wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (08/24/83)
Larry, you're arguing against yourself: You say that you beleive in the principle of taking the simplest possible explanation, and then spend 40+ lines explaining a possible chemistry in the brain (which, by the way, you've vastly oversimplified, if not outright mis-represented. Unfortunately, I don't have my texts handy). My explanation, however, is much more simple: All this chemistry you mention can produce an *urge* to act. However, since I am not compelled (in a causal sense) to act, I choose not to. Period. The concept of free will is far simpler than the theory of causal brain chemistry (which is not to say that "I'm right, and you're wrong," merely to say that you're arguing against yourself). --Alan Wexelblat decvax!ittvax!wex
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (08/25/83)
Larry, you're arguing against yourself: Oh, must be bad chemicals in my brain. :*). You say that you beleive in the principle of taking the simplest possible explanation, and then spend 40+ lines explaining a possible chemistry in the brain (which, by the way, you've vastly oversimplified, if not outright mis-represented. Unfortunately, I don't have my texts handy). If you want more detail on the Triune Brain Concept, I suggest reading anything by Paul D. MacClean (sorry, I don't have any titles). He is the head of some brain research institute at NIH. In the Psychology book used at MIT, the Triune Brain Theory seems to be generally accepted. My explanation, however, is much more simple: All this chemistry you mention can produce an *urge* to act. However, since I am not compelled (in a causal sense) to act, I choose not to. Period. The concept of free will is far simpler than the theory of causal brain chemistry (which is not to say that "I'm right, and you're wrong," merely to say that you're arguing against yourself). Your explaination is NOT more simple. My explaination says that chemistry we observe happening in the brain causes our actions. You say there is something else. BUt you also have to explain what those chemical reactions do, therefore your argument is more complex because you've added in an extra factor without removing anything. -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) {linus decvax}!genrad!grkermit!larry (ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-ai
mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore) (08/27/83)
from Alan Wexelblat: Larry, you're arguing against yourself: You say that you beleive in the principle of taking the simplest possible explanation, and then spend 40+ lines explaining a possible chemistry in the brain (which, by the way, you've vastly oversimplified, if not outright mis-represented. Unfortunately, I don't have my texts handy). My explanation, however, is much more simple: All this chemistry you mention can produce an *urge* to act. However, since I am not compelled (in a causal sense) to act, I choose not to. Period. The concept of free will is far simpler than the theory of causal brain chemistry (which is not to say that "I'm right, and you're wrong," merely to say that you're arguing against yourself). in a similar manner, i can provide a much simpler explanation of keplers laws than newton's: the planets orbit the sun in ellipses not because of some complicated force law, but simply because they do. period. a simple explanation is one that is complete and not unnecessarily complicated. a simplistic explanation is one that is uncomplicated becuase it is not complete. mARK bLOORE univ of toronto {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!mark