From: epowers@dante.nmsu.edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Science and choice
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:37:53 GMT

Mats Andtbacka (MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI) wrote:
: In <1992Dec16.030334.20463@nmsu.edu> epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu writes:
: 
:       Erik Powers continues down his line of, "science implies
: determinism, which excludes free will" - which is a very good line in
: itself, and I *still* haven't figured out any way to refute him.
: 
:       But it just dawned on me, for the first time I think, that said
: line is pointless, because determinism is. Alright, so if every action
: of every single neuron in my head is deterministic, and my every action
: is theoretically predictable in detail since the Big Bang, maybe I don't
: have free will. But it seems to be predetermined ever since the Big Bang
: (aka above reasoning) that I'll disagree with mr. Powers anyway, whether
: I want to or not. So there!
: 
: > 	So you must "choose":  either you must base an important part of your  
: > philosophy on science and deny free will, or you'll have to find something  
: > outside of science to base it on.
: 
:       Perhaps - but saying that I don't have free will after all gets us
: nowhere. I'll just ignore you, because I have no other choice, for it
: was predetermined I'd do so... :-)


	If you wish, fine.  It will be hard to live as if you really
believe you have no freedom of choice, and so I wish you the best of luck. :-)
I have chosen to toss premises that logically lead me into
self-contradiction (such as "there is absolutely no absolute truth" or
"there are no such things as words") or philosophical dead ends (such as
"I do not exist" or "my thoughts are completely predetermined by nature").
	This is the reason I assume the existence of a "supernature".  I
hesitate to use the word because it conjures up images of angels and
demons and witch hunts, and I don't mean to imply any of that yet.  In
examining the basis for scientific inquiry and thought, I have come to the
conclusion that a supernatural exists, but the "nature" of that
supernature is still in question.
	Let me throw more stuff out here that you should find interesting.
It seems to me that there is a moral standard operating that can't be
explained by science.  By what we have discussed before, there can be
nothing inherently right or wrong, as far as science is concerned.  There
is only what IS.  Alexander Pope wrote "whatever is, is right" and I think
science would agree. (Pope's point was that you can't call something
"wrong" or "evil" or "twisted".  It is what it is because it is the result
of what was.  I don't think he was saying "everything is just peachy") 
However, I can't agree.  If I saw events as nothing more than the result
of physical laws acting on a given situation, I would have no reason to
decry the slaughter in (the former) Yugoslavia.  It "seems to have been
predetermined since the Big Bang", right?  No, I can't accept a fatalistic
view of human events, and I insist that this supernature I've come to
accept has a highly moral aspect to it.  
	I think this is enough for now, although only a small part of the
supernatural has been discovered.  This should be fun!
						Erik Powers