Re: [Fwd: Griffin #2]

From: John W Burgeson (burgytwo@juno.com)
Date: Tue May 29 2001 - 11:33:52 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Fw: Re: Natural theology?"

    I had written: "In that sense, I also use "supernatural" to describe
    what I do when I perceive two or more courses of action I might take, and
    decide among them, and do one of them. If I did not assume this, I would
    have to assume determinism, absence of free will, etc."

    Jon answered: "Not sure what you mean on this. Are you saying that the
    ability to perceive different courses of actions and chose between them
    is supernatural?"

    I am saying precisely this. I am defining "supernatural" as some
    action/event that takes place outside the world's usually deterministic
    framework. La Place thought that everything was "particles hitting
    particles" and so his "atomic materialism" could, in theory, predict the
    entire future of the universe if one knew, at any time, the exact
    position, mass, momentum etc. of every particle in the universe. QM has
    modified that, of course, but still we assume a deterministic world in
    our science.

    Now I order you, as soon as you read this line, to raise your right arm.

    Now -- either you did, or did not do that. Whatever, I forced you to make
    a decision between raising, not raising, or an infinity of partial
    raising of your right arm. The decision was made in your mind, and your
    arm responded accordingly. Skinner, Crick, Dawkins and others argue that
    there was nothing supernatural there -- nothing but "particles hitting
    particles." If they are right, your mind, all our minds, are just
    observers "along for the ride" with no capability to affect anything or
    anybody. If they are right, and I were to argue their case, I would be
    caught in a "performative self-contradiction," arguing so as to change
    your mind when my argument says that whatever your mind is, if indeed it
    is anything at all, is going to do what it is going to do anyway.

    So -- yes -- I do consider "mind," as nonnatural. Therefore, in the
    absence of a middle term, "supernatural." With considerable limitations,
    to be sure. But still neither an epiphenomenon nor "particles hitting
    particles."

    Burgy (John Burgeson)

    www.burgy.50megs.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 29 2001 - 11:42:26 EDT