COMMENSAL ISSUE 91

Theo,

It's not that I can't be bothered to read the editorials, but d'you think you could see your way maybe to sticking the "deadline for submissions" info. somewhere on the cover ?

Anyway, in at the deep end. Again. In a way it's nice to be on the defensive a little. Finding folk agreeing with you might be good for the ego - but it's yer critics as show you your weaknesses, innit ? I know some misguided souls see something noble in philosophy - a process of seeking after truth, and all that. But face it - who really wants the truth ? What most people with a "Bright Idea" want is complete vindication of their own viewpoint and the chance to rip sh*te out of contrary opinions along the way. The whole beauty of philosophy is that there's just so much scope for dissent.

Almost too much at times.

Some issues (as Theo rightly notes [C90, 23.4]) like "free-will vs. determinism" and the "probabilities" thing can't rightly be covered in a few passing comments. Nor in a few thousand years of human endeavour if the current state of philosophy, science, religion, art, etc. is much to go by. On such a basis, like "First Cause" and all the other circular arguments on which "The Big Questions" traditionally rest, it's probably better to dip in on an "as and when" basis rather than try to devour them whole. Of course, if anyone thinks it worthwhile, I'm game, but I doubt we'll do any better'n has been done before. Unfortunately I was unable to resist the temptation of picking a few scabs anyway. Such as ...

Apparently Theo [C90, 23.4] "...couldn't see, though, why not having freewill should prevent one from having opinions...". Nope - not of necessity, I concur. I guess it depends what one means by "having opinions". Accepting, for the sake of argument, that a suitably powerful computer, suitably programmed, might "... hold all sorts of views..." and "...modify them in the light of debate..." is that the same as "having an opinion" ? Does the computer appreciate that what it holds is "an opinion", or is it merely regurgitating suitably processed clichés ? {Come to that, do any of us?}

If, though, what the computer has is "an opinion" - who's ? Does it "own" the opinion, or has it merely inherited it, along with all the other data it holds, from the programmer ? And if what it has is indeed an opinion of its own, might this not simply mean the computer had developed "free-will" - thus allowing it to "really" "have an opinion" ?

"Having an opinion", like "having feelings", implies something more than just responding to stimuli. It implies a "self" to which the state applies. Whatever "it" is that affords the luxury - or illusion - of subjectivity, call it "reflexive awareness", "consciousness", "free-will" or whatever, that we perceive of ourselves as ourselves suggests we have it. Without "me" how can 'I" be said to "have"' anything ?

Theo also states [C90, 23.4] "...determinism has no necessary relationship to predictability... ". Agreed ! I wasn't aware I'd implied that I thought otherwise - although I might've reversed the statement - predictability having no necessary relationship to determinism. I fear though some variants on this latter theme might involve "First Cause". Which I propose not to go into any deeper right now in the interests of avoiding unnecessarily offending religiously orientated readers. I'm sure there'll be ample opportunity at some future juncture to annoy the devout.

Moving on then, to "points arising" and "replies" - which, fortunately, can be covered in a few passing comments ....

Anthony Owens (C90, 9.3) - Your suggestion that druggies might be guilty of the "...offence of risking violence to others..." raises a host of nightmarish possibilities. Not just drug-users but boozers, the bad tempered, etc. needs must beware this one methinks. Indeed, if risk is a factor we all best watch our necks in your little Utopia, since everyone has the potential to offend. Perhaps the simplest, most cost-effective, permanent and humane remedy would be to save us all from ourselves by exterminating everybody "on spec"?

Shades of "2000 AD", "Judge Death". "The crime is Life. The sentence is Death."

Rick Street (C90, 30.4) : The statement "X is dead" is either "true", in which case "X" is "dead" - or it isn't and they ain't.

Questions concerning the nature of "dead" don't really figure. Alternative statements, each with its own associated "probability of truth", like "I thought / dreamt X was dead", "X who was dead has been raised by Jesus / reincarnated as a bat", etc. also seem to have little bearing on the case since they relate to different things.

That's obvious ! Subjectively !

Incidentally (and maybe this'll help Theo get to grips with non-standard English [C90, 35.2]) "statistically" I think you'll find you're probably neither "bat" nor "human" but "bacterium". Not that it matters since, to a first approximation, life on Earth is either extinct or never got started in the first place - depending how "Terra-centric" your statistics are.

Dave Botting : "A Sociopath's Guide To Moral Philosophy" [C90, page 5] ? Sociopath ? Hah ! Pussycat more like.

You imply that, at best, we are inconsequential, at worst inconsequential and stupid. Which is fair enough. But that doesn't mean we're not "important".

Whilst agreeing that humanity may not necessarily be a good thing I would contend that our collective capacity to foul up on a monumental scale is unprecedented in the history of life on Earth. Indeed, all the available evidence points to it being unique in the Cosmos.

Which surely has to be important in the eyes (or tentacles, or whatever) of any intelligent observer. That the only intelligent life we currently know of (or recognise ?) is us makes no odds. We, at least, have the capacity to appreciate the utter futility and madness of our existence. All it takes is the realisation that this is what it's all for. And maybe cannibalistic tendencies.

Anyway, I seem to be past my usual word-limit. So, since I don't want anyone thinking it's Rick writing badly under a pseudonym, I guess I better get off me soapbox.

Hasta La Bleedin' Vista Kiddies.

Stef Gula

Stef : Your opening remarks on argumentation refer more to a debating society than to philosophy properly so called. It is incumbent on the philosopher, if not on the lawyer, to at least delude him/her self into thinking what he/she is saying approximates to the truth. That is my pious hope, anyway.

With respect to opinions, and who can have them, I note that we always say "Mensa has no opinions". Are we thereby saying that Mensa, not being a person (except in a legal sense as a limited company), can’t, by the nature of the case, have opinions because it doesn’t have anything ? Or are we saying it doesn’t have opinions because it’s a free-speech organisation and has made a policy decision not to (there’s a fiction for you !). Mensa, of course, does have opinions - it believes that IQ is a coherent concept that measures something worthwhile, for a start. Newspapers have opinions. West Ham (at least used to) stand for a certain way of playing football. These are opinions that transcend those of the current incumbents (managers, editors, etc.). Thoughts ?

Further, when I find myself foolishly on a white-knuckle ride - having used my free will to decide to get on - I then tend to develop a strong opinion that I want to get off; but I don’t really have the free will to do so (especially if I’ve been strapped in). I can have all the opinions I like in that sort of situation, without the free will to act on them.

Thanks for clarifying Rick Street’s use of "statistically". I don’t think it’s non-standard English though : you’ve used non-standard English in your piece above to good effect (well, "effect", anyway - this is a matter of taste that not all will share) that is perfectly intelligible. What Rick was saying, or at least what you (and now I, maybe) understand Rick as saying, in a highly compressed form, was that, given the premise that I might be anything dreaming of being a human, and given that there are approximately equal numbers of bats and humans, then I’m as likely to be a bat as a human. The statistics has to do with counting bats & humans. You’ve extended this to bacteria and humans. Why not go all the way to viruses, or quarks ? Isn’t the "statistically" just technobabble that distracts from the real issue which is whether something of the limited intellectual capacity of a bat (let alone a bacterium) has the capability of dreaming it’s a human, let alone the unreality of the whole idea ? In any case, what Rick actually said originally (in C89, 34.1) was that "... You could quite possibly be a sleeping bat and I don't see why that should be any less likely statistically than the equally one-in-several-million possibility that you really are human". I think I’m correct in saying this is obscure, as well as false, in that it doesn’t on the surface say "there are several million times the number of non-humans as humans" but seems to imply a low probability of one being a human.

Theo