[net.religion] Causality corrected

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