Thanks, previous contributors, for posting your respective opinions on the relationship between free will and determinism; a topic in a recent New Scientist article. Regarding the question as to whether the "mind" aspect to free will is or can be somehow separate from the determinism of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles; this controversy was not alluded to specifically, in the article. My impresssion is however, that among the two protagonists (pro vs con free will); there's a tacit agreement that "mind" would definitely be included as a subset in the supposed determinism of the "physical" particles. Even from a Buddhist perspective, I don't see how such a dualist agenda could be supported. In Essence, Buddhist is "Naturalist" but not necessarily "materialist"; but Buddhists are not inclined to separate mind from matter. But let's put this question aside for the moment, and assume that IF matter is determined, THEN mind and the alleged free will within/as mind is also determined by prior causes. This (at this time) is an unprovable assumption, but that's the assumption(IMO) the scientists have agreed upon in laying out the framework for their hypotheses. I left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph. Before pasting it in, I will briefly summarize the basic issues. The article is entitled "Free Will, you only think you have it".; and alludes to the "against" free will, pro determinism researcher, Nobel Prize winner Gerhard d'Hooft (or something like that -- can't remember how to spell his name). On the pro-free-will (against determinism) side, we have John Horton Conway, a famous mathematician at Princeton, inventor of the "Game of Life" cellular automaton. Interestingly, these two giants of science are "going at it" not with philosophy, but rather with mathematical formulas; but at this time, d'Hooft only believes he's on the right track. Conway differs, and believes that the QM reality of existence is indeterminate. However, I would add that in math, there are many hypotheses that remain unproven, and there's no guarantee that there will "ever" be a proof pro or con. At any rate, the basic assumption among the two combatants is that "mind" is only a subset of matter; so the question boils down to determinism vs indeterminism (thus, no free will vs free will). Last point, the article writer brought up the interesting point of the downside to the pro side. (Conway believes QM - and thus the "gross" level of reality...in fact: existence itself) is fundamentally indeterminate, thus allowing for free will. The downside is that to an extreme, in the absence of determinism, RANDOMNESS is the prodominant status of QM: quantum particles and thus all of existence as an emergent property, is inherently random. So, is a rather bleak tradeoff: if QM reality is indeterminant, free will existence exists, but at a big price: it's "free" but is fundamentally random.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/jDk17A/gOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
