R
RichD
Guest
On Mar 22, Bob <bbx107....@excite.XYZ.com> wrote:
term, your notions are fuzzy.
Before we can talk about ducks, we need an
operational definition; a duck is feathered, swims,
quacks. After we agree on that, we can argue
about the best ways to hunt em, cook em, boink em.
I have given my definition of free will, which
accords with the commonly held view. And
I have provided cogent reasons why it is chimerical.
You only wriggle with "science isn't advanced
enough" etc. without defining what "it" is. How
would you recognize it if it crashed through your
windshield?
Come back when you've done your homework...
--
Rich
There's the problem: you have not defined theYou are composed of cells, billions and billions. Each
cell follows the laws of chemistry, immutably - including
your brain cells. They just run along, minimizing the
Gibbs free energy, that's what molecules do.
More precisely, you are misrepresenting what the
laws of chemistry say.
If we accept the general intent of what you said or
meant to say, it is statistical. The importance of "random"
fluctuations to biology is increasingly appreciated.
Straw man.
Clearly, human behavior is very complex,
probably intractable. And likely, this is due
in large part to thermodynamic fluctuations.
Humans are noisy, messy sytems.
But that doesn't address the free will question.
The brain/mind may be chaotic and
unpredictable, but that doesn't mean you have
free will. You are still a mass of cells, governed
by the laws of chemistry.
To invoke free will, you must posit a 'mind',
which is somehow acting independently
of cellular activity.
Your basic point was that the laws of thermo disallow
"free will". That is false, for the reason I stated, and
which you seem to understand.
Quite explicitly, I did not claim any position on free will -- only
that "thermo" does not disallow it.
Our understanding of "mind" is not yet far enough
advanced to allow any meaningful scientific discussion
of what free will, or its appearance, is.
term, your notions are fuzzy.
Before we can talk about ducks, we need an
operational definition; a duck is feathered, swims,
quacks. After we agree on that, we can argue
about the best ways to hunt em, cook em, boink em.
I have given my definition of free will, which
accords with the commonly held view. And
I have provided cogent reasons why it is chimerical.
You only wriggle with "science isn't advanced
enough" etc. without defining what "it" is. How
would you recognize it if it crashed through your
windshield?
Come back when you've done your homework...
--
Rich