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!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Cohesive Unity Message-ID: <1431@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 08:49:15 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1431 Posted: Wed Aug 7 08:49:15 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 02:28:35 EDT References: <1386@pyuxd.UUCP> <1100@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 66 >>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? More and >>more people (thankfully) seems to be realizing that just because something >>appears to be so complex that we cannot understand its inner workings and >>make predictions from them, that does NOT mean the innerworkings are >>"acausal". It only seems that way to the casual (or causal) observer, >>especially the ones who WANT to see that mystical soul or force as part >>of the conclusion. [ROSEN] > 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] (I'm so tempted to say something on the order of "net.jokes is upstairs, two newsgroups to the left", but I'll resist.) "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!). 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 (or causal---oh, I used that one before, sorry) observer. > 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. 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. > 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. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr