Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.math,sci.math.symbolic,sci.logic,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics,alt.extropians
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!ames!uhog.mit.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Open Letter to Professor Penrose
Message-ID: <DKvs68.M4s@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <4bncj5$a94@panix3.panix.com> <4cm1ss$mn9@bell.maths.tcd.ie> <30ef0c53.56554c43414e@vulcan.xs4all.nl> <4cp242$lgm@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 21:10:56 GMT
Lines: 46
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:163948 sci.physics.particle:7182 sci.math:131619 sci.math.symbolic:20557 sci.logic:16426 comp.ai:35722 comp.ai.philosophy:36366 sci.philosophy.meta:22779

In article <4cp242$lgm@bell.maths.tcd.ie>,
Timothy Murphy <tim@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:
>
>>>In that case, surely your belief is pre-ordained too,
>>>and so of little value.
>
>>I don't know how my beliefs are formed and what the influence of real
>>(quantum) undeterminacy is on them. But I don't follow the logic that
>>claims they are of little value in that case. Can you please explain?
>
>You claimed (if you were the original poster)
>that free-will is an illusion,
>and that thoughts are merely the consequence of physical changes
>in the brain, which are themselves prescribed by physical laws.
>[I don't have the actual posting, and am summarising it from memory.]
>
>While this appears to be a perfectly respectable view,
>it seems to me that someone who really believed it
>would not waste his time trying to convince others of his view.
           ^^^^^
>The very fact that you do,
>convinces me that you do not actually believe it.
>
You obviously do not understand the view you are criticising. If the behavior
is determined by physical processes, what sense does it make to 'waste' time?
You are attempting to show irrationality of a view opposed to your own using
concepts grounded in your view, which the opposing view claims are obsolete.
You may not like the view that there is no free will, but it is logically
consistent, whereas the view that free will exists cannot be made logically
consistent without going beyond accepted empirical evidence.
Please not that I am not taking sides in this discussion. I am simply pointing
out that to claim the existence of free will (as most commonly understood, in
my experience), one has to rely on belief and not rational arguments.
There are of course compatibilists who want to have a cake and eat it, but
no true believer in free will will accept their version of what free will is. 
>
>-- 
>Timothy Murphy  

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
