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!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Dice and Hypotheses
Message-ID: <1180@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 10-Aug-85 10:57:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1180
Posted: Sat Aug 10 10:57:46 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 22:37:12 EDT
References: <1100@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1431@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 106

In article <1431@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>>>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?

>> 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.

>"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!).

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.  

>  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.  So what?  This hardly amounts to any kind
of valid scientific reasoning, Rich.  One actually has to break down and
investigate what is really going on, rather than spout irrelevancies about
how such and such a process looked random but really wasn't.  I could just
as well point out how the randomness in quantum mechanical events has
perversely persisted in the face of all attempts to make it go away.  It
doesn't matter.  All that matters is this phenomenon.

>> 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.  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.

>> 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.

>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.

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?

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.  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.

C Wingate