From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Foundations... (Was Re: Reply to Steve Adams (LONG!))
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:43:07 GMT

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <adams.715543098@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>If I sit in my study and watch how I make choices and then say "By Gee and
>>>Jay, this notion of free will is a myth! That's not how it works at all!"
>>>Than I am not an "-ist" of any kind, I am just somebody watching the
>>>workings of their own mind and challenging others to do the same. Maybe
>>>your mind is different...I don't know...
>> 
>> I guess this entire thing revolves around a point of view.  Perhaps I am
>> kidding myself that I really do have a free will.  And that said free will
>> is simply a convenient fiction I use to insist that I have real control
>> over my life.  Perhaps not.  

>The single trickiest point here is : will you take a look at the matter for
>yourself and see?  I can tell you free will is a myth, but that means nothing
>unless you observe the workings of your own mind and see. 

Right.  Observational propositions.  Currently, my observation tells me
that I have some form of moral agency, and that I freely use my *subjective* 
analysis to determine what action to take.  But, it appears to me, at least
at this point, that I have control over that decision.  It is this control
that I define as free will, or perhaps better as being a free, moral agent.

>Does the computer in front of you exist or not?
What computer? ;-)

>> Observationally, your ideas might just be correct, but I think that is just
>> perception. 

>An interesting admission! The only response I could make would be: if you
>want to know if they are correct, watch your own mind and see. 

Alas, this is all one can do.  Granted, I still find myself clinging to
sets of notions and values that have been built up over time.  The three
components: frame of reference, self-image and values form the basis for
subjective analysis.  Getting to objectivity is tough, and very few people
accomplish it.  It seems near impossible to be totally objective about
anything, but the closer the better.

>Soooo....the question really is: are Sean's observations accurate?
At this point, I don't believe that your observations are 100% accurate.
Although they do seem to explain things, I don't know that they are
accurate.  Ockham's Razor says we should chose the simplest answer when
there are multiple competing answers, unless and until the simple answer
falls apart.  Which of our answers is simpler? ;-)

>If yes, free will is a myth.  After we see the accuracy or inaccuracy
>of my observations, then we can argue about "conclusions" (which deal
>with _explanations_ for the observed facts...) 
Well, applying some basic logic, you have constructed a good, logical
hypothesis with a good logical conclusion.  If it can be demonstrated that
the hypothesis is correct (ie your observation is correct) then the
conclusion of your proposistion follows logically.  

So I have to argue agaainst the proposition here (at least in my own mind)...
if it stands, then your conclusion that there is no free will is correct.

>What is an "actual" possibility? What makes it "logical" or illogical?
>If something never happens, does that mean it was impossible? 
No.  It is only impossible if it could never have happened.  For example,
your example of God creating a world with free moral agents that never sin
means that sin is impossible.  There is NO real chance that it would
happen.

>If we have no views, it is impossible to judge, as one has no standards to
>judge by...judgement ceases to be an issue at that point. "Good" ceases
>meaning "acceptable to my world view" and starts meaning <good> (as in
>"I feel good...")  Is this another point, after all?
'Good' is that which fits our perception of what is agreeable to our
values and self-image, and is consistant with our frame of reference.  Of
course, frames of reference are notriously full of gaps and fallacies.
Making subjective judgement exactly that...subjective!

>>>Which of course would mean that it appeared better to you to prove your
>>>point about free will than to not beat the child. You would have no
>>>choice but to demonstrate how free you are! *laugh*
>> 
>>OK. I laughed here too.  But I get extra credit for a prediction to myself
>>that you would respond in almost those EXACT words!  Deterministic!!! ;-)

>Wise guy, eh? :)  Still, I think the point should be pretty clear. In fact,
>I am a bit puzzled that you apparently don't see it...

Since our perceptions are base on subjectivity, it shouldn't surprise you
at all!  Our perceptions often blind us to the 'truth', whatever that is!
;-)  I mean, after all, my mind works like anyone elses, complete with its
prejudices, biases and values...discarding them (or at least shelving them)
to gain objectivity is tough.

>So...if you can...step outside your frame of reference for a while. Put it
>on the shelf, it'll be there when you get back...:)
I've actually done this to some extent...but haven't manage to completely
do it.  Too many outside factors.

