After a hiatus, jc returns to the fray:
STRUAN
Practically I agree. It makes no difference whatsoever. The question raised
is that of whether free will is anywhere other than in our heads
JC
Well, according to my theorem, hypothesis, postulate or assertion: FREE
WILL = CONSCIOUSNESS or alternatively, CHOICE = MIND. The two are
synononmous and equal and in every way exactly the same thing.
I seem to recall my statement being the basis of your "locked room" argument.
I also believe some confusion was expressed over what this means, but I
don't know how to make it any clearer or plainer - every single instance
where an entity can make a choice, we know that entity has an intellect.
Every instance where we know an entity has an intellect, we know it can
make choices. Computer programs CANNOT make choices, therefore they are
not intellect. I believe this simple equation is in complete harmony with
the MOQ, because all choices an entity makes are in response to DQ. But I
feel its semantically helpful to clarify what we're talking about when we
question free will, we're talking about mind. "Is there free will?" Is
the exact same question as "is there consciousness?"
STRUAN
The next question is whether the concept of free will has any referent
outside of the intellectual level and I think that you suggest it does not.
For the moq this is no problem as intellectual patterns are as real as any
other pattern, but I would suggest that intellectual patterns which are
backed up by non-intellectual level empirical evidence are more 'valid'
than those which are not.
JC
First, if free will is intellect, then it doesn't need any other referent.
Secondly, there is no such thing as "non-intellectual level empirical
evidence". Yer blowing smoke, man. Stick to saxophones or whatever. Its
a mind that decides what "evidence" is and its a mind that chooses
"empiricism". You gonna tell me that these "facts" are just sitting around
imposing themselves? "Non-intellectual evidence" is a contradiction in
terms. Sorta like a non-metaphorical analogy.
STRUAN
For example, in a football game yesterday my team won. If I have the
concept that my team won or alternatively the concept that my team lost,
both are real in the sense of being intellectual patterns, but only one has
a referent in other levels which point to it being the more accurate.
Transpose that metap . . . damn . . analogy to free will and I question
whether it can be shown that free will has a referent outside the
intellectual level.
JC
I read a book a while back called "Finite and Infinite Games" by James P.
Carse. In fact, I'd wondered if anybody else had heard of this book and I
posted a review of that book on this sight to see if it caught anyone's
attention. I wondered because the review of the book was by Robert M.
Pirsig and in the long drought between ZAMM and Lila, it was the only words
I'd read from the guy in a bazillion years and gave me hope that at least
he was still alive. I went and bought the book and enjoyed it a great
deal. I wonder sometimes if the genesis for some of the thinking in Lila
was in it because Pirsig had high praise for it and there are some
similiarities... but back to the point. Carse points out that unless there
is agreement upon carefully bounded rules, there isn't a game. And unless
the players themselves (both sides) agree upon a winner, there isn't an
end. Your meta... ahem... analogy reminded me of that book and the fact
that "winning" isn't nearly as empirical as you'd think.
STRUAN
Essentially the main question, and the main threat to human morality, is
whether our belief that we are morally responsible and self-determining is
equivalent to my belief that my team won yesterday or whether it is
equivalent to believing that my team lost. If it is the latter than it is
not clear that a non-subjective definition of moral responsibility can be
constructed which has any resemblance to the accepted use of the phrase.
JC
Don't worry. It's not. There are hundreds of other bad analogys which it
is not also. Our belief in free will is fundamental. That means it
doesn't really get you anywhere in arguing the point. Something that is
fundamental to everything we do here (and everywhere else in life) just
simply has to be taken as a given. If you CHOOSE to believe otherwise,
then you basically have chosen a non-viable platform for argument, action
and being. Why bother? My answer to DMB's earlier query "Why doesn't it
come up?" is exactly that. It doesn't come up because it's fundamental,
its the foundation upon which we build all else. If you question freedom,
then you question consciousness, if you question consciousness, then what
are you using to question with ?
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 - 16:00:38 BST