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-aimark@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