🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1corvaINNfi3@agate.berkeley.edu> lizi@soda.berkeley.edu (Cosma Shalizi) writes:

>In article <1992Oct29.032255.24455@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct28.135035.7336@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
>>>It has been claimed that the indeterminist interpretations
>>>of QM secure free will.

>   Let's run through this slowly, shall we?
>Indeterminism here means _uncaused_, _random_ in the truest sense.

Today I made two posts on the "Law of Causality" thread related to 
what you say in this post.  To Randall Holmes I said:

"As one mathematician to another, let me point out to you that "random"
has many different meanings, and the intuitive layman's idea cannot even
be given a rigorous mathematical definition."  

I went on to elaborate, and to tie it in with QM.

> Clearly,
>if (say) which of two slits a photon passes through is undetermined in this
>sense, a will, free or otherwise, cannot, by definition, determine it. The
>only way out of this is to say that QM events are not really undetermined,
>but are determined by (one or more) free will(s).

False dichotomy.  *Some* QM events could, at least in theory, be 
determined by free will(s).

> Why, exactly, I should be
>able to decide which of two slits the photon goes through; how I do so;
>and how my will chooses when it is not immediately relevant what I want
>to do; all these are lumped under "mysteries Man was not meant to pry into."

Well, we could say the same thing about how and why I am able to influence
the keystrokes which give rise to these lines.  There is a large amount
of unconscious action; in fact to be aware of each keystroke is ill-
conducive to quick typing.  Yet it all seems to be under my conscious
control in the global outcome.  Call it a "mystery Man was not meant to
pry into" if you want to be sarcastic, but don't pretend it has all been
scientifically explained.

>The obvious rejoinder, taken by many, is that Derek's (and our) feeling of
>free will is, in fact, an illusion, and that his last minute changes of
>mind were as pre-determined as his first post to the net, or anything else
>for that matter. If this makes us ethically bankrupt, so be it. 

It also flies in the face of common sense.  What you and I have been 
typing *makes sense*, and yet it is all supposed to be explained by the
coursing of electrical impulses through neural synapses, and the 
permeation of sodium and potassium ions through neural membranes.  If 
that is all that is ultimately at work, why does the finished product
make so much sense to us on the conscious level, and why do we feel we
are in control over it?

>>So the only othersolution is a religious one: to say that free will really
>>comes
>>from something beyond your mechanistic brain that isn't scientifically
>>testable. It is this "soul" or "spirit" that drives the "will" function
>>of your brain.

>   Query: Can this "will function" (and I'llget to that shortly)  meaningfully
>effect the mechanistic brain? E.g., enough to change motor behavior between
>pulling and not pulling the trigger of a gun?

I have expounded on why this is not as farfetched as it sounds on the
"Law of Causality" thread, where several posts still contain my paragraph
interrelating QM, chaos theory, will, and the soul.  It also exposes,
IMHO, the *non sequitur* in the following paragraph:

> If
>yes, then, at least in principle, it should be detectable - one simply
>calculates what the purely mechanistic brain would do, and observe that
>it does not, in fact, do this. (Half a :))

Also in replying to Holmes, I said:

"Does the quantum world really conform to the nice statistical picture that
seems to be implicit in your claim, or might it not include elements of
the second kind of randomness, to which I would give the name "wildness"?
And if the latter, do you really maintain that the action of a soul--again
assuming, for the sake of argument, that such things exist--would still
be detectable?"

[The second kind of randomness, or "wildness", is explained below.]

>   I take a soul or spirit driving a will function to mean that the soul
>disturbs the action of the mechanistic brain. How?

>  we are dealing with a large number of large molecules. A microgram of
>  a substance with a molecular weight of 1,000 has ~10^14 molecules.

Don't forget the "butterfly effect": a butterfly flapping its wings in
Buenos Aires could, in theory, profoundly alter global weather patterns.

> Also
>  in light of this, explain how you avoid a more-or-less determined stat-
>  istical distribution.

Again to Holmes:

"Which would you say is more random: a coin in which the ratio of heads
to tails by toss n  converges to 1/2 as  n  goes to infinity, or one
in which the set of limit points of the sequence is all of [0, 1] ?
Mathematicians and statisticians gravitate towards the first kind of
definition purely and simply because this choice gives rise to a never-ending
stream of new definitions, theorems, articles, books, grants, and positions,
while the latter family of concepts is not so fruitful."

[The foregoing actually came before the second paragraph quoted above.
The "latter family of concepts" is what I meant by wildness above.]

>* What reason do we have for thinking the soul is not governed by strictly
>  deterministic laws?

Common sense.

>* What reason do we have for thinking the soul is not governed by strictly
>  statistical laws, i.e. its behavior is purely random?

Sorry, your i.e. is not correct. See my replies to Holmes again.

>* How is it that education (including indoctrination, propaganda, etc.)
>  can alter/create habits if the soul is truly free?

Another false dichotomy.

> (Note that this is
>  not a problem for determinism.

Of course not.  But solipsism also cuts through a lot of Gordian knots,
yet few people outside of mental institutions embrace it.

>* More particularly, how is it that drugs, or hunger, or thirst, or lack of
>  iodine, or rabies can alter behavior and even intelligence?

If you abandon your false dichotomies, this is not a problem.

Bukharin once wrote, pooh-poohing the same things you are, that it is
easy to explain why Mr. X drank a glass of water: he was thirsty.  But
Mr. X  was thirstier at lots of points in his life, without imbibing, and
also not thirsty at all at other times when he nevertheless drank water.  

The fact that rabies can alter behavior does not rule out the possibility
that a soul can do the same thing.

>>guess we have to choose between being unscientific or ethically bankrupt ;-)
>>What does your will choose?

Another false dichotomy, this time from Derek.

>   I don't even think we have the option of being unscientific without being
>downright irrational. 

Looks like a case of blind faith in determinism, IMHO.

>THE STARS ARE RIGHT: CTHULHU IN '92! WHY SETTLE FOR A LESSER EVIL?

I do hope Clinton is an improvement on Chthulu.

Peter Nyikos