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: Re: External Influences
Message-ID: <537@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 07:41:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.537
Posted: Tue Sep 24 07:41:27 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Sep-85 08:26:25 EDT
References: <3518@decwrl.UUCP> <1451@pyuxd.UUCP> <661@psivax.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 34

>>   The freest minds I know can be brutally self-scrutinizing as appropriate,
>>   yet otherwise follow spontaneous impulse as effortlessly as a frog might
>>   splash into an old pond.
>
>The difference between a genius and an average Joe/Joan like you or me is
>in their ability to make use of intuition and spontaneity.  Intuition and
>spontaneity aren't "great" things, they're only great when the results of
>using them are great.  Geniuses (or whatever you want to call them) simply
>have learned how to make the best use of these tools.

    Even irrational dullards who have love in the hearts can work wonders
    with little more than childlike spontaneity.

>Is the reason you believe in "acausality" because you know that the only
>abilities open to us otherwise do not allow for "freedom"?  

    I do not believe in "acausality", if belief is taken to mean
    faith contrary to reason.

    Rather, I have concluded by examining the empirical evidence and
    rigorous arguments that causal determinism is an archaic a priori
    assertion that contradicts facts of the physical world we live in.

    And I am fully prepared to accept the triumphant return of determinism if
    and when the evidence indicates otherwise.

>I for one find the abilities we do have to be more than adequate, in fact
>quite incredible.

    Bravo -- we totally agree on this point..

    "Carry data chop logic"

-michael