Hi, Craig (and I still would appreciate your signing the end of your post,
as several of us list-members do - for easier reading)
you sound like e thinking 'mind' (what is mind?) - with limitations of
course (as you implied).
I changed the fundamental 'wiring' of my mental pattern (belief system?)
several times - maybe every 20-30 years or so and still 'feel' the same
solipsistic self. I think our nervous system is tissue-related, part of the
physical world equipment while our mentality grows in unrestricted domains
over the millennia. I believe we are more than 'nerves'. I consider the
brain a TOOL we use in our mentality of which science knows precious
I don't find a 'software package' applicable, just as the 250years ago used
'steam engine' and the electric drive of the 20th c. became obsolete. Free
will was very effective in the hands of religious despots to make the
faithful obedient for fear of punishment thereafter.
Without such there would be hell, greed, brutality, etc. - a reason why
'uncle Lenin' reneged on announcing his communistic society - the heavens of
happiness - before that "new type" of humans ("the Communist Man") can be
developed - described in religious scripts as 'angels'. His merciful death
prevented him to see all that vanish.
It is comforting to sit in anthropocentric lukewarmness, it is time to do
more. And we can.
The model of the so far acquired knowledge base is expanding, yet we think
within. OK, but that does not have to restrict our potentials.
Happy 4th of July
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi John,
> As far as anthropocentricity, I think that it is escapable only
> through the anthropocentric notion that we can de-anthropocentricize
> our perspective. The world has limitlessness, but it also has
> innumerable limits. Our experiences, ideas, logic, etc are limited by
> the perception and cognition of the human nervous system, yet our
> faculties are able to connect us with what convincingly appears to be
> an external world in which we participate as agents on an individual
> To explain that, I propose that our experience is seamlessly
> integrated fact and fiction, transparent and solipsistic. Our wiring
> gives us the best transparency it can within the constraints of what
> is physically is, but it must also deliver the signature qualities of
> human awareness in it's every subjective function. Free will is part
> of that software package, but if we go looking for it in that
> software's native 'hardware analyzer', we're not going to see anything
> because that viewer is only a command line text editor. Nothing looks
> like it has free will when you use that.
> On Jul 2, 10:52 am, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Deqr Craig,
> > it makes a lot of sense what you expressed in (too many?) words. May I
> > some more?
> > In general you take most of our 'human' concepts as final, fixed, defined
> > FACTS (?) and look at the world through them. Such anthropocentric
> > denigrates the limitlessness of the world. There are innumerable aspects
> > did not (yet?) meet and so omit their influence on our thinking,
> > emotions, events, whatever.
> > Our 'mind' (undefined) is part of the totality (unlimited complexity) and
> > whatever we 'feel' as our own decision is a product of the combined
> > influences we receive - including the input of our mental built. (That
> > includes the felling of a falsifiability as well).
> > In our 'ways' we may have choices and that adds to our 'free' feeling.
> > An interesting idea for a singularity to have no space and time, the
> > base-coordinates of *our *physical system* inside our universe*. It may
> > mean the destruction of ALL outgoing information that could disclose the
> > (physically perceived?) existence of the universe, a condition I take
> > important for (my term) singularity.
> > Regards
> > John Mikes
> > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com
> > > Here is a different take on free will vs. determinism.
> > > They are the same thing. We only perceive them to be different because
> > > our subjectivity warps our perspective for us. Free will is ultimately
> > > a feeling that it is us who is making the decision, while determinism
> > > is ultimately a thought that free agency must be defined in terms of
> > > objective facts. Whether or not that feeling or thought corresponds to
> > > a universal reality is not falsifiable or relevant once we re-frame
> > > the phenomenon as a single relation which has objective and subjective
> > > topologies.
> > > What I'm saying is that the existence of the feeling of free will,
> > > illusion or not, is sufficient to negate the argument of pure
> > > determinism. A mechanistic universe would have no conceivable method
> > > of, or benefit by conjuring such an illusion. There is no function
> > > that would serve an evolutionary machine to develop a fictional sense
> > > of teleology were there not such a possibility already inherent in the
> > > mechanics themselves. Not only would it be superfluous and
> > > counterproductive from an efficiency standpoint, but there really is
> > > no aspect of physics or biochemistry which could serve as a toolbox
> > > for creating some kind of simulation of participation and agency. You
> > > can make a machine seem like it has free will, but unless the machine
> > > feels like it has free will - feels the risks of consequences of it's
> > > words and actions to it's own survival - feels it's own survival with
> > > visceral, overwhelming significance, then there is only the reflection
> > > of our own free will.
> > > When I look at another human being who is similar to myself, I
> > > subconsciously qualify their agency with a shared sense of volition.
> > > Someone much older or younger, from a radically different culture,
> > > even someone with different physical characteristics are presented
> > > with a narrower bandwidth of free will to me. I have to consciously
> > > fight the default prejudice that steers me into stereotypical
> > > associations, otherwise I tend to think that what I see of a person
> > > and what I assume about them based on their appearance is what is
> > > influencing their behavior. I think "This is how children behave.",
> > > but I can still realize that any individual child has some capacity to
> > > deviate from my generic expectations. The closer I get to a person,
> > > the more that I know them, the deeper the subjective connection and
> > > the higher quality of individuality I can resolve in my perception of
> > > them, their life, etc.
> > > Take that interpersonal phenomenon of prejudice and magnify it
> > > exponentially to other species of animal, biology, and finally
> > > physical phenomena of a vastly different scale such as planet or
> > > molecule. I'm not suggesting that we should consider atoms to be
> > > 'people just like us' or something, I'm trying to explain how self-
> > > similarity functions as an elemental principle which unites Perception
> > > with General Relativity. Free will is a feature of subjective
> > > perception, while determinism is how free will appears when it is
> > > reflected through existential aperture as relativity.
> > > Probability is the external view of Feeling or Mood. It's the same
> > > thing, only probability is distanced as an a-signifying, generic,
> > > automatic, unconscious phenomenon while mood is a sensorimotive
> > > experience of the same thing. It is reflected through the essential
> > > aperture as signifying, proprietary, volitional, sentient phenomenon.
> > > As for trying to conceive of Many Worlds or a grand consciousness, I
> > > prefer to think of the singularity as what you get when you suck out
> > > all of the space and time from the cosmos. Once you realize that size
> > > and distance have no meaning outside of their perceptual-relativism of
> > > one phenomena to another, then the idea of a singularity from which
> > > the big bang 'emerges' as an event in time becomes a phenomena outside
> > > of timespace and embracing all matter-energy changes. It is a
> > > phenomenon which is, therefore, always occurring and never occurring.
> > > It is absolutely unconscious-deterministic and sentient-volitional at
> > > the same time - but probably much more and much less than that. We can
> > > only describe it as an ant might describe the workings of a microwave
> > > oven... and yet we can understand fully it by not describing it at
> > > all. Being. Doing. Feeling. Experiencing.
> > > On May 16, 10:49 am, selva <selvakr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a
> > > > separate causal domain..
> > > > there is no domain shear between the different domains(different
> > > > parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence..
> > > > It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect
> > > > relationships..
> > > > everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is
> > > > because it ought to be such.
> > > > There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting
> > > > the universe..
> > > > If this is right,then how can we say ,we have free will ?
> > > > why is there binary state at all ?
> > > > if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ?
> > > > why is the 50-50 probability arises ?
> > > > why is there probability functions at all ?
> > > > If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the
> > > > positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it
> > > > you don't have a free will ?
> > > > Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe).
> > > > Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to
> > > > universe..?
> > > > Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at
> > > > all ?
> > > > everything affects everything or not ?
> > > > P.S : i am just a student and i don't have real technical knowledge
> > > > all these fields..i am just curious..what is these universe and why
> > > > does it exists at all..
> > > > so please bear with my ignorance.
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > "Everything List" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at