> Mario Vaneechoutte wrote:
>
> > And what do you mean by free will? It does not really exist.
>
> Here we are back to this free will discussion. In a matter of fact, I like
this
> discussion, but I believe that it goes beyond the limits of science,
penetrating
> the fields of religion and faith. The question is ... are our actions only
fruit
> of
> our present/past experiences and inborn genetic program (without mentioning
the
> complicatedness of such function), or there is a plus - "free will", in order
to
> explain our actions ? There are two different answers, depending on a subtle
> religious claim.
I understand your reasoning and find good elements in it, but I tend to
disagree.
One of the reasons is that religiosity can be explained scientifically and that
it
does not supply with a valid manner to know the world (although it is a valid
manner
to feel happy and therefore everyone should have the right to believe in God
(whatever his name), holy trees, astrology or any other superstition).
>
>
> 1) If we consider that the behavior of a system (we, as systems) is due to
> ONLY the properties of matter that constitutes the system, then we would
> say that free will can not exist.
Between the lines I read the duality between matter and mind. This stems from
our
usage of words which makes that we always consider matter as some inert
substance.
We look at an atom as a little ball hanging around and that is it. However,
experience, 'soul', energetic interaction, ... is inherent to matter (also
subatomic: quarks, etc.) and the dualism we think to see between mind and matter
is
probably simply a consequence of the way we name things.
>
>
> 2) If we consider that there is such thing as a "soul", or "spirit", that goes
> beyond matter (without either explaining what it would be then), then we
> are able to admit that there should be this free will, and the source of this
> free will would be exactly from this soul, or spirit. The source of free will
> is on this extra-matter component of the system.
See my remarks to your first point: I do not discover such dualism.
>
>
> As science can only deal with things that are measurable, can only deal with
> MATTER, then this question of "free will" certainly goes beyond science.
> Depending on our "religious position", the answers will be quite different.
>
> So, the discussion of things like "free will", "consciousness" and alike,
> are actually religious discussions, that never leads us to a conclusion.
> UNLESS we accept the challenge of discussing religion.
Of course we should discuss what religion is about. After all, humans appear to
be a
'naturally' religious being and most of the world population is religious or
superstitious even in the scientific era we are living in. Failing to understand
what it is about, would be a major failure of scientific reasoning.I lack the
time
to explain in more detail but an attempt (The memetic basis of religion) has
been
published:
http://www.sepa.tudelft.nl/webstaf/hanss/nature.htm
> We will be
> touching with personal convictions and personal experiences, that
> sometimes can not be shared without skepticism.
> My suggestion is that we avoid using strong propositions like that "there is
> free will" - "there isn't free will", because they are only an indication of
our
> religious position. Better is to admit that both claims are true, and work
> with them in parallel. The one which leads to better fruits will prove to be
> the correct one. But this, only the future can say.
What bothers me is that 'free will' which is one of the inventions of human
thinking
which enables to hold on to the worldview whereby humans play a special role, is
confused with will, which is explainable as an evolutionarily useful adaptation
to
make animals do the right things in order to reproduce. Will is about motivation
of
a complex multicellular colony and this motivation can be achieved by
neuro-endocrinological 'programming': When your stomach itches, go and find food
and
chew and swallow it: it'll make you feel good. Life to an animal and to human
beings
is largely about annoying itches which we can neutralize by doing the
appropriate
things.
> Best regards,
> Ricardo
>
Best regards
-- Mario Vaneechoutte Department Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology & Immunology University Hospital De Pintelaan 185 9000 GENT Belgium Phone: +32 9 240 36 92 Fax: +32 9 240 36 59 E-mail: Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.beJ. Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission: http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/
The memetic origin of language: humans as musical primates http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/1998/vol2/vaneechoutte_m&skoyles_jr.html