ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (03/10/85)
>To argue that there might be something outside of cause and effect >that is somehow related to our conciousness is so far from the >common understanding of the word "free" that the expression "free >will" as it is commonly interpreted in philosophy should be replaced >with something suitable to what is being discussed. Apparently, thinking in strictly causal terms has become so ingrained to western minds that we have forgotten how to perceive things any other kind of way. Forgive me if I appear to be completely in the ozone, but the overwhelming sentiment in a vast quantity of metaphysical writings seems to be that one's awareness is directly proportional to one's freedom from the realm of cause and effect. A clear depiction of the vehicle by which such pure awareness may be attained can be found in Revelations, where the angel announces: "And there shall be time no longer" ...thereby destroying the very fabric that links causes to effects. The scientific viewpoint can barely parse such utterances, naturally enough. Science, after all, is SUPPOSED to explain everything in terms of cause and effect. -michael LightFlash put a question to Nothing's There `Are you something, sir? Or isn't anything there?'
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (03/13/85)
> A clear depiction of the vehicle by which such pure awareness may be > attained can be found in Revelations, where the angel announces: > > "And there shall be time no longer" As with many religious utterances, this one is semantically void. It is particularly silly when you realize how time-oriented are the phrases "shall be" and "no longer". So, there will be a point in time after which there is no time, but before which there is? I have trouble with most so-called metaphysical writing because it is so fuzzy and analytically weak. Mostly it is an attempt to sound very convincing about a particular silly idea that is believed without basis. The very moment you choose to try to convince someone of something, you have entered into the world of logic, proof, and analysis, i.e., science. This is fundamental in the nature of human discourse. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
schwadro@aecom.UUCP (David Schwadron) (03/13/85)
> The scientific viewpoint can barely parse such utterances, naturally > enough. Science, after all, is SUPPOSED to explain everything in terms > of cause and effect. > > -michael Well, maybe free will is a product of the quantum uncertainty of our neurons firing. Science does have provisions for randomness, a lack of cause-effect structure. It's called quantum mechanics. There is even a minimum uncertainty (I think, though I'm not sure :-)) inherent. I have a side question: Must cause precede effect?? michab ....aecom!berger
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (03/16/85)
>Well, maybe free will is a product of the quantum uncertainty of >our neurons firing. I think the biggest problem with thinking of free will this way is that you have no argument that there is an agent that *controls* these quantum events, thus the "will" in "free will" is void. And the multiple worlds view says that all the possible decisions that might derive from the various combinations of quantum events get made, in one universe or another. It seems to me that the notion of free will requires an agent that causes without being caused, and is not consonant with random or all-cases-occurring events. >I have a side question: Must cause precede effect?? A friend did a lot of work in this area, and one of his conclusions was that there is no coherent model of causality which allows for backward causation. That is, if you try to come up with a definition of causality which subsumes common sense notions, inherent in that definition is always a directed temporal flow between cause and effect. I don't know how to to state this is a way that convinces, but the basic way to determine an answer to the above question with some degree of confidence is to *formally define* the terms. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (03/18/85)
In article <1247@aecom.UUCP> schwadro@aecom.UUCP (David Schwadron) writes: >> ....... Science, after all, is SUPPOSED to explain everything in terms >> of cause and effect. >> >> -michael > >Well, maybe free will is a product of the quantum uncertainty of >our neurons firing. Science does have provisions for randomness, >a lack of cause-effect structure. It's called quantum mechanics. There are some interesting parallels here to some ideas in parapsychology. That is that impressions of a PSI nature occur due to possible quantum level interactions with neurons in the brain. The more suface level "noise" so to speak is diminished the more the subtle normally subconcious information can be recognized at higher levels. To give a real example that happened to me: A week before Thanksgiving some years ago I was driving home from work when for no apparent reason I found myself thinking of someone I met frequently at a university computing center. Having presence of mind to realize that thoughts which do not follow from any previous thoughts often can be PSI related I made a mental note of this. The next day he called to tell me that his wife had suggested they invite someone over for Thanksgiving. When he told me this I boldly stated that he and his wife were probably discussing me at around 4:30 the previous day. The silence on the phone was more than enough to know I had hit right on the mark. These things happen to me enough to completely dismiss the thought of it being coincidence. If it was only a few times I would consider it so. Anyway back to quantum events and the brain. One theory goes that there are enough event firings going on in the neurons that in effect a lot of "random" noise is present and that PSI influences may come about due to interactions on the "random generator" portion of the brain. Interesting stuff this, if it turns out to have any basis in fact. >I have a side question: Must cause precede effect?? I have found some reasons to think that cause and effect are somehow actually intertwined in ways we can only now barely imagine. Wish I could tune in 50 or 100 years from now and see how our standard concepts of time and space have changed (if any.) Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
schwadro@aecom.UUCP (David Schwadron) (03/20/85)
> >Well, maybe free will is a product of the quantum uncertainty of > >our neurons firing. > > I think the biggest problem with thinking of free will this way is that > you have no argument that there is an agent that *controls* these quantum > events, thus the "will" in "free will" is void. And the multiple worlds > view says that all the possible decisions that might derive from the > various combinations of quantum events get made, in one universe or another. > It seems to me that the notion of free will requires an agent that causes > without being caused, and is not consonant with random or all-cases-occurring > events. > > >I have a side question: Must cause precede effect?? > > A friend did a lot of work in this area, and one of his conclusions was > that there is no coherent model of causality which allows for backward > causation. That is, if you try to come up with a definition of causality > which subsumes common sense notions, inherent in that definition is always a > directed temporal flow between cause and effect. I don't know how to to > state this is a way that convinces, but the basic way to determine an answer > to the above question with some degree of confidence is to *formally define* > the terms. > > -- Jim Balter (ima!jim) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Thanks Jim. Just one question, defign "will". The "free" can be defigned as an event without a cause, but what about "will". That the decision was made because the agent wanted to make it??? michab A Fugue in One Voice ...!philabs!aecom!berger
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (03/20/85)
>> "And there shall be time no longer" > >As with many religious utterances, this one is semantically void. >It is particularly silly when you realize how time-oriented are the phrases >"shall be" and "no longer". So, there will be a point in time after which >there is no time, but before which there is? I have trouble with most >so-called metaphysical writing because it is so fuzzy and analytically weak. >Mostly it is an attempt to sound very convincing about a particular >silly idea that is believed without basis. The very moment you choose >to try to convince someone of something, you have entered into the world >of logic, proof, and analysis, i.e., science. This is fundamental in the >nature of human discourse. Don't current astrophysical theories conclude that there was a "time" before which time did not exist (i.e., before the Big Bang), and there may be a "time" after which time will no longer exist (after the collapse, if the universe is closed)? The language is paradoxical, I grant; "time", "before", and "after" may need careful redefinition to make it sound less "fuzzy". But if such apparent fuzziness can arise when attempting to put astrophysics into everyday language, should we be surprised that metaphysics has the same difficulty? - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (04/02/85)
>> >> >I have a side question: Must cause precede effect?? >> >> A friend did a lot of work in this area, and one of his conclusions was >> that there is no coherent model of causality which allows for backward >> causation. That is, if you try to come up with a definition of causality >> which subsumes common sense notions, inherent in that definition is always >> a directed temporal flow between cause and effect. I don't know how to to >> state this is a way that convinces, but the basic way to determine an >> answer to the above question with some degree of confidence is to *formally >> define* the terms. I believe that Goedel came up with a simple universe, consistent within Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, that allows legal (slower than light) signals to eventually enter their past history cones. -michael