NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/sci/philosop/tech/4558

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-13 | 5.9 KB

Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4558 talk.philosophy.misc:2931 talk.religion.misc:23754
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!gatech!hubcap!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Soul/Body Dualism & Freewill (WAS Re: QM & Freewill) -- LONG
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Dec 92 04:30:55 GMT
Lines: 100

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cosma Shalizi) writes:

>DA1= 1st post by Derek Abbott ([e-mail])
>CS= Response by your humble narrator ([e-mail])
>DA2= Response by Derek to CS in article <1992Dec2.072250.28853
>                                         @augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>


>DA2: If freewill is only an illusion, then you are not responsible for
>     murder. Hence morally bankrupt.
>   True enough, as you're using the words, but only in the same sense that
>a toaster which electrocutes someone is "morally bankrupt." Normally the phrase
>implies that you are a Bad Person because your could, in other circumstances,
>be morally solvent. The determinist (or strictly indeterminist) position
>says such other circumstances are impossible.

>DA1: So the only other solution is a religious one: to say that free will
>     really comes from something beyond your mechanistic brain that isn't
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
>     scientifically testable. It is this "soul" or "spirit" that drives the
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     "will" function of your brain.
>CS: Query: Can this "will function" (and I'll get to that shortly) meaningfully
>    effect the mechanistic brain? E.g., enough to change motor behavior between
>    pulling and not pulling the trigger of a gun? If not, then free will is
>    ethically useless, unless your ethics only value intentions - though in
>    this case it would probably not be strong enough to even change
>    intentions. If yes, then, at least in principle, it should be detectable
>    - one simply calculates what the purely mechanistic brain would do, and
>    observe that it does not, in fact, do this. (Half a :))

As I have posted on QM threads before, there are ways of getting around
this; the purely *deterministic* brain may be a fiction, because of
quantum indeterminism whose outcomes may in turn be influenced by "soul"
or "spirit", yet it is a choice between outcomes each of which was
possible even without the influence of a soul.

>DA2: In principle, yes. Maybe when our technology improves we will be able
>     to do this experiment one day.
>   I'm glad you saw reason - on this anyhow.
>[CS: Soul driving will function = soul disturbs the mechanistic brain?
> DA2: Yes. CS: How is this done?]
>DA2: It pushes and pops a few atoms here & there. Maybe the the soul utilises
>     chaos, so only makes small changes in the brain that get amplified.
>     I beleive there has been some work done that has established that there
>     are chaotic processes in the brain. Anyone know a reference?
>   How does the soul know which atoms to push to do what? How does it know what
>is happening? As I pointed out in my original post, there are _lots_ of atoms
>involved at every stage of neural processes. If, at the synapse or somewhere
>else in the neuron, you do have a situation so sensitive that changing a few
>atoms tips the balance, it becomes extremely hard for the soul to know which
>to push, because it will have to keep track _of all the other atoms
>involved_,

Why do you think the soul views the atoms as individuals?  We see whole
persons, not the individual atoms making them up.  We see red or blue, not
the lengths of the waves that produce these sensations in us.  We hear
music, not different frequencies of sound waves.  Your account is as though
one were asking how a violinist keeps track of all the overtones produced
by his instrument.  It is like expecting Leonard Bernstein to be an expert
in Fourier analysis.

>[CS: Do we toss momentum or energy conservation? DA2: No. CS: If not, why not?]
>DA2: See chaos idea, above.
>   Chaos does NOT provide an escape from these sorts of difficulties. At
>best, it could make the amount of momentum and energy involved very small.

Or none at all, granted the notion that the same quantum mechanical cause
can have several different effects.

>DA2: Also if atoms are mysteriously moved by "soul", then to conserve energy &
>     momentum we just have to invent a new energy term called "spirit energy."
>     Which in principle is scientifically testable, once are [sic; our]
>     measuring instruments technology gets advanced enough. One day we might
>     be able to measure this "spirit energy" (if my hypothesis is true).

The choice between two possible QM effects might not have to take any
measurable amount of energy.

[...]

>   Query: What is "the animation of the soul?" (Those of us who remember our
>Latin roots will find the concept doubly curious.) In any case, Derek, think
>carefully before committing yourself to this line of argument. The soul,
>by toggling a few brain atoms, makes the difference between pulling, or not
>pulling, a trigger, but cannot, again by toggling brain atoms, let me say
>"Constitutional crisis" clearly after a few tequilas. The soul has free
>will and exercises it by jiggling with my brain - is there some limit
>beyond which it will not save me from brainwashing, or if my heart is pure
>can they keep me awake, drugged and in pain for years on end without
>my cracking?

All good questions, but the difficulties they pose are not insurmountable,
at least in theory.  Think of how easy it is to foul up the ignition system
of a car, and yet if it is working well, in can haul loads, and several
passengers, thousands of miles.

Peter Nyikos