Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!think!ISM780B!jim
From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Mechanism and Determinism
Message-ID: <27500092@ISM780B.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Aug-85 16:09:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ISM780B.27500092
Posted: Sun Aug 11 16:09:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 02:52:51 EDT
References: <573@mmintl.UUCP>
Lines: 40
Nf-ID: #R:mmintl:-57300:ISM780B:27500092:000:2634
Nf-From: ISM780B!jim    Aug 11 16:09:00 1985


>2) The universe is mechanistic, but there is some way in which free will
>   is a meaningful concept in such a universe.  Frankly, I can't imagine
>   what such a conception would be.  One can give definitions such as
>   r.e.a., but these don't match my subjective experience.

Consider free will as human-relative; to the degree that you are not aware
of the mechanisms of your behavior, you will subjectively feel free.
If you determine that most of your feelings about Communism have been
conditioned by years of propaganda independent of fact, you will subjectively
feel less free about your ability to make rational decisions about it.
If you measure and watch your blood pressure, heart rate, and adrenal activity
increase when you hear the words "Khomeini", "Kaddafi", "Reagan",
"terrorist", "Socialism", etc., you are likely to get a stronger subjective
sense of being controlled or influenced, as opposed to being independent
and rational (discriminating but un-prejudiced).  I think that you, Rosen,
and others have sufficiently demonstrated the absurdity of the notion of
absolute freedom.  But it seems clear to me that people use the word freedom
in a useful fashion; it is a *relative* term.  As soon as you open your mouth
to speak or lift your fingers to type, you have suspended, consciously or
unconsciously, your awareness or concern about the absolute mechanistic
nature of the universe.  I doubt very much that you are sitting there
wondering what the mechanisms will lead you to type next.  You have entered
into the charade of freedom.  The word is meaningful within the context
of the game being played.  Why do we play the game?  Why is there subjective
experience?  The best answer I can think of is that there must be subjective
experience in a world where we experience it.  If we were in a world were
there were none, then we wouldn't be asking the question.
It like the person winning the lottery thinking s/he is special; someone had
to win, and whoever it is is likely to think the same way.
Even if there are very few planets with sentient life, we aren't special
or blessed to live on one; we wouldn't exist otherwise.  Why is the universe
Einsteinian and not Newtonian?  Well if it were Newtonian we would be asking
the other question (actually, Newtonian physics probably isn't rich enough
to give rise to structures complex enough to be sentient).  I think all
religion, nationality, prejudice, libertarianism, etc. arises from this deep
but irrational egocentrism: we think we are special to be the way we are,
rather than recognizing the a posteriori necessity of it.

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)