On 3/11/2010 1:56 PM, m.a. wrote:

    ----- Original Message -----
    *From:* Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>
    *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
    *Sent:* Thursday, March 11, 2010 4:38 PM
    *Subject:* Re: Free will: Wrong entry.

    On 3/11/2010 1:26 PM, m.a. wrote:
    *Bruno and John,*
    *                           The confusion is my fault. I copied
    the URL from a Kurzweil page heading when I should have gone to
    the article itself, so the wrong feature appeared. This is the
    one I requested comments about:*
    *PhysOrg.com) -- When biologist Anthony Cashmore claims that the
    concept of free will is an illusion, he's not breaking any new
    ground. At least as far back as the ancient Greeks, people have
    wondered how humans seem to have the ability to make their own
    personal decisions in a manner lacking any causal component other
    than their desire to "will" something. But Cashmore, Professor of
    Biology at the University of Pennsylvania, says that many
    biologists today still cling to the idea of free will, and reject
    the idea that we are simply conscious machines, _completely
    controlled by a combination of our chemistry and external
    environmental forces._*
    *To put it simply, free will just doesn’t fit with how the
    physical world works. Cashmore compares a belief in free will to
    an earlier belief in vitalism - the belief that there are forces
    governing the biological world that are distinct from those
    governing the physical world. Vitalism was discarded more than
    100 years ago, being replaced with evidence that biological
    systems obey the laws of chemistry and physics, not special
    biological laws for living things.“I would like to convince
    biologists that a belief in free will is nothing other than a
    continuing belief in vitalism (or, as I say, a belief in magic),”
    Cashmore told /PhysOrg.com/. *
    *There seems to be an evolutionary rightness and inevitability to
    the idea that free will is taking its place as just another
    illusion like vitalism, religion, aether, absolute time and
    space, geocentric universe, single-galaxy universe and so on. But
    I think people will have an even tougher time dealing with the
    implications of strict determinism. It's an idea that could tear
    through the entire fabric of society even though acceptance
    needn't change one's behavior in the slightest respect.     marty a.*

    But it's certainly not a deterministic universe.
    It looks like Cashmore would disagree about that.See above:
    "*completely controlled by a combination of our chemistry and
    external environmental forces."*

Why would he? Being controlled by chemistry doesn't mean it's deterministic. Cashmore must know that chemistry is described by quantum mechanics.




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to