At 04:09 PM 9/2/98 +0200, you wrote:
>Ricardo Ribeiro Gudwin wrote:
>
>> 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
There are anthropological theories of emergence of religious belief in
multiple cultures, but they generally fail to explain the commonalities and
evolution of these ideas. Ken Wilbur did an excellent job, in my opinion,
of reversing this in "Up from Eden" a good and well referenced treatment
even if you don't normally read from Shamballa Press. But perhaps more to
the point, there is no scientific explanation today of spiritual
experience, because there is no scientific explanation of experience.
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).
Denying events in one's own mind is OK for skeptical inquiry, but if taken
too seriously eventually leads to insanity. Science does not have to
involve such denials except in the questioning process (i.e., constructing
the null hypothesis). Few seasoned scientists deny spirituality.
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
This is almost surprising given the other statements. I assume this means
that experience, soul, etc, is "nothing more" than matter and thus can be
ignored -- but I would say exactly as you have above, and recognizing that
neither is reducible to the other, hence both are equally "real."
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
On the contrary, you identified it as a matter of "the way we name things."
Translate that to "the way we perceive things" and I agree, the dualism is
such - two complimentary views of the same reality, which appears to us as
two realities. The existence of multiple views shouldn't be dismissed as
nothing.
>
>>
>>
>> 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,
Quite the contrary if you read my earlier comments. The denial of free will
REQUIRES that science make an exception in the human case and has
fragmented ecology and evolution as well as making a joke out of psychology.
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.
Forgive me for being glib for the purposes of making a point: What
particular "itch" caused "you" to write these sentences and why did you
bother? Since it is all controlled by the environment, and there is no
"you" involved as an independent agent, then whom should we cite if these
ideas become famous? I feel in a strange situation of having to argue that
"you" exist at all, while you claim you don't -- your sense of yourself is
an illusion because it is entirely determined and reducible to other
factors. In this state, I'm not sure that even religion could make one
happy, or in fact, that there is anyone to be made happy.
This is the ontological problem: who or what is aware of your thoughts?
>
>> 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.be
>
>J. 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
>
>
----------------------------------------------
Appreciatively,
John J. Kineman
Bear Mountain Institute
1101 Bison Dr.
Boulder, CO 80302
BMI@bayside.net
http://www.bayside.net/NPO/BMI