[extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel

[Lee Corbin]

Russell writes

> On 5/25/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > Sorry but soul is already taken and means that non-material
> > self independent of the body that enters the body somewhere
> > around birth...  Please let's not label what we mean by
> > using this old word with tons of tired baggage.
> 
> As far as practical communication goes, you'll note that
> indeed I'm not in the habit of using the word "soul";
> there are alternative words...
> 
> I'll stand by my usage of "free will" though; I think correctly
> defining it fixes a very common category error that's in practice
> quite independent of religious belief.

I agree with both Samantha and you. Here is a brief explanation
why I think that in one case---"souls"---we need to hold fast
that they don't exist, and in the other---"free will"---do what
we can to correct common misuse, and actually go on to embrace
the term.

(Gee this is an old argument for me;  in 1967, almost forty(!)
years ago, I was explaining to friends why "free will" really
is an acceptable concept even though we had agreed that the
world is deterministic (pace your pointing out that even under
indeterminism it doesn't matter).)

First, there is "how much work do we need to do to change the
basic idea?", and second there is "how much philosophically is
really at stake?".

The whole idea of *souls* is inextricably tied up with religion
and spiritualism. The idea as used in practice is unalterably
opposed to mechanism. Messing with souls leads directly to
considerations about everything from abortion to salvation.

"Free will" on the other hand is *not* something that the 
great majority of people can say anything intelligent about.
(Whether the great majority of people can say anything
intelligent period is a question I leave to another time.)
But we must either say that the question is meaningless,
or give an affirmative answer, or give a negative answer.

Is the question, "do we have free will" meaningless?  If
it's at all possible to answer a question, then it's 
preferable to do so rather than fall back on the old
"meaningless" recourse.

Not only can we give an affirmative answer to "do we have
free will", but we can even get some mileage out of it.
We can go so far as to accuse those who would say that we
do *not* have free will as entertaining a fantasy. For,
the rejection of the applicability of the concept means
that it's somehow conceivable that *their* notion of free
will could apply to mechanism. In other words, I think 
that those who deny that we have free will really have
not internalized that we are machines.

Lee