>maybe I'm just 
>a disembodied solipsistic brain being fed intravenously on Alpha 
>Centauri by small green men...you can never be sure about these things...
So how is Elvis?  [sorry, I couldn't resist..Bloom County - remember?]

>Re: foundations

>Have you thought about the Restored Pythagorean Unreformed Church...??? :)
>(see post on this subject for details...!!!)

Yes, and I rejected it...;-)  Just as I rejected the Pythagoran Reformed
Church. ;-)

>>So, just how easy would it be for you to dump this kind of basic
>>foundation?  See what I mean?

>Comrade, even if you decide you WANT to dump your foundation you will
>find that that's just the START of the fun...! 

Perhaps this is the crux of the matter...fear of the unknown...

>I wish you good luck in your attempts to find some kind of peace of mind,
>for it sounds like that's what this is really about. You want to get
>everything straight - and you don't want to cheat. It sounds like you
>may have the kind of mind that has trouble resting if it suspects it has
>not gone as far as it can.  I was going to advise you to hang in there,
>but that would be kind of silly. If you are the kind of person who
>cannot rest until you reach the End of the Line, whatever it may be,
>then you will get there. If you are not, then you will cheat, and 
>accept some set of speculative doctrines as absolute, you will settle
>for a dream of distant havens rather than staring at the weird and relentless
>beauty of the ocean upon which you are adrift.

This farily accurately reflects what I'm about.  I can't let something go
until it's resolved.  And I've resolved not to cheat any more...sometimes I
do ignore a problem I can't solve, but I always end up coming back to it.
Sort of letting it sit while I work on something else.

>Yes, I think it does...my parents would flip if they knew what I really
>thought. They would be very hurt. Devastated, in the case of my mother.
>I just keep my mouth shut and smile a lot...one might hope for better,
>but, as Dogen Kigen put it, flowers die, even though we love them; and weeds
>grow everywhere, even though we do not love them.

Little tougher for me...I couldn't care less what my parents think.  It's
closer to home: my wife.  And it's kind of hard to hide your philosphy from
someone you live with intimately...know what I mean?  She has expressed her
concern about my 'quest'.."You get too deep into things"...no kidding.
She'd freak if she read the stuff I was writing with Paul Harvey on
Genesis.  Or parts of this conversation.  Gack.

>>But if it never occurs, was it really possible? ;-)  Look at yourself and
>>your own example of beating a child! ;-)

>You're starting to sound like me!  
That's it!  I'm checking into a mental instituation today. ;-)

I can see it now:

Me:  "Hi.  I have some serious problems.  I'm starting to sound like
     another person."

Them: "That's not bad."

Me:  "I've never met him but I talk to him all the time."

Them: "Huh?"

Me:   "Yeah, there's this cyberspace kind of place called the 'Net' where
       we carry on all manner of discussions with people we don't know and
       have never met.  It's all done on computers.'

Them:  Immaginary people.  Discussions with these 'people' he doesn't know 
       and has never met.  Get the strait-jacket.  This guy's hallucinating!
;-)

>Free will AND an actual, logical possibility of evil - in the same creation!
Nope.  See aboove ;-)

>Howzat??? :)  (pant, puff, pant, puff)  Only the people who freely choose
>salvation get created!  I realize this aspect of the discussion
>is academic at this point...still, I'd LOVE to get you to admit that
>this is right! (puhhhhleeeez???) :)
Fat chance, guy!  Not yet!  Give me some time....;-)

>> I constantly remind people of this...he was an SOB.

>Right on, brother. Can't repeat that enough these days. Paul is probably
>the most influential man in history...

Yeah, I'd have to agree.

>"Jesus said: `He who seeks shall find; he who finds shall be troubled. He who
>is troubled shall be astonished, and he will rule over the All.'"

>(...probably not an exact quote - my brother swiped my copy of Gospel of Thomas
>so I had to do that one from memory. Can you believe that? Stealing a man's
>only copy of the Good News!!! I'm gonna get that guy...)

"Revenge is mine, says the Lord"...;-)  God will get him for that!

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558