IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

religion and the brain

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Tue Oct 12 10:12:24 EST 2004

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:46:39 +0300, "Jonan" <ivan at redutta.com> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>While I agree on statement for un-deterministic behaviour of nature, I don't
>think that all arguments are correct.
>> Well, let's consider the physical universe rather than the mind.  It is
>> controlled to a large degree by physical laws, so it certainly isn't a
>> "hodge-podge of meaningless and unpredictable events."  But at the same
>> time, there is a uncertainty (unpredictability) component that prevents it
>> from operating in a totally deterministic fashion.
>Nature doesn't follow any rules, for sure - all rules and natural laws exist
>entirely in our minds - it's our way for dealing with nature's complexity.
>Actually rules follow the nature, because science in all it's aspects is
>some model of nature and laws are created to match to greatest possible
>degree natural events.
>> "Free will" is an oxymoron.  You either believe in "free" in which case
>> the universe is a nihilistic hodge-podge of meaningless and
>> unpredictable events, or you believe in "will", in which case something
>> exists (physical laws, biases, stimuli, etc.) which provide it a push
>> (will).
>Is the world logical extension of fixed number of axioms? I don't think so.
>So why trying to put each event in only two extreme categories - (a)
>conforming to no axioms, i.e. the ulitmate goal of entropy, or (b)
>conforming to some existent axioms - the existing physical laws. Why don't
>consider the "free will" just another axiom in our world - a new dimension
>of measuring events?

Everything not mechanically defined in terms of something else is an
axiom. And almost every thing we deal with in philosophy is an axiom.
That's why it's philosophy and not science because philosophers make
these things up out of whole cloth.

>Btw - each theory in order to be consistent should not have a contradiction
>between any two conlcusions. Do you think that our - especially the human
>world - is a set of axioms producing consistent theory? I don't. So doing
>science to me is mainly finding the most appropriate model of existing
>events, in specific area,  to suit specific purpose. Probably this property
>is a kinda hard, when dealing with AI.

Regards - Lester

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net