wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (08/25/83)
Reply to Rich Rosen: [In this article I am referring to points made by ittvax!vex... First of all, it's "ittvax!wex"; it's my oppponents who are vex'ed (:-). Second, I sign my name at the end of all my articles, but just for you, it's "Alan Wexelblat." I will use the term "external agent" to describe that which causes intelligent beings to make decision and do things without natural physical cause. This term is probably an exact equivalent functional definition of "soul", without the religious/afterlife connotations. Fine, so long as you stick to it (which you don't; see below). Free will advocates declare that the actions that intelligent beings take are not /predictable/ by using physical laws... Wrong. Free will advocates (in the philosophical sense) argue that the all actions of an intelligent agent are not *causally determined* by physical laws. Some actions may be so determined; these are called involuntary. For example, if someone pushes me down a flight of stairs, my actions are fully determined by the laws of physics. Therefore, my falling is an involuntary action. Some actions may be partially determined by causal influences. For example, if, when I am falling, I decide to tuck my body and roll, then the fall-roll that follows is voluntary to exactly the degree that I am able to influence the involuntary fall. Determinists claim that ALL actions and decisions are the result of physical and chemical processes and thus all of history has already been written (in effect). Correct, except that for "the result of physical and chemical processes," I would substitute "fully determined by physical and chemical processes." Freewillers, having read articles on quantum mechanics... say that the unpredictability at the subatomic, "fundamental" particle level /proves/ that, since the universe is not "pre-determined", there is free will. This is, of course, a completely false statement. Let's take the errors in order: 1) "fundamental" is quoted to indicate that the author really doesn't beleive that the particles are the most fundamental possible. If he knew anything about physics, he would know that quarks are (by definition) one-dimensional particles; that is, they are points, in the mathematical/geometric sense. In order to define a particle more basic than a point in space-time, the entire concept of space-time as we know it will have to be revamped. Most physicist don't think that this is possible, let alone likely. 2) I said nothing about "freewillers" in general. I just said that in *my* discussions with people who knew physics... Please watch your generalizations. 3) It is a fact that the universe cannot be causally determined in the way that determinists would have it. If determinism is correct, then all of quantum physics is wrong, an instance I consider highly unlikely. 4) Determinism, when applied to the internal workings of the brain, requires analysis of very low-level items (DNA bits, and neuro-transmitters, for example). And, as we have already seen, when you get down to that level, quantum indeterminacies become large. Causality only appears to work at a macro-level. There IS a middle ground that is probably more believable. The course of the events in the universe cannot be predicted, but this does not mean that the "choices" that we make are ordered by 'free will' (they are just as much rooted in physical/chemcal laws as a ball falling from the top of a building). This is a claim without support. I've supported my side, why do you not support yours? You separate "desires" from "causality". Why? This is a mis-interpretation on your part. What I said is that desires can exist, and be quite strong, without having any causative force. I said nothing about the origin of desires. Remember that desire without cause implies an external agent, and you have refuted the notion of a soul. First, desire without cause DOES NOT imply any such agent, and second, I have yet to say ANYTHING about a soul. You are committing the error you earlier said you wouldn't make. ...it is reasonable to believe that [biochemistry] DOES WORK to perform the functions that you attribute to " beings with enough intelligence to esape the chain of causality". Why is this reasonable? I have already given reasons why I do not think that it is reasonable. Just because we don't understand the fundamental processes behind something doesn't mean that its roots lie in something mystical Who said anything about mysticism? This is the "error of the assumption of soul" again. --Alan Wexelblat decvax!ittvax!wex
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (08/29/83)
To Alan Vexelblat (ittvax!vex): in response to his response to ... 1) You say that free will claims that 'the actions of an intelligent agent are not causally determined'. Fine. You then say that there ARE actions that are causally determined, and these are INVOLUNTARY (e.g., being pushed down a flight of stairs). But then you say that your decision to tuck your body and roll is somehow outside of the causal realm. What about your acquiring that knowledge that tucking and rolling is a good idea in such a situation? What about that knowledge being stored away in the furrows of your brain? What about your brain, working as it should, recalling that knowledge and causing you to employ that knowledge? I think even you would agree that these events had to have taken place before you could make such a decision. We diverge when you say 'I decide' and we mean two different things. I claim that the 'I decide to...' is perfectly understandable through cause and effect: the 'knowledge' stored in your brain, and the chemicals therein, made the choice.. What if you were drunk/stoned, or thinking about something else entirely during the event, and your brain couldn't handle that sort of quick processing to recall the needed knowledge? The 'I' that does the 'deciding' is nothing more than your current biochemical state. I'm not saying that we know what really goes on at that level, or even (based on modern physics theory) that it can be determined in advance. Just that your decisions are just as much within the realm of causality as other actions. 2) You say that, in my article, "...'fundamental' is quoted [in reference to 'fundamental' particles] to indicate that the particles are not the most fundamental possible" in my opinion. Well, it's not just MY opinion. The field of particle physics has found many other sub-sub-atomic particles including the wino (pronounced weeno), the gluino, etc. I shared a house with a particle physicist who has worked at Stanford, Princeton, and CERN in Geneva, and he agrees that the trend in particle physics is that we may never find a truly fundamental particle. So there. It looks like you are one of those that I referred to in my article, with regard to reading about quarks in People magazine (or was it the Enquirer?? :-)). (By the way, we've also (my friend and I) discussed the notion that particle physicists, theorists and experimentalists work together. A theory is formulated, and experimentalists work to prove it through observation. They discover the new particle as predicted by the theory, but wait... there's mass left over. There must be another particle!!! In this way, particle physicists ensure their permanent employment by never finding a fundamental particle :-) By the way, the DNA bits you speak of are not quite small enough to fit into the area of physics you are talking about where "quantum indeterminancies become quite large". Even if this were true, doesn't that mean that your actions are caused by these very "indeterminancies" and not by your free will?? 3) I have said over and over again----Just because modern physics refutes determinism, that doesn't mean that you have free will!! (Just because the water isn't hot, that doesn't make it cold!!) 4) You claim that I do not support my notions of "indeterminism", or modified determinism, or whatever someone chooses to call it (the originator of ideas often has no control over what people eventually call them). Yet you state quite clearly "I said nothing about the origin of desires." That is the truest thing you HAVE said. You HAVE said nothing about the origin of desires. So when do you start supplying support for your ideas? In reality, my idea of the middle ground between determinism and free will is not an idea in and of itself. I am only claiming that current scientific understanding applies to what you choose to call 'thought', 'desire', etc. YOU are the one claiming otherwise. 5) I will ask one more time, and this time I hope to get a reasonable answer----If "desire without cause" does not imply an external agent, then what is doing the desiring? Surely not our physical selves; they exist in the physical and obey physical laws. Also please [re]phrase your reasons why you think that attributing it all to biochemistry is unreasonable. You say that you have stated your objections to this, but I don't remember seeing any. 6) Finally, you accuse me of re-using and abusing the word soul. I used the word 'soul' in a paraphrase of your previous article where you said that you refute that notion. Elsewhere in the article I use the term 'external agent' to refer to that which does the desiring and deciding outside of the physical realm. I'm sorry if this confused you. I'm also sorry for the tone of this article. If it seems a bit abrasive, it's partially because it's late, and partially because I'm frustrated in getting answers. I use this abrasiveness not to attack, but to drive the point home and hopefully get some thinking (and answers) out of you. I'm sorry, your time's up and I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr