Re: Free Will (was Re: virus: Re: Rationality)

David McFadzean (david@lucifer.com)
Sat, 15 Mar 1997 17:45:14 -0700


At 09:53 PM 15/03/97 GMT, Dave Pape wrote:
>Well... in pure maths no, but in applied maths often yes, kind of, but it
>/gets you by/. It's inaccurate. I reckon part of why old theories get

How are integers inaccurate? I would have thought they are perfectly
accurate, at least in set theory which is the most fundamental mathematics
after logic.

>disproved is because new evidence is more accurate and detailed than old,
>and considers the context of old results more. Hence the value of looking at
>context, and hence the danger of approximating your data too much- because
>the system you're trying to describe is butt-kickingly complex.

I agree you don't want to approximate too much. Sure there is some
balance between the two extremes.

>Oh yeh, I'm not denying that. But the history of science is one of less and
>less approximation, isn't it?

In the old sciences like physics, yes. But in the relatively new sciences
like biology and cognitive science the fundamental concepts are much
more abstract.

>But I don't think that the deterministically learnt nature of our behaviour
>IS irrelevant. That's why I kept hammering the point- because I think it's
>very relevant indeed.

If you are looking for the reason behind some particular human action,
all the causes can't possibly be relevant because there must be literally
trillions of causes. I guess I'm assuming "relevant" has some practical
component.

>Okay: I'm invoking the "our definitions of freewill are different" clause.
>So now I'm going to be a wanker and try to argue that my definition is better...
>
>My definition of freewill is: will (desire/perceived need to do something)
>which is free of the deterministic constraints of the physical universe.

So free will must be mystical or magical?

>This is the freewill I argue against: the idea that "you" choose what "you"
>do. I think that "you" EMERGE from the things that "you" do/perceive/think,
>and those things kind of decide themselves by the way in which they
>interact. Insofar as "you have Will"... it isn't Free, and (critically for
>arguments with religious people) "you" aren't Good or Bad.

OK, so you defined free will such that you don't think it is real. Tell me
again how this definition better?

--
David McFadzean                 david@lucifer.com
Memetic Engineer                http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
Church of Virus                 http://www.lucifer.com/virus/