Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   The main (highly) philosophical problem with there not being true free
> > will nor true free choice is that it basically nullifies the entire
> > concepts of sentience, independence and individuality.

> If you agree there's a lack of "free will" in the dualistic sense, it of 
> course destroys the dualistic concepts of sentience, independence, and 
> individuality.  I.e., if you define "free will" and "sentience" and 
> "individuality" as supernatural, saying "the supernatural cause of free will 
> is missing and thus the supernatural cause of sentience is also."

  I cannot see any other possible definition of "free choice" than something
which transcends the physical world, in other words, something which can
break determinism in a non-random way, which basically breaks physics.

  If we take the materialistic view (which, note, I'm not saying is wrong!)
that the human mind is purely physical and doesn't transcend the laws of
physics, I can see no other conclusion than that free choice does not exist,
but every "choice" is just a consequence of something else (which is mostly
a combination of both determinism and pure randomness). Of course these are
not choices at all, just consequences.

> > It's not you, a sentient being, a thinking individual, who is making the choices. 

> Of course it is. I'm just not doing it through supernatural means.

  No, your "choices" are simply consequences of previous events and sometimes
randomness. At its core, you are not different from an inanimate object which
gets moved by physical phenomena. The object is not "choosing" anything.

> > Not at the most basic level. It's just a result of deterministic
> > cause and effect and completely random unpredictable quantum fluctuations.

> Does a rock stop existing simply because its fall is a result of 
> determinsitic gravity effects?

  Who said anyting about existence? I was talking about free choice. A rock
doesn't choose what it does. It simply reacts to events in deterministic
(and sometimes random) ways. There's no higher conscience moving it.

  If the human mind is bound to the exact same physics as the rock, then
the human mind is no different from the rock. It's not really a sentient,
independent being, but an inanimate object. Extremely complex, yes, but at
its core no different from the rock.

> > You may be deluded into thinking that you are making choices, when in fact
> > you aren't.

> Am I deluded into thinking that I'm thinking, then?  I think, therefore I 
> am?  Who is deluded into thinking I'm making choices? Why can't I make 
> choices deterministically?

> When we launch Excel, have we deluded the computer into running a 
> spreadsheet program? Or is it really, actually running Excel?

  You are not deluded into thinking that something happened even though it
didn't. You are deluded into thinking that it happened because you chose
for it to happen, rather than it happening just as a consequence of previous
events. If it happened as a consequence, it's not a choice.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message