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)