Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Cohesive Unity
Message-ID: <1431@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 08:49:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1431
Posted: Wed Aug  7 08:49:15 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 02:28:35 EDT
References: <1386@pyuxd.UUCP> <1100@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 66

>>Uh, yeah, right.  Let's be sure we know who's assuming what here.  Only in
>>your little "smash-causality" mindset, in which you ASSUME the existence
>>of something outside the realm of cause and effect in order to make your
>>wishes fit, does this make any sense.  Does Michael have an example of
>>such acausality?  Evidence that it holds in the human brain?  More and
>>more people (thankfully) seems to be realizing that just because something
>>appears to be so complex that we cannot understand its inner workings and
>>make predictions from them, that does NOT mean the innerworkings are 
>>"acausal".  It only seems that way to the casual (or causal) observer,
>>especially the ones who WANT to see that mystical soul or force as part
>>of the conclusion. [ROSEN]

> Sorry, Rich; the burden of proof is on you.  Plenty of human behavior appears
> to be random.  YOU need to demonstrate that this is an illusion, by showing
> the basis for such behavior.  At present there is no such theory which has
> truly been subjected to experimental verification.  Therefore you must be
> asserting a priori that, since outside of quantum fluctuation physics as
> we see it seems strictly causal, we can assume for the moment that this holds
> in the brain as well.  But there is no evidence against the possibility
> that some behavior does in fact (for instance) reflect quantum fluctuations.
> [WINGATE]

(I'm so tempted to say something on the order of "net.jokes is upstairs,
two newsgroups to the left", but I'll resist.)

"No evidence against the *possibility*"?  Surely there's also no evidence
against the possibility that submicroscopic giraffes from space hidden in
our brain perform all our "free will" functions for it, connecting the wishes
of our "soul" to the physical body (their necks, of course, reaching into
hyperspace to a realm we know not of, ooh!).  Yes, indeed, plenty of
human behavior APPEARS to be random, Charley.  Plenty of lots of things
APPEAR to be random, but on closer examination, we find something holding
it together.  A bit more complex than some people who prefer one-sentence
explanations for things ("God did it!"), but perhaps they're just too lazy
to examine things in that dreaded "scientific" way.  One look at the universe,
one careful look, will show you how many "random" things really have very
simple physical processes at their root, complexly interweaving with each
other to give the illusion of "randomness" to the casual (or causal---oh,
I used that one before, sorry) observer.

> Therefore this hypothesis cannot be ruled out-- until experiment demostrates
> either its truth of falsity.  Until then, Rich, your claim has no basis.

Nor my giraffe hypothesis, Charles.  It does (and should) have equal weight
to yours.  All these systems make assumptions.  The "scientific" one
makes the "assumption" that the same things go on in the brain as everywhere
else, and no evidence has been shown to give the brain some special status
separate from the rest of the world.  The "quasi-religious" one, regarding
acausally connected souls and wills and stuff, makes the blatant assumption
that the human brain is somehow very different from all other matter (can
you say "anthropocentrism"?), without one shred of evidence or even solid
speculation into what this very different human brain matter is made up of.

> The reader should note that souls never entered into the above discussion.
> Why does Rich keep hallucinating them everywhere?

A soul is an entity separate from causal reality that foists its "will" onto
the physical body, independent of biochemical causality.  Since that is the
side of the stick you are arguing on, souls are very important to your
side of the argument.  No, I haven't "seen" souls anywhere in this discussion,
so I'm no hallucinating them.  The "acausalist" perspective muse of necessity
HIDE them from the discussion because the notion is so absurd.  That's why we
don't "see" them.
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr