Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Dice and Hypotheses (and Flaming Swords)
Message-ID: <1221@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 11:11:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1221
Posted: Wed Aug 14 11:11:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 22:00:24 EDT
References: <1478@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 93

In article <1478@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:


>> 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.

Odd how you use that phrase "worst case".  Seems like you are hardly one to
talk about other's emotional investment in their arguments.  As for a "will",
you seem to have a very primitive idea of what it is.  You seem determined
to take it to mean some metaphysical entity.  I think it's much more
reasonable to take it to mean "the decision-making faculty of the mind".
This is consistent with what my dictionary says, and neither includes nor
excludes souls.  If the will can ultimately be traced to quantum fluctuations,
then it's hard to see how it can be called anything but free at this time.

In any case, the question is largely moot, since at this point no
hypothesis about how the mind decides has any experimental 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?

Once again Rich has me wondering about his intellectual integrity.  Rich,
for your information, the only thing we know about the brain that we also
about the rest of existence is that it (presumably) doesn't violate the
laws of physics as we now perceive them.  These laws include random processes,
so the brain may indeed make random choices.  Our ignorance of anything else
about how the brain functions and produces consciousness (whatever that is)
is almost absolute.  There's no basis for saying, for instance, that "since
mechanics is deterministic, so is the brain" or any similar analogy.  We
simply don't know enough about the brain to justify any such analogy-- not
even in chemistry.

>> 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.

Wrong.  That's your outdated concept, not mine.  It's highly intuitive to
talk about the Will as if it were a being, but I think it's quite sufficient
to define it as a process.

>> 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...

I think it should be abundantly clear by now who it is that clings to this
spirtualistic model of Wills.

Charley Wingate

  "Are they friendly spirits?"