Bill

Maybe; and maybe not.

The counters to that assertion remains the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (from quantum mechanics) and Godel's Incompleteness Theorum (implying that there must be some external influence(s) which we cannot ever know or control). Those ideas tend to show that it is actually impossible to predict "the entire destiny of everything."

But Heisenberg only affects the micro-level, not (so far as we know) the macro-level upon which we humans perceive our own existence. That raises the question as to why that ought to be so, but all of our scientific evidence seems to lead to the conclusion of strict determinism at the level upon which we humans perceive our own existence (the "macro-level"). I've never read any paper on what Godel's Theorum might mean for causation at the macro-level, but I suppose that it, too, would not imply that it is possible for causation to be turned on and off at various points in history.

== Bill

Toad Master

I think you missed my point, then again, I probably did make it very well. Let me try again.

Let's say, in some situation, you fail to resist temptation and do something wrong. In what sense could you have done the right thing (given that determinism is true)? Well, if you had stronger moral fiber, you would have done the right thing. The last sentence is a counterfactual. In fact, you did not have strong enough moral fiber, but if you had you would have done the right thing.

Could we say that moral sanctions are meant to build moral fiber?

Hmmm, well there are sanctions against cruel and unusual punishments too.

Yes, what I said does sound like behaviorism. As I said though, I'm a compatibilist, so I don't accept B.F. Skinner's claim that behavioral science undermines free-will. If Skinner had been a compatibilist, I'm sure he would have never have written _Beyond Freedom and Dignity_.

So, I do believe there is right and wrong, free-will, and moral responsibility.

Btw, we also reward people for good behavior.

-Toad Master.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Toad Master ]</p>

Kent Stevens

This is very hypothetical as there are trillions upon trillions of quantum entities that are inherently unpredictable. This relates back to the Heisenberg Principle where it is impossible in theory to know a particles position and velocity, in precise detail simultaneously.

I think that it would be impossible to model the Universe in exact detail. Being able to know everything is a pipe dream.

If people believe that certain things must happen try making some money out of this by putting money on the sharemarket or into gambling. You may then find that even "a sure thing" does not occur. Conversely things that you would never predict happen rarely. An example of this would be to wake up to the unfortunate site of seeing two huge buildings being destroyed and being removed from your cities skyline. This event then in turn setting off a further series of unpredicted political, military, and economic events.

Kent Stevens

Yes, I am talking only about what went before the Big Bang if anything. I am used to causation applying to things that exist in space doing activities over time. Before the Big Bang we do not know if there were things, space, or time. Consequently, I believeI do not know what caused the Cosmos to come into existence. I am honest about anything I claim to know, and I am also honest about those things that still puzzle me. But any degree of ignorance does not mean that Zeus exists as a consequence.

Gurdur

This is a hideously over-simplified picture of the whole process (think massive parallel-processing in neuronal networks), and is quite simply a strawman rhetorical argument.
It ignores all the evidence on the emergist side in favour of what is simply badly simplified rhetoric.
uh, uh, a tired uh uh, no other animal in the world has yet been reliably demonstrated to have genuine grammatical language.
No other system in the world has yet been demonstrated to evince self-consciousness.
No other system has been demonstrated to consciously produce art, then have other elements of that system brutally criticise the art, or vapidly praise it.

Try again ?

The point is that free will, self-consciousness and grammatical language are emergent entities.

Feather

What has simplicity or complexity to do with veracity? Don't pull "Occam's Razor" out on me. That rule is a guide; not a law (as used in science).

I simply stated the truth: there is no physical observed physical system that does not obey a deterministic set of rules. This implies nothing about how simple it is to do so.

"Free will" is a proposed property of a system. Language and art are things. False comparison.

"Self-conciousness" exists in perhaps the most simple system in the universe: an electron. Fire a single electron at a screen through a very narrow slit and it will "interfere" with itself. Just as if it were a wave.

But that's probably not what you mean by "self conciousness." I bet you can't even define the term clearly, except to exclude every entity but animals from having it (in which case your statement is a tautology, and therefore meaningless to the discussion).

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Feather ]</p>

owleye

Billl

I take it the hold that moral laws (e.g., that shalt not deceive) have on us is based on the will of those who share some value in which this law is a product. The right and the good derive from the will of those who are able to impose it. Your view just doesn't seem to make any other option available. We cannot legitimately make claims about what is right in the face of a general will to carry out policies that we find offensive. This is because there is no real legitimacy to moral claims. Might makes right seems to be the only option.

owleye

owleye

Toadmaster...

"Could we say that moral sanctions are meant to build moral fiber?"

This sounds good to me. Before proceeding, however I think care must be taken with respect to the term "build" and what possessing sufficient moral fiber means. I don't think it entirely hangs on future behavior. If I've done something I consider wrong, I believe I deserve to be punished and indeed will not think I've been given the opportunity to correct myself if I am unable to give due penance, seek forgiveness, etc.

"Hmmm, well there are sanctions against cruel and unusual punishments too."

What makes some punishments cruel?

owleye

Gurdur

Oh for Darwin's sakes, man, you tried pulling a rhetorical trick in denying free will by pointing at the determinism (putative) of individual neurons.
Like saying a building made out of whole rocks is obviously a completely natural construct, with no intelligent input again.
And your trick failed.
Try again.
Oh gosh, I suppose it would be too much to ask you to actually answer the point ?
Or is the effects of complexity in a massive parallel processing system with lots of potential redundancy too much for you to come to grips with ?
Ai yai yai yai.
You deserve the Nobel Prize for explaining self-consciousness, the emergence of grammatical language, and a few other small conundrums as well.

Oh wait; you haven't actually explained any of these things, you've simply pontificated.
Try again.

Oh what codswallop.
Language can be described as the property of a neuronal system.
Same with the production of art.
Next attempt at defining the problem away ?

I congratulate you on banalizing the term "self-consciousness" into practical meaninglessness.
I suppose it would be useless to point out you've conflated the concepts of interacting with oneself and actually observing oneself, but hey.
You're so right.

How much are you willing to bet ?

Amazing.
You're really not interested in what I might have to say if it contradicts your view, no ?

Let me know when you're genuinely willing to discuss, rather than simply trying out strawmen on me.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

abe smith

response to final paragraph of Keith's initial post @ this thread: "OI have free will, of course! but nobody else has it."