Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics,alt.extropians
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!torn!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: A New Theory of Free Will -- continuation of an Open Letter to Professor Penrose
Message-ID: <DntCsI.Fxy@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <4el6ee$4t6@brtph500.bnr.ca> <4gussj$nt9@hahn.informatik.hu-berlin.de> <DnG6xD.DH0@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <4hh9j6$1rr@hahn.informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 21:24:18 GMT
Lines: 112
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:174797 comp.ai:37508 comp.ai.philosophy:38529 sci.philosophy.meta:25388

In article <4hh9j6$1rr@hahn.informatik.hu-berlin.de>,
Matthew Scott <scott@informatik.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
>pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>
>>In article <4gussj$nt9@hahn.informatik.hu-berlin.de>,
>>Matthew Scott <scott@informatik.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>............
>>>    God created man in his own image.  Part of this image is the ability
>>>to assimilate new, complex decision routines.  God gave his children
>>>this capability because he wanted them to have some degree of power like his
>>>own.  They are his children.  Why shouldn't they share his capabilities.
>>>So God went ahead and gave mankind a little R.A.M. And with it, we do both
>>>good and evil.
>
>>Please note that we discuss science here. The above might as well be true but
>>the "truth" of it is not a matter of science, but faith. Once you make these 
>>assumptions, many other of your conclusions follow. However, if one does not
>>make these assumptions, they do not.
>>A discussion is only possible if there are common premises. In case of
>>science these premises are: logic and empirical evidence, as determined by
>>consent what is an empirical fact and what is not. "Facts" about which  
>>there is no consent are not _scientific facts_ and they cannot be  basis 
>>for a scientific discussion.
>>What you say above is not universally accepted and so this is not a proper
>>newsgroup to discuss their consequences.
>
>I think I see what you mean here, but maybe your wording could use some 
>improvements.  Very little that is discussed in new-theories is universally
>accepted, so, by this def. 80 to 95 % of new-theories shouldn't be here..well,
>what maybe you really mean is that Belief in God is not the proper subject for
>new-theories.  I disagree with that because there are a lot of questions in the
>realm of physics that deal with peoples understanding of the word God.  Now 

You seem not to understand what I have been saying. New-theories, even if not 
generally accepted, have to be falsifiable (at least in principle) to be
scientific theories. "Belief in God" is not falsifiable, so it is not a proper
subject for scientific discussions.
.............
>fit under a particular roof.  How can we Really discuss what Free will means
>without getting into religious lore.  I don't think it can legitimately be
>done.  If we want to discuss determinism or quantum mechanics, then let's
>call it determinism, and let's wonder if human thought is deterministic  
>based on our understanding of quantum mechanics.  Drop the term "Free Will"
>Call it something else, and I'll drop the religious lore.
>
With this I agree. I have been saying this a number of times - "free will",
unless understood in the compatibilist sense, is not a proper subject of
scientific discussions because it is a matter of faith (like religion).
.........
>I have ten to twenty times the religious experience of typical net surfers,
>and more than at least 95 % of net surfers.  Most of the remaining 5 % don't
>know diddly about physics, so that leaves me as one of -maybe- ten net authorities
>on the subject...How does Physics jive with religion?..  Now if you want more 
>than that, you're going to have to discuss the topic elsewhere than on net news.
>Otherwise, I think I can speak for religion-physics as well as anyone you'll meet on 
>the net, and better than most.  So that's who I am.  Like it or lump it, I 
>usually consider discussions of this kind to enter a realm where I think I have
>unusual expertise, so I usually say something.  Otherwise, I mostly listen.
> 
I take your word on the subject of your religious experience (but how do you 
know that I do not have enough of it myself?), but in my view you have not 
thought enough about what is science. Religion and physics don't mix.
>  
>
>>If you want others to respect your beliefs, you should also
>>respect the other people's beliefs.
>....or lack of?  Sure, I respect people who lack beliefs in God ect. and I
>don't expect them to take everything I say word for word, but I don't allow 
>them to tell me that something they don't understand doesn't exist.  And they
>shouldn't start thinking that they can analyze a religious concept without
>a religious background.  Now if you want to bring me these people, I'll be 
>happy to explain to them what the religious concept fw really means, where
>it stems, what its ramifications are (and this sort of doctrine hardly
>changes amongst different religions) and then we can begin discussing the
>physical counterpart of the concept.  Even if I didn't believe in God, the 
>point would be mute.  fw is still a religious concept (for the most part)
> and requires a religious background to understand it.

Again I agree with you here and I have been saying it many times - fw is
a religious concept (except in the compatibilist sense, but this is not what
most people using this concept have in mind). Consequently, it is pointless
to discuss it in the scientifically oriented newsgroup. This is the point which 
you seem to be missing - that from the point of view of science 
a noncompatibilist notion of free will is incoherent. One does not need
a religious background to see this, scientific background is enough.
This is not to say that the noncompatibilist free will does not exist (although
one might question the use of the word "exist" here"), but it certainly
does not make sense as far a science is concerned.

>>Assuming then the mutual respects you
>>can easily see that the only things which can be discussed are those
>>which do not involve beliefs.
>
>which maybe makes fw a bad topic for new-theories.  Hey I didn't start
>it. But don't expect me to sit around and watch people bumble with it.
>Switch the topic to "deterministic thought y/n" and I'll leave it alone.
>I'll probably just read and see what people have to say.
>
I did not start it either. And the only thing I expect from you is to
distinguish science from religion, science being based on logical reasoning
and having the empirical observations as the bottom line. Religion on the
other hand is based on faith, its "truths" are not falsifiable by reference
to observations and do not have to be logically consistent.
>
>scott@informatik.hu-berlin.de
>
Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Information Commons                   what they think and not what they see.
pindor@breeze.hprc.utoronto.ca                      Huang Po
