m128abo@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Michael Ellis) (09/12/86)
> Paul Torek > Barry Kort thinks he sees lots of reasons for wanting indeterminism. > But the only uses for it he mentions can be satisfied just as well > by a *pseudo*-random process, i.e., a deterministic one. Therefore, > we've been given no reason for wanting specifically indeterminstic > processes. The only reason I know of to "want" indeterminism is to get that good old existential feeling that things could have turned out differently, that the present is not predetermined, etc.. Whether or not this is important to you probably depends on psychological stuff. Like maybe the indeterminists were breast-fed, and the determinists were probably spanked when they kaka'ed in their pants. Who knows? As I see things, it is pretty damn stupid to "want" to be either deterministic or indeterministic, although given what we know about neurobiology, chemistry, physics, etc.., it seems pretty obvious to me that anyone who thinks we might somehow be deterministic in spite the crushing evidence to the contrary would have to be either totally ignorant of 20th century science or else under the grip of some ideological delusion, or else just possibly a computer nerd type who lives in a deterministic digital universe. If Mental Determinists can submit their 19th century prattle to this newsgroup, I suppose I ought to counter with a hypothesis at least as ridiculous -- Mental Dadaism. According to Mental Dadaism, the mind is pretty much what you think it is. If you prefer your thoughts to march thru your head in a rigid, disciplined, predictable fashion, by golly, that's just what they'll do, and consequently you'll be inclined to think that the brain is deterministic. If you prefer to be mostly undecided, hold many conflicting opinions at the same time, or form thoughts spontaneously, you'll be inclined to think that the brain is indeterministic. -michael The restoration of metaphysics is the restoration of the Oblivion of Being. -Heidegger