For Your Approval

scott boston wboston at saluki-mail.fiber2.siu.edu
Mon Jun 9 10:15:29 EST 1997


> When you start to think about the implications, you might worry that
> removal of the conflict will leave us as relatively dull apepeople
> again.  There’s no reason to, we may not have a free will, but we sure
> are unpredictable, even to ourselves
 and that’s not going to be lost,
> as long as we keep sharing our abstractions.
> 
> I think we need to start teaching our children ecology and evolution,
> not autonomy.  We need to continue to teach them to express themselves,
> to abstract.
> 
> Penny D. Tansy, PhD.

	If there is no free will (and it seems that science does not allow for
one) how can we talk about the "need to" do anything?  It seems that
without a free will concepts such as "should", "right and wrong", or
"self-expression" are simply incorrect.  Your "will" is the Sum of the
equation: Organism + Environment + Entropy.  "You" will ultimately not
control what the equation equals.  So, I am not sure what you mean when
you say "We need to continue to teach them to express themselves, to
abstract."
	It seems that we have no choice, the laws of nature decide if our
children are taught or destroyed.  Natural selection will select for
those who best prepare their offspring to survive in the Environment,
that is the children of parents who pass along the most useful
information will live.  This information  may be genetic or learned, and
we do not know which kind of information will be most useful in the
future.  Maybe genetic information that codes for tall, strong, and fast
will have an advantage over genetic information that codes for short,
weak, and slow, or maybe not.  Maybe learned information about
chemistry, biology, or computers will be an advantage in the future, or
maybe not.  We do not know what we "need to" teach the children, only
Environment and Entropy will decide what is best for survival.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list