rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/13/85)
Even number of > = me, Odd number = Paul Torek >>>>Now this I remember. This related to your assertion that explanations that >>>>relate closely to overall perceptions are more useful than explaining what >>>>happens at the root level. To which I retorted, "thus it's better to use >>>>the explanation of the sun 'rising' and 'falling' than the actual >>>>occurrence." >>>I don't think I said quite that, though I would basically agree with it. >>>"High-level" explanations (like heat transfer--see below) are more useful >>>most of the time. I do agree with you however that sometimes "root level" >>>examinations show that we should change the way we interpret our "overall >>>perceptions". "Best explanations" as I use the term INCLUDES any such >>>evidence from "root level" examination. >>What about the evidence that all that goes on in the brain is purely chemical >>in nature, that the way decisions and thoughts are contained and organized >>in the brain has purely chemical roots, and the LACK of evidence pointing >>to anything otherwise (other than the old standby wishful thinking)? Doesn't >>that count as a reason to shirk obsolete and erroneous nomenclature? > But the nomenclature of free choice isn't erroneous, due to its co-reference > with the nomenclature of brain processes that underly r-e-a. Due to the fact that YOU assert a co-reference??? Similarity of nomenclature is not proof of anything's existence. And I really don't know what co-reference you're talking about. >>>Now, you would probably argue that "root level" examinations show that >>>we should ABANDON our concept of free will; I disagree -- what's your >>>evidence? >>As I said above, what's YOUR evidence that something MORE goes on in the brain >>than the chemical processes therein? Unless and until you have some, I think >>we can shirk erroneous notions like "free will". > Nothing ELSE is going on besides the chemical processes. BUT -- the > "free will" is THE SAME processes accurately described on a "macro" level. Again, the sun is "rising" at a macro level. Is it in fact changing position at all (with reference to the solar system at large) in relation to the earth, or is it the earth that revolves causing a PERCEIVED rising and falling? Are you saying we should ignore what actually goes on in the solar system so that we can continue to claim that the sun "rises" and "falls"? Or that we have "free" "will"? >>> The reason is that >>> we have plenty of evidence at a "high level" of description for the >>> reality of (e.g.) free choice. Namely, that we do choose things, for >>> intelligent reasons, etc. We don't NEED to look at the neuron level to >>> know that we make many free choices, although it would be nice to have >>> a neurobiological explanation, and we might have to revise some of our >>> ideas about HOW choice works. >>What we "know" is that choices are made based on what goes on in our brains. >>Sometimes "intelligent" (whatever that means), sometimes not. Why does this >>qualify IN ANY WAY as "free"? It clearly doesn't, and thus you can't call >>it "free choice" or "free will", except because you seem to assert it as >>proper usage, and that's not reason enough. > I assert it as proper usage because it IS proper usage to call behavior free > when it's based on the rational evaluations and subsequent choices of the > person. What definition of free has a basis in "rational evaluation"? Apparently only the one you assert for purposes of claiming that this process is "free". Can you show definitions of free based on rational evaluation, or show examples of such usage other than your own? >>>Sure; take the mental process "seeing red" for example. Though I'm no >>>expert on brain biology, as far as I know this mental process is caused >>>rather straightforwardly by certain neural impulses, which would seem to >>>be good evidence that it IS "actually happening internally". >>But we're talking about a particular mental process (supposedly) that you >>call "free will". Take the mental process of "choice" now. As far as I >>know this process is caused by the brain examining its contents (much >>of which has been subjectively obtained) and basing its decision on an >>evaluation of those choices rooted in principles of evaluation learned as >>the experiences contained therein (also obtained with some degree of >>subjectivity). Given that that choice is made on this basis, you can hardly >>call the result "free will". > Why not -- because it "depends on" past experiences? Like I've said before, > as long as it depends on ONE'S OWN experiences, it's independent *in the > relevant sense* (i.e. the person can be described as "an *independent*, > autonomous person"). "Depends on" != "free", as the dictionary and our previous discussions have shwon. Furthermore, the "ONE'S OWN experiences" that you refer to are just past instances of what goes on in the present, which we just showed are not free because they are directly dependent on both the external AND internal world. >>> No, every time you claim(ed) that "they get in the way" I've argued that >>> they don't; I've never said "yes they do but don't look at it that way". >>You've asserted that they don't. I've shown evidence that they do, because >>they contradict the notions you proclaim. ^^^^^^^^^^ > Only according to your misinterpretations of your dictionary. Why are they "misinterpretations"? Because they conflict with your notions, or because you have some logical reasoning that shows why? I think the former. -- Like a vermin (HEY!), shot for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr