Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!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: <DMF7qu.EMv@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <jqbDLr3LD.CG4@netcom.com> <4el6ee$4t6@brtph500.bnr.ca> <Pine.SUN.3.91.960130113510.13838A-100000@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> <4f8onj$4mr@bud.shadow.net>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 19:35:17 GMT
Lines: 63
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:169836 comp.ai:36826 comp.ai.philosophy:37508 sci.philosophy.meta:24358

In article <4f8onj$4mr@bud.shadow.net>,
Michael Cervantes  <cervante@shadow.net> wrote:
>Aaron Boyden <6500adb@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>>The definition of determinism states no such thing.  Determinism merely 
>>states that every event is causally determined by prior factors.  As 
>>there is no equally clear definition of free will to be had, it is you 
>>who are mistaken in so confidently asserting that free will is 
>>incompatible with such determinism.  A long line of very able 
>>philosophers have disagreed with you.  It's quite possible that they were 
>>wrong, but you make them out to have been idiots, which they clearly were 
>>not.
>>
>No they weren't idiots, they were just wrong. The fact of human volition 

Not everyone accepts that "human volition" in your sense is a fact.

>entirely refutes the theory of determinism. The existence of the concepts 
>of validation, truth and proof show, absolutely, that volition is 
>incompatible with determinism. 

Existence of concepts cannot show anything absolutely. Existence of the concept
of a unicorn does not show that unicorns exist, etc., etc. (how about "hell"
and "Satan" too?)

>......................If my thought process were deterministic, 
>I would have no  ability to question it. The fact of this debate 
>invalidates determinism. 

I do not see this at all. It would not be a big deal to write a program which
would questions its "thought" process. In other words, your ability to question
your thought process might be programmed in too and triggered by external
conditions (for instance).

>.........................Only creatures with automatic forms of knowledge 
>could be deterministic. Humans possess almost nothing in the way of 
>instinct. 

I think you are very seriously mistaken. We are mostly at the mercy of our
instincts, although very often we do not notice it and usually find fake
'rational' motives for our actions.

>..........Perhaps a gerbil's responses to situations are pre-determined 
>by their genetic pre-dispositions or prior experience, but we can see 
>humans in the act of evasion of reality and uncertainty, neither of which 
>is compatible with determinism. In fact, the whole of conceptual 
>consciousness is at odds with determinism, as humans don't even have 
>pre-formed concepts.
>
How about an experiment with poor baby kittens raised in an environment with
vertical lines only?  When grown up they were apparently unable to see 
horizontal lines which indicates that (at least some) concepts arise in
the process of brain development, in response to the stimuli from environment,
over which we have no control. 
>
>Kevin Wagner
>

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
