Natural and Supernatural (was Chance and Selection)

From: Bertvan@aol.com
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 17:42:00 EST

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: [METAVIEWS] 098: Intelligent Design Coming Clean, Part 2 of 4"

    To: ccogan@telepath.com (Chris Cogan)

    >>Bertvan:
    >>Hi Chris. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of
    >>free will as there is for it's non existence. If free will exists it is
    >>unpredictable until the moment a choice is exercised.

    >Chris
    >Why do you make such a claim? What is the evidence for this, other than
    >your arbitrary definition of free will as unpredictable? (Obviously, if you
    >*define* it as such, then, if it exists, it must be unpredictable, so
    >merely defining it that way does not prove anything about facts of reality).

    Bertvan:
    To my understanding free will and determinism are opposites. It seems to me
    you are trying to redefine free will as determinism in order to prove it
    doesn't exist. All my evidence for the existence of free will is subjective.
     You belief in determinism is also personal opinion. (You can keep claiming
    free will is really determinism, but I'm not sure what you will accomplish by
    that.)

    Bertvan
    >>Recently you
    >>acknowledged that philosophy can never be proved and shouldn't be imposed
    >>upon anyone.

    Chris
    >I acknowledged that it should never be imposed on anyone. I did not
    >acknowledge that it cannot be proved, because it can.

    Bertvan:
    So far as I know, no philosophy has ever yet been proved to the satisfaction
    of everyone.
    Apparently determinism has been proved to your satisfaction. You are aware
    that is a minority philosophy, aren't you?

    Chris
    >I didn't say that free will doesn't exist. I said there's no reason to
    >believe that it's indeterministic. I *do* wish you would quit grossly
    >misrepresenting my views.

    Bertvan:
    I apologize for grossly misrepresenting you, but I doubt you'll find many
    philosophers, or anyone else, who would agree to defining free will as
    deterministic. I'm not trying to change your beliefs. I'm merely trying to
    find a vocabulary with which to discuss our different views.

    Chris
    >I also claim that any view other than mine on the issue of whether 2+2=4 is
    >true is false. Why do you assume (without evidence, apparently) that this
    >issue is any different in fundamentals? Are you saying that reason applies
    >to mathematics but not to causation, not to the law of identity?

    Bertvan:
    What is this "law of identity"? Who articulated it? How was it proved?
    Matter and certain forces seem to have mathematical relationships. So far
    mathematics hasn't proved a very useful tool to describe life IMHO.

    Bertvan
    >>I do not state that materialism "is
    >>false". I do not state that free will exists. I merely say that IF free
    >>will exists, it is unpredictable.

    Chris
    >Again, *why* must it be unpredictable if it exists?

    Bertvan:
    Because any action which is the inevitable result of causal factors is not
    free will. No real choice is made.

    Chris
    >I assume you mean *your* imagination? Let us suppose you had some *other*
    >kind of free will. Suppose you are faced with choosing between A and not-A
    >as an action and some other action (or inaction). Suppose, in your
    >understanding, A is what you would rationally choose to do, because all the
    >not-A actions that you can think of mean the deaths of everyone you love.
    >Suppose, for reasons that are not significant here, you are faced with this
    >same kind of choice several times in succession. Mostly, you choose
    >correctly, and everything turns out alright. The lives of those you love
    >are saved.

    >But, because you have *indeterministic* free will, you are free to choose
    >some not-A course of action, and, one time, despite knowing how bad it is,
    >your free will leads you to choose a not-A action and all of your loved
    >ones are killed.

    Bertvan:
    Your example leaves little room for real choice. As you say "mostly you
    choose correctly and everything turns out alright". (With terms like "choose
    correctly" and "everything turns our alright" you are flirting with giving
    nature moral values.) However, instead of your example, what about a choice
    of saving someone you love at the expense of hundreds who would die? That
    would offer a real choice. (If the answer seems obvious to you, how about
    saving someone you love at the expense of three who would die?)

    Bertvan
    http://members.aol.com/bertvan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 17:42:14 EST