Bertvan:
Using ordinary language, I don't think most people have a problem defining
free will. Maybe you have another definition. Actually, most of the people
I've met in the past who questioned free will happened to be self proclaimed
atheists, materialists and determinists. With all these Christian
fundamentalists claiming skepticism of free will, perhaps they are using
another definition. Or maybe they aren't incompatible to some people. I'm
trying to understand..
CC
>I don't think Dawkins said that the UNIVERSE looked designed, but only that
>living organisms look designed -- and devoted a whole book to showing why
>the conclusion that they ARE designed is objectively unfounded.
Bertvan:
Dawkins demonstrated to his satisfaction why organisms are not designed--and
obviously to the satisfaction of many other people. Surely you aren't
suggesting everyone is forced to accept Dawkins' conclusions.
Chris:
>Actually, whether you have free will (even in your sense of free will) is
>independent of materialism, since, regardless of whether the mind is
>matter-based or based on something else, the same questions arise as to how
>it functions. If there actually exists something that is non-matter in the
>sense of being neither dependent on matter nor on whatever basic substance
>matter is based on or made of, then, it, too, must exhibit the same basic
>causal laws as does anything else: What it IS logically specifies what it
>DOES, because, ultimately, what it does simply IS what it is.
Bertvan:
How did you determine that if there is "something else" that is non-matter,
"it must exhibit the same basic causal laws as does anything else". You say,
"What it does is simply what it is". Is that your personal insight, or is it
a "law of nature"? My conclusion would be that free will might sometimes go
contrary to basic casual laws. That would be what makes it free will. Do
consider spontaneity to be a possible component of nature? If you believe
nothing can exist which goes against basic casual laws, you probably don't
believe in free will, right? An acceptable position, of course, but there
are people who disagree.
Chris: (to my question of how anyone could determine why a paramecium turns
right or left)
>Examine it's molecular structure down to a
>sufficient level of detail. Or disable various molecular mechanisms and see
>which way it turns both with and with out them. Start from the act of
>turning right or left and back up from there, gradually eliminating things
>that don't cause it to turn the way it turns.
Bertvan:
You know a way to do that?
Chris: (in answer to my question of how can we know
what determines when a particle leaves the nucleus of an atom?)
>Again, in principle, we would do this by positing possibilities eliminating
>everything else except the right one(s). Right now, of course, we don't have
>the means (YET) to examine the nucleus and its environment closely enough.
Bertvan:
How about waiting until we DO have the means to examine the nucleus and its
environment closely enough, before declaring the method a success? You are
describing determinism, Chris, where everything has a predictable, physical
cause. I doubt determinism can ever be proven. Surely you will allow that
an unprovable belief system should not be compulsory-- or declared to be more
"scientific" than other belief systems. You and I probably have zero chance
of changing each other's belief systems. Personally, I don't deplore that.
I can imagine nothing more boring and undynamic than a society where everyone
agreed about everything. The only thing we can accomplish in these
creation/evolution debates, is to understand and respect each other's view
points. I've heard a variety of views and concepts and hypotheses, some of
them far out (to me), but many of them interesting. Perhaps if the
creationists had more power, they would try to impose their views upon every
one else. However, at the moment only the Darwinists seem to be claiming
exclusive "scientific truth".
Bertvan