that sanguine that quantum randomness helps in a search for personal responsibility. I would expect whatever quantum events occurred to average out over the long haul and not have that much of an effect on my brain as a whole. I keep getting this image of a robot marching down the street and then a large bubble descending over the robot in cartoon fashion with red and orange lightning surrounding ***QUANTUM RANDOMNESS HERE*** in flashing yellow letters. Poof! the robot does random unreasonable things! I don't want to walk around entirely determined punctuated by periods of utterly random behaviour. Somehow that does not fit my notion of how I behave at all... (snickers from the peanut gallery who think I behave like that indeed... :-) ). Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/19/85)
> To date, I have heard NO arguments against free will except ones > coming from those who accept the basic tenets and conclusions > of science. Let's examine the scientific viewpoint in greater detail. > [MICHAEL ELLIS] More importantly, let's find out what it is that people like Wingate, and Creighton, and Ellis, see in "the basic tenets and conclusions of science". Unfortunately, I think we will find that their disagreement with said tenets and conclusions (involving use of reliable evidence and stringent analytical technique) stems simply from the fact that they don't LIKE the conclusions: it does not fit in with THEIR desired perception of the world, and thus (to such people) it MUST be wrong! >>Those who advocate a notion of free will would claim that there is >>something more, that allows a person, based on the same input in exactly the >>same environment with the same current "brain state", to have some sort of >>choice independent of those variables. I don't see any reason to believe >>that. Behavior is fully determined by one's chemicals ... > Here we have the classical, mechanistic view of the universe which > ascribes causal relationships between everything that happens. > This view is very common today, given the overwhelming success of > the western science. Some people find such a mechanistic viewpoint > unsatifying, exemplified by statements such as: > > > Why love anyone? If you don't it is no reflection on you. > > It is just what my chemicals make me do... > > Why care about how elegant your code is? It is easier to be sloppy, and no > > reflection on you if you are. You couldn't change it -- it is just how your > > chemicals came out. [LAURA, I think...] I still don't understand. Because "some people" are "unsatisfied" with the "viewpoint", we are obliged to alter it to make them feel "satisfied"? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to try to cultivate a sense of reality in such people, explaining why not having the world the way you want it to be does not mean an end to all reasons for living? Isn't that how we bring up children, in relation to their short-term wants? ("I want that toy now!") Such people are simply demanding a different sort of toy (that they wish to exist) on a longer term basis. > I claim that the scientific worldview is hardly as depressing as the > above statement would lead one to believe. In fact, such a viewpoint is > profoundly unscientific, because of: > > 1. Quantum randomness -- not just loss of accuracy in measurement, > but a total loss of definite meaning to such expressions as `the state > of a particle at a moment in time' (check out any current discussion > of `hidden variables'), the effect of which has been to limit causality > such that the present no longer determines exactly what must happen > in the future; instead, an infinite number of possible futures may > arise from a given moment. That's not exactly clear as a consequence of quantum physics, though many interpret it that way and somehow make it seems like a justification for things like free will. Remember, though, that free will is just like determinism---both require a determiner, one an individual determiner, the other a universal determiner. Or, less presumptively, there could be no determiner in evidence. > The randomness IS NOT the randomness of a fully deterministic but > unviewable world; it is the randomness of a world that > will not, IN PRINCIPLE, allow the next moment to be derived from the > present. > > Even hardcore believers in western science cannot escape the fact > that this implies, philosophically: > > The scientific worldview is, by its own decree, incomplete. By its own admission. Certain other worldviews purport themselves to be complete, or more complete. The basis for doing so is not careful analysis of facts, not evaluation of evidence, but wishful thinking. > 2. The predominance of irreversible, nonlinear processes in our universe, > having the property that an infinitesimal variation at time t0 can > give rise to a large variation at time t0 + x. > > In human terms, this means that: > > * Single quantum events can and do cause macroscopic effects. The > breakdown of causality is not confinined to the microscopic. But does a "will" cause the quantum events? Be careful to note what you are saying: you are claiming that a human will is directing quantum events to achieve a particular, "chosen" effect. > * > The flapping of a single butterfly's wings may eventually result in > > the change in global weather patterns everywhere. But no one says that it was "determined" that this would be so. By anything. >>Without evidence showing verifiable evidence of a thing's existence, or its >>observed effect on the "physical" world, via Occam people would generally >>assume that it does not exist until evidence of a viable nature presents >>itself. The *possibility* that it may exist is left open, but such a >>possibility evinces itself if and only if evidence is presented to support >>it. > Do you believe that you have thoughts? If so, why? Can you objectively > demonstrate their existence? No more or less than I could objectively in toto demonstrate the existence of anything. Any thoughts I have (and such things do flutter by in my head once in a while) are the very constructs that lead me to think further or to take action. > Originally, the scientific viewpoint began as another way to see > things. It developed into a powerful tool -- so powerful that > nearly everyone who acquires this tool forgets that there is any > other way to see things. The "scientific viewpoint", as somehow disparagingly labelled by some, is nothing more than the utilization of the best and most objective means of observing phenomena. When people make such remarks about "science", realize that all they are saying is that "the best way doesn't allow for my wishful thinking perspective, so let's use some other way that does". >>Rich, it is a very strange notion of ``I'' that you have that can exist >>without a belief in free will. What does ``gain'' mean in the absense >>of free will? what does ``enjoy'' mean? More importantly, what does >>``I'' mean? Very little, I would say. I went through this in answering whoever wrote this originally (not Ellis, apparently). "I" is nothing but the physical being that IS you (or rather, "me"), and "gain" for "me" would involve anything that causes an improvement in the life of that being that is "me". > If I behaved as Rich Rosen suggested -- if I denied everything that > was unprovable by science -- in spite of the subjective facts -- would > I not be any more foolish than those who deny everything not fitting > into their religious dogma -- in spite of the objective facts? Whoa! Do I "suggest" ways to behave? I don't *deny* that which unprovable by science, I simply take it for what it is---pure speculation. If the speculation is based on some reasonable analysis, fine. If it's based solely on "this is how I want to perceive the world to be", I take it with more than a grain of salt. And I don't often use salt. > There are many things my mind can `feel' that science may never be > able to explain, just as there are many things science can explain > that my `spirit' will never be able to comprehend. Should I, as > some suggest, discard evrything `unscientific', simply because > it is not scientifically explainable today? If so, I must deny > my passions, my inuitions, my thoughts, my self. In relation to your own experience, there's no reason to "deny". You only need to realize the difference between your passions/intuitions and the real world may be quite real. I once stated that intuition in and of itself is not necessarily a "good" or "correct" means of arriving at conclusions. There is good and bad intuition. An intuition is good if its bears itself out in the real world. Perhaps those geniuses who use intuition so well can intuitively (?) tell when their intuition is good... -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr