At 11:45 PM -0700 1/25/00, David Buchanan wrote:
>Roger and all philosophers:
>
>Well, its not that I feel usurped by your questions, but I was looking for
>ideas, comments, or thoughts about Pirsig's answer. Anything will do. I'm
>not that picky. We ought to have a conversation about it rather than brush
>it aside, eh?
>
>Here's where I think we should start; IT DOESN"T REALLY COME UP. That's the
>thing!
>
>So the question becomes; Why doesn't it come up? And what does that mean?
<snip>
>Clearly some questions are just wrong, you know? A question can be wrong
>too.
I remember reading about those. They're called "mu". Which means, "unask
the question" A mu answer means there's a problem with context in the
question.
So what's the problem here?
Well, my attempt at a definition for free will was simple enough. I said
free will = consciousness. Or if you like, choice = mind. Struan
attempted to prove me wrong by showing how a man trapped by circumstance
doesn't have any choices, but he still has a mind. I tried to refute his
refutation by saying that I wasn't talking about physical movement, but the
ability to choose courses of action which is always available to any
sentient being.
If you accept my definition, then the question of free will becomes a
question of consciousness, and how can a mind question mind? How can
sentience question itself? How can anybody dispute free will? These are
all the same question and they all revolve around the fact that we have a
bootstrap problem. You can't hoist yourself out of yourself and judge your
judgement. Free will is simply fundamental to everything we are, think and
do.
Pirsig proved that Quality exists by subtracting it completely from the
world, and then showing what changes would take place. If you substitute
"free will" for "quality" in his proof, you'll get exactly the same
universe as he described. Orwell's 1984. For what good is Quality without
the ability to choose? What good is good if there is no choice? Good or
Quality themselves cease to exist when there is no free will or choice. To
the extent that particles can "choose" to that extent they are sentient.
I'm not sure one way or the other whether they can or can't, but I can
plainly see the logical consequences.
Without choice, Quality doesn't exist.
>I dare say, Roger's request that we "define free will" might be wrong in
>this sense. Pirsig says it doesn't come up, so the request becomes "define
>that issue that doesn't come up". You see? The attempts to define it might
>be interesting, but I imagine that discussion would take us in a direction
>away from Pirsig's answer.
I don't think my definition here is out of harmony with Pirsig's refusal or
non-involvement. For me, the answer that free will is fundamental means
that trying to argue for it or prove it exists makes about as much sense as
arguing my own existence with myself.
Ok as a hobby perhaps, but I'd hardly make a career out of it.
jc
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:37 BST