Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!cca!ima!ism780!martin From: martin@ism780.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Free [Will, Lunch, Software] Message-ID: <349@ism780.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Aug-84 00:07:37 EDT Article-I.D.: ism780.349 Posted: Wed Aug 8 00:07:37 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 01:28:27 EDT Lines: 57 Nf-ID: #R:houca:-44800:ism780:20200017:000:2984 Nf-From: ism780!martin Jul 30 14:26:00 1984 ***** ism780:net.philosophy / ism780b!jim / 6:46 pm Jul 28, 1984 >How can you talk about *effecting* (sic) the past, and then question the existence >of cause and *effect*? How can you draw a picture of Present becoming Past >and speak as though it were a picture of time flowing from Present to Past? >(Answer: by being confused.) Of course I'm confused. That's why there is philosophy. Your questions here illustrate the point I was trying to make. Namely, that Cause and Effect and Time Marching On are basic assumptions in all of our thinking. Not only do they affect how we think about things, but they also limit the things we can think about. I can't question the existance of cause and effect because the language doesn't allow it. I can't speak of time flowing from Present to Past because the language doesn't allow it. The previous two sentences use the word "because," which assumes Cause and Effect. >If we choose to say that past precedes present, then time flows from past >to present, and events in the past affect events in the present. >If we choose to say that present precedes past, then time flows from present >to past, but events in the past still affect events in the present. Changing >the meaning of the word "precedes" in relation to time does not change the >underlying philosophical concepts. But it might bring into the light, concepts that nobody ever thinks about because they get short circuited by the language that attempts to describe them. >Cause and effect is certainly not merely an identity. Rather, it is a >encapsulation of the notion of induction. To the degree that A is reliably >expected to precede B, in the absence of other events consistently preceding >or co-occurring with A, we are able/willing to say that A causes B. >The notion that causation implies a stronger connection between A with B >depends upon circumstances (e.g., physical laws) strongly indicated by >induction to relate A to B, and those circumstances must then be spoken of >as being causative. What about the time between the cause and the effect? Between A and B. What goes on in there? If there is no time between A and B, then they happen simultaneously, and A cannot cause B. If there is time between A and B, and nothing happens during that time, then how can we say that A causes B? Induction doesn't seem to explain anything here. It just puts off understanding forever. >> I choose which future will become my past. >This sort of statement begs the question: What does it mean to choose? >How do you go about doing it? How do we determine which things you are >capable of choosing and which you are not (some people would argue >that you are capable of choosing anything, but they are not very interesting >to talk to)? And all statements about free will and determinism will beg the question if they are worded in language based on Cause and Effect and Time marching On. martin smith INTERACTIVE Systems