merrill@raja.DEC (Rick) (03/21/85)
Me: How then do you tell the difference between your will and the various
influences impressed upon you?
Thee: One's "will" *IS* the various influences impressed upon one, is it not?
Your statement comes from
an attempt to feel that "everything is under control" called Determinism.
Determinism is itself an outgrowth of Jeudeo-Christian belief that God has
ordered the universe (and life) into a coherent and possibly understandable
whole - i.e. causality per se with God as the prime cause followed by a
succession of cause and effects.
A will is NOT deterministic, however, and is the sole exception to the ordered
universe concept.
From a scientific point of view the will is NOT the sum of various influences
simply because the brain, the personality, the psyche, the ego, the WILL
is/are so complex that randomness of any kind entering the system can come to
dominate the result. Catastrophy Theory
(an outgrowth of Topology Theory) epitomizes this type of
phenomemon. For weather forcasting this could mean that "the beat of a
butterfly's wings in Brazil can affect the weather in New England".
NOW will you answer my question, using any frame of reference you like:
How Do You Tell The Difference Between Your Will And That Of Someone Else?
Someone else: (but it sounds like Thee!)
>>`Free will' is one of my favorite subjects, but most people
>>don't take me seriously. Yes, I believe that there is no free will.
Me:
> We have willed not to take you seriously, therefore we have a will that
> is demonstrably free from yours! :-)
Posted: Thu 21-Mar-1985 08:45 (Maynard_Time)
To: NET$PHILOSOPHY, NET$RELIGIONrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/28/85)
> Me: How then do you tell the difference between your will and the various > influences impressed upon you? [MERRILL] > > Thee: One's "will" *IS* the various influences impressed upon one, is it not? > > Your statement comes from > an attempt to feel that "everything is under control" called Determinism. > Determinism is itself an outgrowth of Jeudeo-Christian belief that God has > ordered the universe (and life) into a coherent and possibly understandable > whole - i.e. causality per se with God as the prime cause followed by a > succession of cause and effects. [MERRILL] I don't know *where* that notion comes from. I thought the notion of determinism was independent of the existence or non-existence of god, that it was based on understanding of ordered relationships between events (cause and effect), and, vis a vis the human mind and free will, there is no evidence to indicate that something "different" occurs with regard to human action and thought. If people do see real evidence of a difference, I'd like to hear that. > From a scientific point of view the will is NOT the sum of various influences > simply because the brain, the personality, the psyche, the ego, the WILL > is/are so complex that randomness of any kind entering the system can come to > dominate the result. Catastrophy Theory > (an outgrowth of Topology Theory) epitomizes this type of > phenomemon. For weather forcasting this could mean that "the beat of a > butterfly's wings in Brazil can affect the weather in New England". Agreed. It all ties together, though perhaps not instantaneously and not directly. > NOW will you answer my question, using any frame of reference you like: > How Do You Tell The Difference Between Your Will And That Of Someone Else? This very question assumes some sort of independence of will as in some ability to exercise independent voluntary control that exists separately in individuals. I'd be foolish to say that my actions are not dependent on the actions of the people and things around me, since those things influence my thoughts, my perceptions, my analysis, my reactions, my intuitions, and my actions. 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. -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/28/85)
I'd be foolish to say that my actions are not dependent on the actions of the people and things around me, since those things influence my thoughts, my perceptions, my analysis, my reactions, my intuitions, and my actions. 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. No, Rich, this is not what (some of us) have been advocating at all. There is a difference between ``dependent on'' and ``determined by''. I do not deny that my actions are dependent upon such things, only that they are determined by them. What I deny is that when I feel as if I am ``making a choice'' that the outcome of that choice is determined by my current brain state. I am arguing that when I make a choice I am really determining which of 2 (or more) possible futures will become the real future in my deciding process, not merely going through a complicated song and dance whose outcome was determined before I was born. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/30/85)
> I'd be foolish to say that my actions are not dependent on the > actions of the people and things around me, since those things > influence my thoughts, my perceptions, my analysis, my > reactions, my intuitions, and my actions. 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. > > No, Rich, this is not what (some of us) have been advocating at all. > There is a difference between ``dependent on'' and ``determined by''. > I do not deny that my actions are dependent upon such things, only that > they are determined by them. What I deny is that when I feel as if I > am ``making a choice'' that the outcome of that choice is determined > by my current brain state. I am arguing that when I make a choice I am > really determining which of 2 (or more) possible futures will become the > real future in my deciding process, not merely going through a complicated > song and dance whose outcome was determined before I was born. [LAURA] 1) Explain exactly where this difference between "dependent on" and "determined by" actually lies. 2) We've gone through the difference between "I feel I am making a choice" and actually having the capability to do so; having that capability directly implies an agent beyond the scope of "physical cause and effect". The determination of two or more possible futures is in fact determined by the "current brain state". If you choose to cite Heisenberg to imply notions of multiple possible futures, you are dealing in the realm of subatomic particles that would seem to be non-determined rather than chosen by an agent. Unless you are implying that the agent directs the actions of the subatomic particles. (Based on/controlled by what?... Oh, sorry, we're talking about agents outside of such a realm.) More importantly, I see no reason for jumping to these wild conclusions about the nature of such "choices". It seems perfectly logical to me that the same things that influence the movements of rocks and streams influences the "brain states". (That's Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Delaware. :-) What reason do you have for feeling that there must be some additional cause of such things? -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr