On 01 Dec 2008, at 17:26, John Mikes wrote:

> That does not make a logical sense to me:
> "self-determinism" is based on the content of one's personal  
> experience (colored by genetic dissposition) and concerning  
> relational input.
> To call it deterministic is IMO OK, but not free will at all. Self  
> or not self: it is a consequence.

Then we should make all criminals free, because they all just obeys  
Schroedinger equation. (Free)-will exists because we cannot known all  
our determinations, and because we know that we cannot know our  
determinations, I would say.

> I wonder if your 'numbers system' includes relational  
> differentiation, or ONLY the blank figures? If it does, it is only a  
> language for describing the totality (and a simplified one at that).  
> (I seek more diversified descriptions. )

You seem a bit unfair. Even in the case of the theology of the ideally  
correct universal machine there will be 8 very different sort of  
persons points of view, and I have never dare to say to the list that  
the four last one really multiplies into infinity. All this potential  
diversity exists before the machine actually live any experience. You  
are again accusing me of reductionism by using what I'm afraid looks a  
bit like a reductionist conception of machines and numbers.

Good luck for your niece,



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to