[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[Case]

Platt and Ian,

Actually I thought a more revealing quote from the article is:

"George R. F. Ellis, a cosmologist at the University of Cape Town, said that
freedom could emerge from this framework as well. "A nuclear bomb, for
example, proceeds to detonate according to the laws of nuclear physics," he
explained in an e-mail message. "Whether it does indeed detonate is
determined by political and ethical considerations, which are of a
completely different order."

The science of physics will tell us what IS we must look elsewhere it seek
why. But having said this there are facts in politics and ethics that will
play causal roles. If it is peace time for example one might say that peace
causes the bomb to remain inert. Or if some wacko dictator is threatening
the world's oil supply, factors such as fear, paranoia, and loss of life may
be factors that help determine outcomes.

Free will is more clearly seen as the level of uncertainty an individual
adds to a situation than as "the sine qua non of a moral value system." In
fact a moral value system can be more clearly seen as a factor limiting
freedom and acting as a causal determinate of individual choices.

Case


[Ian]
Thanks for the link Platt,

Case, as if to prove my point Platt is able to claim "science doesn't
know", when in fact he means "conventional GOF-science doesn't know".

Platt, you said
"Are the rules elusive just because we can't solve the equations or
because something fundamentally new happens when we increase numbers
and levels of complexity? Opinions vary ..."

I say Platt, that "or" is the misleading item. the "Equations" of an
older simpler science will clearly break down when they run up against
problems they can't address - science is always contingent, and
self-correcting to use Case's term. Situation normal near the leading
edge of any science.
We cannot solve new problems with old thinking, some famous old geezer
once said. Causality and "prediction" are not what they used to be.

Clearly until "society" catches up with what passes for science in
terms of "intellect" there will always be differences of "opinion",
but that's a social issue.

Ian

On 1/2/07, Platt Holden <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Fascinating article in today's NY Times entitled "Free Will: Now You
> Have It, Now You Don't." It touches on many subjects discussed here
> including causality, quantum physics and emergent properties. Most of
> all, it describes challenges by some scientists to the  notion of free
> choice, the sine qua non of a moral value system, not to mention a
> metaphysics of quality.
>
> I particularly like the author's view of emergent phenomena when he
> asks, "A knowledge of quarks is no help in predicting hurricanes --
> it's physics all the way down. But does the same apply to the stock
> market or to the brain? Are the rules elusive just because we can't
> solve the equations or because something fundamentally new happens when
> we increase numbers and levels of complexity? Opinions vary about
> whether it will ultimately prove to be physics all the way down, total
> independence from physics, or some shade in between, and thus how free
> we are."
>
> In other words, science doesn't know.
>
> You can find the article at:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/health/02essa.html
>
> Platt
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/