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!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Dice and Hypotheses Message-ID: <1478@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 10:10:51 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1478 Posted: Mon Aug 12 10:10:51 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 20:39:30 EDT References: <1100@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1431@pyuxd.UUCP> <1180@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 103 >>>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] >>"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!). [ROSEN] > Ah, so THAT's what makes quantum mechanics work! Rich, I'm so glad you told > me so that I can throw out all that silly randomness stuff away. I mean, I > should never have questioned a great expert on molecular neurology like you. > [End heavy sarcasm mode, for those of you who didn't notice] > Unfortunately for your feeble argument,Rich, quantum mechanics is established > science. Molecular neurology is down on a scale level where things like > uncertainty begin to have a noticeable effect. The fact of the matter is, > our current level of understanding does not permit us to say, "yes, these > effects are important," or "no, they are not." There is no scientific basis > for your claims, Rich. Funny how Wingate accepts "established science" (almost like a religion?) only when it suits his purposes. Sorry, Charley, still no dice. In the worst case scenario, your position offers a random synapse firing, not a "free will". And that still doesn't account for what you hope to get out of it. >> 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 observer. > And some things really are random. Which things, Charley? >>>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. > As the straw army marches on, we see Rich contradicting himself again. > Remember all that talk about Occam's Razor? Is not Rich's quantum giraffe > such an unnecessary complication? The "quantum" and "deterministic" > hypotheses, on the other hand, introduce nothing new. We already have > quantum randomness. But YOU introduce a good deal of "new" (presumed) material on top of that to complete your scenario. Who's the general of this straw army, Private Wingate? > There simply is no basis at this time for Rich to flatly > say that his hypothesis is right and mine is wrong. Science simply isn't > like that. When someone has actually determined what is really going on > down at those synapse, then maybe Rich will have a leg to stand on. May the worst straw man lose. > OK, Rich, then why do keep acting as if I were arguing for the existence of > souls? Is it because you still think that I and Jerry Falwell hold exactly > the same religious beliefs? Could you please, please step off of your > pedestal and find out what's going on out here in the real world of theology? > Rather than attribute to me what you wish I believed? If you don't wish to > attribute this belief in souls to me, then why do you bring it up so often? Then what is the mechanism of free will you wish for? If not a "soul", what name do you give it? The entity itself is still required in your model. > For your edification, the question of souls has largely become a dead issue > in my church. We have ceased to believe in souls. We are quite content to > have material brains, with no outside directors. Good for "we". > Rich seems to me to be > erroneously implying that I am using quantum mechanics as a trapdoor to let > souls in from the supernatural. It isn't necessary. It's simply sufficient > to point out that, if quantum mechanics do play a part in the workings of > the brain, that the chain of causality so necessary to Rich's position leads > to nowhere. All it leads you to is a scenario with randomness at the particle level that offers no notion of either free will or anything else, unless you add in your preconceptions. If only you applied your stalwart defense of this "established science" to the rest of scientific knowledge... -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr