David Buchanan, Determinism does not mock or rule out creativity, and fatalism is only a pessimistic interpretation of determinism, it is not equal to determinism. In metaphysics, we have only two options: law or chaos. To justify our belief in free will we might say that the universe has chaos within a framework of law, but this only gives us *random *will and not free will. It is similar to the way Conway tried to make a Theorem of Free Will, which was founded on a fallacious interpretation of QM.
For interesting reading, refer to Elbow Room by Daniel Dennett. Here is a section from the Mahabharata (which is not a mere passtime fairy tale but a text of scriptural importance) on free will and determinism: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12a032.htm. Akshay On 13/01/2008, Akshay Peshwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When Napoleon was asked why, even when he believed in Fate, he continued > to plan and act, his reply was: "it is because I am Fated to plan and act". > Or, in Schopenhauer's words, man can do what he wants but he cannot will > what he wants. > > I cannot deny that man cannot do what he wants. Our entire system of > morality is based upon this notion -- that because a man chooses to do > something out of his own will, he is to be rewarded or punished or ignored, > because he *deserves* to be given his share in return. This is the law of > karma. But this does not conflict at all with determinism. Often, when we > are discussing free will and determinism, we separate volition into mine and > not-mine, at least subconsciously. In reality, however, you and not-you is a > mistaken dichotomy, it is all continuous. You are only a discernible > constituent of the universe, not an eternal part or fragment. > > My will is in complete harmony with God's will. Even if I pretend to act > against God's wishes, or to somehow rebel against his doctrines, that is > still verily a part of God's plan. That's right, God is not the > always-good-and-pure being that he is touted to be in mythology, God is > simply the Law. We often think of God as someone large watching us all the > time. But this is simply not accurate. We *are* God. If we think that if > it is God's will, why do I have to suffer for his decisions (like you going > and murdering somebody and landing in prison), then the reply is that it is > God also who is bearing the pain. God is not a foreign agent controlling us > like puppets. He is verily us. To put it in a more Christian-friendly way, I > and my Father are one. > > We are humans, a tiny part of this universe. If we had any choice at all, > it would mean that there would be a break in the chain of cause and effect, > because momentarily, until we make a choice, a lot of causes have stopped > acting. It seems ridiculous to me that the entire chain of causality of the > universe breaks down when I'm contemplating whether to have another slice of > pizza or not. Free will is only an illusion, nothing more. Will is something > we know, and what we know is always conditioned by space, time and > causality. > > Even the so-called tendencies (i.e., the idea that your choices are being > only influenced by some habits and not absolutely determined by them) are a > product of the Law and hence even if you manage to break away from those > tendencies, to break away from tendencies was itself a tendency, only that > it so happened that this tendency to break away was stronger than the > tendency to stay in. It was the Law which decided which tendency would win. > Even though you decide which dress to wear today, your decision itself has > been preprogrammed by the Law/God, hence you are merely an instrument or, as > is said in Sanskrit, nimitta, for the event. > > Law -> you -> your dress > > A twist within this system would be to interpret the Law by saying that it > is the Law itself that has left things undecided, to be decided by us au > moment de choix. This argument seems to have been made stronger by QM's > indeterminacy argument supported by the HUP, but the flaw there is that > minds don't work at the level of quanta; if it were so then even plants > could have been able to think and plan. It is by virtue of higher-level > structures such as complex neural networks that minds are possible. > > >You refute the concept of individual freedom with the laws of scientific > >objectivism. > > Not just scientific objectivism. The whole debate of free will and > determinism is founded in the intellect, hence you have to resolve it by > intellectual means or a higher level of evolution. > > Let me clarify by analogy. You know that a computer is made up of > hardware. All software written for the computer must be limited by its > hardware, software cannot go beyond the hardware. It is on > the hardware that the software is based and built. An outside entity (like > a programmer) decides how a computer is to behave. All the software (which > is nothing but the patterns of changes in hardware -- such as the states of > the various transistors, resistors and capacitors) is determined by the > hardware. Can it be said that the computer has free will? Well, we know that > it does what it wants, with the added fact that what it wants has been > caused by what we want. The computer is not free from the chain of causality > of the universe. If it be asked within the reference frame of computers, as > to who it is that has spread a virus, then we have to blame one invidual > computer. However, speaking on a more absolute reference frame, that of > humans, we have to point out that it is the owner/programmer of that > computer who is really responsible. We are merely instrumental causes, we > are not absolute causes. Even though it may appear as if the software is > controlling the hardware, it is only a derivation from the hardware's own > permission. > > Let me suggest some reading. Read the last chapter of GEB (Six-part > Ricercar, from Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter). Read also R > Smullyan's "Is God a Taoist?" for interesting resolutions on the problem. > > > Is it the philosophy of Hinduism? > > Hinduism has no word for free will, simply because it is non-existent. > Refer to my causality note at the beginning of this post. Of course, in > Hinduism the central goal of life is liberation, by achieving which one is > freed from the bondage of causality. Hinduism speaks of the law of karma, > that you will reap what you sow. > > Akshay > > > On 13/01/2008, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Akshay -- > > > > > > > Ham Priday, on your comment on individual freedom (and us being robots > > of > > > God's Will): Why, it is true, we are indeed robots of God's Will. And > > why > > > would this be a bad idea? > > > > > > Wherever we can look, we will find proof of determinism, and by > > extension > > > predestination, except of course our own personal experience. But a > > good > > > science education will show that intuition is rarely fully correct, > > > especially an unrefined one. ... > > > > Ah! And so we come to the fundamental point about which you and I > > disagree. > > Let me respond to your question first: Why would being robots of God's > > Will > > be a bad idea? Good and Bad are subjective judgments, but belief in God > > (as > > you describe Essence) presupposes a meaning or purpose for existence. > > If the individual is not a free and autonomous agent, existence has no > > meaning. There is no morality, no reason for value, no purpose for the > > creation of a cognizant entity with value sensibility. It's all a > > mechanistic system based on cause-and-effect probability which serves no > > moral or logical purpose. > > > > You refute the concept of individual freedom with the laws of scientific > > > > objectivism. But the objective world investigated by Science is itself > > an > > intellectual construct. What the scientists do is develop a set of > > principles that define objective reality in terms of what is consistent > > and > > predictable about the system. Biological evolution, for example, can be > > explained as a continuous series of events by which protoplasmic cells > > react > > to environmental forces and acquire the physical properties needed to > > survive and multiply. Over long periods of time the cells become more > > complex, eventually forming conglomerate organisms that behave as > > independent creatures. They are still subject to cause-and-effect, but > > exhibit rudimentary self-awareness. More time passes, and one species > > evolves with the ability to intellectualize its environment, control and > > manipulate it to its own purposes, and in an accelerated time span > > transform > > its values into a highly sophisticated cultural system called > > civilization. > > It can all be explained as the outcome of natural forces operating > > according > > to the law of mathematical probability, the scientists say. > > > > Of course the scientists can't account for cognitive awareness, except > > that > > it is "associated with" complex nerve cells and electro-chemical > > processes. > > They also can't account for the fact that human behavior does not > > conform to > > the laws of cause-and-effect but responds instead to conscious > > experience > > and value judgments which are unpredictable. They don't acknowledge the > > autonomy of individuals because "selfness" can't be defined objectively. > > > > Because it can't be localized, quantified, or directly observed, > > subjective > > awareness is not included in the scientific paradigm of existence. In > > fact, > > scientists take great pains to remove subjectivity from their > > investigation > > of the universe. As a consequence, from the scientific viewpoint life > > forms > > have no purpose but to fulfill the laws of nature as they have been > > defined. > > > > Now you come along, and say that's exactly right: man has no will of his > > own > > and cannot act independently. Like the rocks and trees of his > > experienced > > environment, man is a predetermined entity--a robotized product of > > whatever > > created him. Is this what you would have me agree to? Is it the > > philosophy > > of Hinduism? > > > > Essentially confused, > > Ham > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > > > Even though someone tried to "prove free will" > > > by making conclusions out of the Uncertainty Principle, it is not > > provable > > > in theory or in practice, simply because the Uncertainty Principle > > only > > > tells us that we cannot know a system completely, it does not say that > > a > > > system has been left undecided or "left on its own". Read my blog for > > many > > > more arguments: http://thegreatwheel.blogspot.com > > > > > > Akshay > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
