Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: net.philobotomy
Message-ID: <544@spar.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 10:59:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.544
Posted: Thu Sep 26 10:59:32 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 07:37:26 EDT
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 139

>>>All those who believe in free will must of necessity and implication
>>>believe in souls.  There is of course nothing to stop a person from
>>>holding two contradictory beliefs.  It's just a sign that they haven't
>>>thought things through.  [ROSEN]

>> I see.  "I don't care what they say, I know that they believe in souls!"
>> I always wondered why I never understood Objectivity.  I always that it had
>> something to do with evidence, but obviously I was wrong. [WINGATE]

>God, you are a flaming asshole.  Can you read?  Honestly?  I'll go through
>that whole three sentence paragraph very slowly.  (I'm sorry to all readers
>for the tone, but the sheer arrogance of Charle's invective smacks of crude
>stupidity and not much else.) [ROSEN]

    Even assuming (free will = spontaneous behavior), how can you
    possibly call Charles a `flaming asshole' when the empirical
    evidence, from electrons to galaxies, is entirely against you,
    Rich?
    
    Denying spontaneity is as stupid as denying (weak) determinism.

    Of course, you are free to hold two contradictory beliefs (knowledge
    of the world is derived from empirical evidence VS. the universe is
    totally deterministic), but then that makes your arguments no more
    valid than those from spiritualists who believe in noncausal
    supernatural entities.

>Souls are a required implication of belief in free will by the definition.

    And strict determinism, unsupported by empirical evidence, is a
    required implication of belief in a universe totally knowable by
    human rationality -- even more anthropocentric than a universe run by
    a supernatural but unknowable consiousness.

    I do not believe either way -- however, the analogy is offered to
    illustrate that strict determinism historically represents the
    gutted remnants of our JudeoChristian religious heritage.

    Several bits of advice to Rich...

    (1) Physical assertions cannot be disproved by defective or obsolete
        scientific arguments. 

	At best, you may demonstrate the possibility of the existence of
	a phenomenon to the degree that it behaves according to those
	defective/obsolete scientific laws.

        For example, classical determinism only explains certain physical
	phenomena (and not perfectly). Why then, must anyone be compelled
	to accept the nonexistence of spontaneous behavior when the brain,
	whose behavior was impervious to the classical approach,
	is known to exhibit high level nondeterministic behavior?
	
    (2) Hypocrisy breeds contempt.

	You frequently accuse others of wishful thinking, misusing
	science for nonscientific purposes, non-rigorous thought,
	ignoring evidence, twisting your words, falsely attributing
	beliefs you, or using abusive arguments, yet you refuse to see
	these precise qualities in yourself. Is it any wonder that people
	flame at you? 

    (3) Arguments from faith are ineffective

	You frequently harass others for holding nonlogical axioms --
	such as faith in God. But as long as such ides are openly and
	honestly admitted to be axioms, not presented as propaganda,  not
	contradictory to the either science or logic, AND NOT CLAIMED TO
	BE SUPERIOR TO OTHER POINTS OF VIEW, they are far more acceptable
	in what purports to be a philosophical forum than your usual
	repeated insistence that others OUGHT TO BELIEVE SUCH
	ANTI-SCIENTIFIC baloney as:

> Fine, but you miss two things.  1) You have think you have found
> some exception to the "rule" of determinism (say, for example,
> quantum phenomena), but it is only wishful thinking (and assuming
> your conclusions) to believe that some unrelated phenomenon
> affects the "mind" in the way that you seem to want it to, to
> achieve the effect you want.  Aside from the apparent inability
> of antideterminists to define mechanisms of indeterminism, all
> you have left is your wishful thinking and working backwards from
> your conclusion to "support" your claim.

    Comments:

    (1) We think we have found "some exception to the rule of
        determinism"?  Is Rich now going to tell us that the
	world is flat? After that, I suppose he will also tell
	us about his latest geocentric theories. 

    (2) Empirical evidence shows that individual quantum phenomena
        affect high-level conscious behavior, both in the visual
	apparatus, and across synaptic gaps (see [1] attached).
	Finally, nonlinear thermodynamic arguments require that
	whatever fluxuations occur at bifurcations determine
	the macro-behavior of biochemical systems.

	Clearly you have read these arguments. I have never seen any
	rebuttal from you. Yet somehow you continue to insist that
	indeterministic arguments are illogical. Why?

    (3) The `mechanisms of indeterminism' are not defined? Huh??

	Do you mean that there is no mathematical model? If so,
	you are wrong -- QM is an extremely accurate mathematical model.

        Or do you mean that until deterministic description is
	found, indeterminism is invalid? 

    How can you say others are wishfully thinking, or assuming
    conclusions to achieve wanted effects, when you deny the validity of
    QM (an empirically accurate model) based solely on archaic
    deterministic preconceptions?

    Some questions for Rich:

    Do you ever read anything besides DrivelNet articles?
    Do you ever doubt your own beliefs and opinions?
    Do you know what `empirical evidence' means?

    I challenge you to read ANY vaguely reputable scientific journal
    (Science, or even Scientific American) for 3 consecutive months;
    likewise, any reasonable introductory philosophy text (Russell,
    Copleston, WT Jones).
   
-michael

[1] From Todd Moody:

Rich Rosen has asked whether there is any evidence of acausal activity
in the human brain.  Well, the diameter of a synaptic vesicle is about
400 angstroms.  The brain activity in which we are interested is
electron transfer across synaptic gaps, via these vesicles.  At this
scale, this activity is subject to quantum indeterminacy (if you
prefer, neural activity has a significant Brownian component).  Thus,
even though the relatively large scale, protein-type interactions
within a single neuron are subject to classical causation, the
interactions between neurons are not *entirely* explainable in
classical terms.