Bertvan:
> > Free-will/creativity/spontaneity/intelligence will always
>>remain "supernatural" and unmeasurable. Science, as we now define science,
>>cannot deal with it.
Chris
>I believe I have pointed out once before that this is not necessarily so,
>and that, in fact, considerable progress *has* been made in dealing with
>these issues. For example, it can be shown empirically, and with brain-wave
>monitoring, that at least some decisions we make are in fact made by our
>brains *before* we are aware of them. This does not mean that we do not
>have free will (I claim that we do), but that the idea that it is
>indeterministic free will is not merely philosophically incoherent and
>illogical, but that it is incompatible with empirical evidence.
>I don't know if I've pointed out the following before, so I'll do it now:
>These things are not primaries, they are not axioms that do not need
>explaining, as you appear to think they are. They are definable features of
>some things that exist, and not of others. Free will is acting according to
>one's best judgment (rather than against or independently of it);
>creativity is the ability to transform existing materials into new
>(relatively) things; spontaneity is acting without conscious thought or
>plan; intelligence is the ability to process information intelligently
>toward some end (and processing information intelligently can be defined in
>terms of more-specific operations, such as perceiving patterns, observing
>logical relationships, etc.).
Bertvan
Hi Chris, You have proved to your satisfaction that indeterminate free will
does not exist. I'm not sure the rest of the world will docilely accept your
proof. (It is my belief that indeterminate free will is a part of
intelligence, creativity and spontaneity.) Much of what you mention is
interesting, such as horizontal transfer of genetic material. And you agree
that "Darwinism" has become an inadequate explanation of life. You have a
well thought out materialist philosophy. I doubt it will compel everyone to
become materialists. I'm not even sure a majority of scientists would be
willing to define itself by your version of materialism, but if they are, the
public would have a right to understand how science was being defined.
Materialism, like any religion or philosophy, should not be imposed upon
anyone. (Since I have no desire to dissuade anyone from a belief in
materialism, I have no "burden of proof".)
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 11:02:41 EDT