>Free-will [was: The stuff of misery]

E G M (e_g_m@yahoo.com)
Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:39:58 -0700 (PDT)

> Christopher Morbey (cmorbey@vanisle.net)
> Thu, 09 Apr 1998 11:54:53 -0700

> Suppose then that there is, in fact, no free-will. An alternative idea
> (we will omit the doctrine of predestination, here) would be that
> everything comes about by some sort of sophisticated pre-programming
> that can't be known in ultimate detail but we are reassured that cause
> determines effect. This being the case we have no means to think
> anything other than that which we have been programmed to think. We
> have, firmly in place, a total selection effect...even with
> unpredictability built in. Anything we measure or think or do
> ultimately derives from those processes that permitted us to measure
or think > or do. It follows necessarily that effect determines cause.
What we have
> is a logical contradiction and in normal circumstances we reject the
> hypothesis that there is, in fact, no free-will. Simple enough, it
> would seem.

If there is, in fact, no free will; and if in fact we have been
programmed what to think, do, etc.; then we also have to refuse to
believe in other things as well such as: consciousness, intelligence,
logic, love, hate, pain, ecstasy, valor, insight,faith, vigor, envy,
darwinism and creation, etc, etc.. Like free-will, these things are
also ultimately chemically/physically determined at the various
length- and time-scales of nature and by its rules (BTW, even
"nature", may be just an "output", an appearance of some programming,
something in fact not real), and consequently are only appearances of
certain reality of which we can only perceive what we were programmed
to peceive. In this scenario, Natural Selection or Special Creation
appear to be possible "programmed" answers to our "obvious" existance;
but wait a minute, obvious to what or to whom? Is it not just obvious
to our "programming"?.

In a few words, IM-humble-O, if we start walking into the universe of
no free will we are in fact walking into a sort of Alice's Wonderland,
the creation of some author of which we don't know nothing, just like
my computer doesn't know what is INTEL, or who is Bill Gates, and what
I'm doing.


That that which is ultimately determined chemically/physically somehow
became "concious" of itself thru itself and by itself following the
rules of a game no one invented, is an idea that rests in perfect
subjectivism, in wanted-belief, in a kind of rational irrationality,
in fact in some kind of wishful avoidance of the only alternaltive.

Happy Easter to all


Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com