From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sean's delusional nature 
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:50:09 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1993Jan9.224224.23173@midway.uchicago.edu>, dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.164354.10007@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>I don't want to deny intentionality. But to say that _choice_ is
>>a conscious act is just inaccurate.  Decisions _just happen_. 
>>Otherwise, you'd have to decide to decide, and decide to make that
>>decision, and that one, ad infinitum.  
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar. This is akin to Zeno's paradox wherein to get

Thank you for the nice explanation of Zeno's paradox...I always wondered
how that one was logically solved. My comment above isn't really akin 
to that paradox, though, I don't think. I am not arguing that 
conscious decisions are impossible. They obviously aren't. I am 
arguing against a particular understanding of consciousness, specifically
the one that says that our consciousness is the _source_ of decision.
All I am saying that consciousness is not a source of anything,
but is a result. This is a very tricky area...
 
> Anyway, choice IS sometimes a conscious act (extended voluntary non-
> breathing wouldn't be, e.g.). Sometimes decisions SEEM to just happen,
> but that's like saying that a man just up and killed his wife because
> of the way she picked her nose. My, it `just happened'. Well that's
> untrue -- there are all sorts of factors that resulted in that action,
> including their years of acrimonious fighting (in this hypothetical
> example).

I think maybe I need to be clearer. When I say decisions "just happen,"
I don't mean to deny that there are factors that lead to the decision.
You are certainly right here. All I mean is that our consciousness is not
the _source_ of the decision. The conscious mind plays around with a 
question: will I kill my wife or not? Various impulses now contend with
each other. Finally some kind of resolution occurs and one impulse wins out.
The conscious mind looks at this and says: Ok, I know what I want to do.
I'm gonna kill her. See what I'm getting at? I'm not denying psychological
factors at all, I'm only rejecting the privleged position some people
want to give to the conscious mind.

>>I say: we are neither free nor determined. We just are. Our thoughts arise,
>>we don't know where from. Our intentions emerge, but why, we don't know.
> 
> The study of psychology can be remarkably instructive here.

Ok, wise guy, that's not what I meant. :)  I meant that our 
thoughts and intentions arise as part of the process of the universe
rolling along. Since we don't know how the universe got here, we
are ultimately ignorant of the reasons behind our thoughts (if any).
We can, of course, trace them back a long way, back to neurology,
evolutionary biology, etc.  
 
Sheesh...:)

>>Also, I don't think everybody acts as if they have free will. To say that
>>is to say that everyone is deluded, because belief in free will is a
>>delusion. I don't intend that in a pejorative way. 
> 
> Yes, but you're saying free will is a delusion is disingenuous, because
> you believe everything is delusion; yet you (and most everyone else)
> live your life as if your life mattered. So in the end your assertion
> is meaningless.

I notice you said "most everyone else." Some people don't think their
lives matter, not in any ultimate sense. And I don't believe
"everything is a delusion," comrade...:)

> This gets back to Steve Adam's thought about moral agency. Some
> people disavow free will in order to disavow responsibility.

This is so complicated...I don't deny responsibilty. If we care about
moral questions at all, we have no choice but to live as though we're free. 
You're right. But our consciousness is _not_ the source of decision, although
it can be a trigger for the decision process. That's all I'm saying.

> Some
> people (as Paul Harvey points out) are authentic people living 
> inauthentic lives: pretending a dis-entreprenurial attitude: this
> is perhaps because a familiar hell can be more comforting than
> change. Change is Death.


 
>>A little test: compose a truly beautiful poem  within the
>>next 10 seconds.  Can't do it? Heck, exercise your free will and do it!
>>Still can't? You mean you have to wait until it _comes_ to you? 
> 
> Yes, I can do it; have done it, and so can you or anyone else if
> they choose to: see Paul Harvey's posts, eg.

I can't, personally. I can write a crappy poem in 10 seconds, but not
a beautiful one. Maybe you can -- if so, congratulations. But I think
my point still stands. I was trying to get at the question of 
"inspiration." You've never been stumped when trying to come up with
a word, and then all of a sudden it "comes to you?"  Never been stuck
on a problem when all of a sudden it all becomes clear? You can't
force these processes. You can try, but they work in their own time, more
or less independently of consciousness.

>>All thoughts, intentions etc. arise in the same way. They just come to
>>us or they don't. "I didn't think of it" is a good excuse! Can you help
>>it if you didn't think of something? No -- you just didn't. 
> 
> I wonder if you are trying to get me to show that determinism factors
> in (to some degree) here; obviously, things don't just `happen', there
> are causes. And YET, this does not obviate `free will'.

Maybe you should define what you mean by free will...I'm arguing against
Steve Adams' definition, which was that human consciousness is
a decision generator, creating decisions _ex nihilo_. 
  
> Dano

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca