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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: net.philobotomy
Message-ID: <1827@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 10:08:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1827
Posted: Tue Oct  1 10:08:45 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 05:32:46 EDT
References: <544@spar.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 227

>>>>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. [ELLIS]

Well, that's very nice, Michael, because the definition of free will is
NOT "spontaneous behavior".  And I never said that it was.  Perhaps you should
go back to your days of strange and unexplained (acausal?) "Praise Nihil"
poems as a means of argument.  The fact that you believe that I claimed this
about free will may explain some of your bizarre invective.

>     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.

First, you really have yet to show the former definitively, but in any case
(second) you have never shown how lack of determinism (as you see it) has
anything to do with what I have said about free will.  It is not (as you
assert that I said) "spontaneous behavior"; it is (as all your choice
philosophers agreed) the ability to make choices (look up "choose" for
further elaboration) independent of physical constraints including (but not
limited to) one's environment and internal physical (brain) make-up.
Some simply believe in that and assert its truth without explanation.  Others
disbelieve it and state reasons why.  Others build entire systems of new
axioms for no reason other than to "get" the conclusion to be true.

>>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 would love to hear your definition of "supernatural" as contrasted with
"natural".  What is the grand demarcation line?  But, again, you state that
the lack of pure determinism due to quantum level phenomena somehow means that
there IS free will despite the evidence I have presented, without ever quite
showing how that happens.  Again, you have attributed a notion to me (free
will = spontaneous behavior) that has nothing to do with the points I have
made, thus a possible reason for your rather strange tone of late.

>     Several bits of advice to Rich...
>     (1) Physical assertions cannot be disproved by defective or obsolete
>         scientific arguments. 

Which assertions are you talking about?  Are you deliberately being vague
(rapidly become the required status quo among neomystics)?

>         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?
	
But I have shown repeatedly that what you call spontaneous behavior is
not representative of either the known definition of free will or even of
any of the new "proposed" definitions designed to replace the existing one
so we can "get" free will.  If anything, the fact that you claim quantum
phenomena introduces a new variable into brain action indicates to me that
we are LESS free.  It means our actions are dependent on fixed chemical
states in our brain, but also on the chance that someone may put a banana peel
under our feet.  That would hardly make us free.  In fact, even by Paul Torek's
"definition" of free will (r-e-a), you are less free, because even if you
set yourself up to make a "rational" decision through analysis, you are subject
to some random phenomenon making mincemeat of your choice.

>     (2) Hypocrisy breeds contempt.

Is this why I have grown so contemptuous of you?  Have I?  I don't know,
Michael, from someone whose arguments in favor of his position have ranged
from "you are a jerk" (or other randomly non-caused insults) to "Praise Nihil"
poems of dubious content, it sure seems that you are flailing about madly
lately.

> 	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? 

No, it isn't.  It's called projection.  I have never seen an example from
you that showed me engaging in any of these actions, while I have gone to
great pains to show examples of your doing these very things.

>     (3) Arguments from faith are ineffective

You mean arguments based on working backwards from the conclusion are
invalid?  Great!!  Finally, we're in agreement!

> 	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: ...

The fact that you feel wishful thinking of any sort is "far more acceptable"
than debunking wishful thinking notions has very ominous consequences, Michael.
It means that, by your reasoning, no one is obliged to justify their thinking
or beliefs (or actions) based on any facts, it is just "OK" to believe whatever
you want.  Nazis?  The Moral Majority?  Their beliefs are fine; who am I,
the feeble Rich Rosen (or you, the equally feeble Michael Ellis), to question
these "philosophies"?  How dare I!!!!!!!!!!  Like this...

>> 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.

>     (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. 

Unfortunately for your "side", Michael, I don't hold any "geocentric" (or
anthropocentric) theories.  Even if you are given your exception (fine),
do you have any means of showing how this affects the mind THE WAY YOU WANT
IT TO, TO ACHIEVE THE EFFECT YOU WANT?  You are indeed working backwards
from a desired conclusion, and that is neither scientific nor logical, and
in my opinion it barely qualifies as rational thought at all (it does in
that it shows enough knowledge of reason to attempt to manipulate it in
a bizarre way to "prove" an idea).

>     (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.

And how does this provide us with an enhancement to our choice processes to
allow us to choose to do things without regard to the way our brains happen
to be made up?  Or isn't that relevant?  Or have we deliberately changed "our"
definition so that this no longer matters?

> 	Clearly you have read these arguments. I have never seen any
> 	rebuttal from you.

You most certainly have, time and again.  Your response consisted of nonsense
poems and insulting attacks for not listening to you.  So much for your desire
to have a reasoned "philosophical argument".  You apologized once before for
going off into some other world and behaving weirdly.  Perhaps a re-examination
(and apology) is in order again.

> 	Yet somehow you continue to insist that indeterministic arguments are
> 	illogical. Why?

Gee, Michael, I'm beginning to see your point.  An "indeterministic argument"
can be used to prove anything.  With that sort of reasoning, it's no wonder
you "reach" the conclusions you reach and then feel nothing wrong in working
backwards to (at will) building new axioms to suit you.

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

:-)  Thought you'd like that.  Was wondering if you'd catch it.  Actually,
that's the point I make above.  You have no idea how these indeterministic
phenomena in turn cause the free will you "want".  But to you it's irrelevant:
with indeterminism, you don't have to explain anything, do you?  What caused
that?  Nothing...

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

Where is your mathematical model for how THAT mathematical model causes the
effects that you desire in the human brain?

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

No, I mean that until you have a model that is viable and shows how your
pet phenomenon causes the effects you "want", your theories are nothing but
wishful thinking.  Period.

>     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?

I don't.  I never have.  Probably never will.  (Unless someone comes up with
an explanation for hidden variable causes for quantum phenomenon currently
unknown to us---something you are so sure will never happen, you say it in
an almost (nay, in a more than) religious tone!).  But, again, I have never
denied the existence of quantum phenomena, yet you have never shown how
such phenomena affect the definition or my position.  Considering that so far
you've gotten both the definition of free will and my statements about QM
totally wrong (and in so doing, deliberately denigrated my intellect to
the readers of the newsgroup for no reason), I think a re-evaluation of what
you've been saying is in order.

>     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 doubt Michael intended to have these questions answered; they are phrased
so as to seem rhetorical and shed a bad light on the "askee".  No, I only
read the net; no, I never doubt my own beliefs/opinions; no, I don't know
what empirical evidence means.  Are those the answers you wanted so as to
"get" your conclusion (this time about me) to be "true"?
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr