----- Original Message -----
From: Brent Meeker
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Free will: Wrong entry.
On 3/11/2010 1:56 PM, m.a. wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Brent Meeker
To: [email protected]
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:
http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html
(Excerpts)
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.
Brent
Why would he use words like "completely controlled" if he's talking about
quantum indeterminism? m.a.
_http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604079.pdf_
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
