On 12 Mar 2010, at 21:53, m.a. wrote:
I agree with you that quantum indeterminacy doesn't
affect (free) will: "Quantum mechanics is local and deterministic,
and explains why it seems indeterministic to the 99,9999...% of the
observers." (3/12/2010 7:58 AM), which is why I feel that your use
of the words "ability" and "develop" when you say: "the ability of
a person to develop personal goals and to satisfy them in absence of
coercion" (above) can as easily refer to completely determined
processes which introspection identfies as voluntary a split second
afterwards ... as it can anything else. m.a.
Are you thinking to Libet's experiences?
Anyway, if Libet's experiences has been repeated and confirmed (which
is quite plausible). It would demolish only a pseudo-mystic conception
of free-will where a 'substantial soul' would somehow influence the
brain, or why not, directly the arms, ... or the spoon.
Some materialist used Mechanism, not to for formulating or solving,
the mind body problem, but for eliminating the mind and its
attributes. Mental things does not really exists, only matter. And so
no free will, nor even consciousness for the most extremists.
The general mistake here (imo) consists in believing that reducing
higher order epistemological notion to lower order notions eliminates
the importance or the existence of the higher order notions. Or more
generally, that representing an unknown field in a known field,
eliminates the unknown field. It may eliminate it from the primitive
ontology, but this does not mean it is eliminate from the appearances
or from the experiences.
If that was true a materialist eliminativist would never take a pain
killer.
And if we are (apparently material) machine, then, if we are digital
machine, we are immaterial or abstract, or higher order, machine or
number. The whole coupling consciousness/realties emerge, and thus is
reduced, to the additive and multiplicative structure of numbers. This
does not make disappear neither consciousness, nor the first person
(singular and plural) material perception of matter.
Free will is just very hard to define. It needs consciousness, it
implies a partial control of the self with respect to its most
probable "macro-histories" (macro = above its comp substitution level).
George Orwell said that freedom is the right to say that 2+2 = 4.
I would say that free will is the will to say that 2+2 = 4.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
