[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Hello Other Brain, how are you?

ooops   "all they long" was meant to be "all day long"

Though I've been in the U.S. for a long time, my Spanish creeps in
this way sometimes.  I should write these down.


On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Ivan Rosero <irosero@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> This thread went on to discuss Mabel's situation with her research.  I
> found the original question about Free Will interesting.  I think it
> was Patricia Churland here at UCSD who once made the point in a
> lecture that Free Will == quantum indeterminacy not only is a cop out,
> but is quite nonsensical.  Her basic point was that quantum
> indeterminacy is fundamentally about randomness (arbitrariness), so
> that any notion of Free Will that ties itself to arbitrariness
> essentially argues that acts of free will are arbitrary acts.  While
> this may seem to make sense, free will == arbitrary acts is not what
> is meant by having the capacity to choose.  Freedom of choice is about
> "legible" choices, there being sense to a choice from among a set of
> alternatives.  This is quite different from getting up in the morning
> and just randomly "doing" all they long (which is rather closer to
> madness than free will).
> Basically, quantum indeterminacy == arbitrary behavior is not choice,
> therefore not free will.
> Ivan
> 2009/11/13 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>:
>> The pubic broadcaster in Oz, the ABC, is a great institution really, and
>> "All In The Mind" is one of my favourite programs, but sometimes some of
>> these guys really get under my skin. Today they were interviewing Michael
>> Gazzaniga, and he started off the program talking about this strange
>> illusion we have that we think of each other as persons when really we are
>> just brains, a kind of quirky but conforting illusion.
>> The thing that intrigued me was when, about 20 minutes into the interview,
>> the ABC interviewer asked him: "What about Free Will and personal
>> responsibility?" and suddenly he brought "society" into his 100%
>> physiological picture. More to say that personal responsibility (and
>> therefore Free Will) were concepts only relevant to society and really
>> nothing to do with brains, apologising like crazy for the awful "dualism"
>> which of course he is dead against - it is *all* physiology after all.
>> I have a\observed that when John R Searle is confronted with the problem of
>> a natural biological system "appearing to" enjoy free will, he resorts to
>> quantum indeterminacy, which to me is nothing more than a quick change of
>> subject hoping that you will forget the question and he can carry on.
>> Do people think that Free Will is in this sense the Achilles Heel of
>> neurodeterminism or neurological monoism, or whatever you want to call it?
>> Andy
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20 ea
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
xmca mailing list