> We've had this discussion before -- the concept of free-will as you >use it is just as useless a concept as god. But morality, as I've >argued above, is quite useful in progressing towards goals.
As a useful fiction to persuade people, certainly (actually persuade assumes free will, the uttering of the word morality has been correlated with behavior changes consistent with other words that were uttered...that might do.) But, "ought" is rather meaningless without free will. I'll be happy to admit that the causal chain in people's actions includes hearing words. But, that doesn't seem all that critical to me. It happens to be a complex reaction the evolution of which is predictable in only a statistical sense. The inherent difference between this and less complicated systems that can only be predicted in a statistical sense is not apparent. I think your argument relies on complexity changing the fundamentals. I've yet to see a real example of this. Indeed, if it were to exist, it would spark an overwhelming scientific revolution. The falsification of reductionism would be a remarkable occurrence. > It is absurd to compare a mind -- which is complex in a way that >cannot be modeled by a few simple equations, is capable of >abstraction, logic, and calculation -- to something like a star or a >lightning bolt which can be modeled and predicted accurately by a few equations. No, it is not absurd. I chose lightning and stars for a reason, not just because I was grasping for metaphors. It is impossible to predict where lightning will strike at a given time on a given day. I'm rather surprised you claim that it is simple; the inability to ever predict popup thunderstorms is classic. It is one of the best examples of macroscopic indetermancy. Indeed, the behavior of stars, humans, and lightning bolts are all dependant on gravity and the physics of the standard model. One could even argue that the star takes more physics to explain than humans, since one may have to consider QCD as well as the standard model. I really expected you to know this, since you have a BA in physics. Complexity doesn't add anything; it just makes it harder to calculate. A very complex perpetual motion machine is no more likely to work than a simple one. There are occasions, indeed, where complexity results in counter-intuitive results. There has never been a verified case where complexity introduces something truly new. > accurately predict what a mind will do with a simple model: you need to > simulate it in its full complexity, essentially creating another copy of > the mind. Furthermore, you can persuade a person not to do something; > but you cannot persuade a lightning-bolt not to strike. That is a convenient fiction. You do what you are forced to do, they do what they are forced to do. Persuade is a convenient shorthand You are allowing > yourself to be afflicted by the dreaded physics-cyst spherical-cow > disease (modelitis), thinking that a simplistic model is an accurate > representation of a complex phenomenon. > > I know you like to try out models until they "stick" (you tried equating > a mind to a star last time, now you are trying a lightning bolt) but the > last time this came up I mentioned about as useful a model as you're > likely to get: humans have free will in the same sense as Chamlis > Amalk-ney (or Mawhrin-Skel) has free will. No doubt you will complain > that that is not a very useful model. No, I'd complain that stars and lightning bolts and people are real, Chamlis Amalk-ney is a fictional creation. >Yes! That is the point! Free will as you bandy the term around is a poor concept and mostly useless. So, you are willing to give up any description of human beings that is not directly reducable to QED? Anything that is added on is no more than a convenient fiction, like reduced mass? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
