On Wed, Jan 11, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >  If you know the logic behind something then you understand it and if
>> you understand it you know the logic behind it.
>  >  That's a false assumption. I can understand something whether or not
> it has logic behind it.
You can know something without logic but you can't understand it. The
ancient Greeks knew about lightning just as well as we do but they did not
understand it. If understanding X does not mean seeing the logic behind X
what does the word mean?

> > If a change 'happens' it  could be because something is deciding for it
> to happen. They are  providing the reason.

OK, they did it because they wanted to do it, doing it gave them more joy
than not doing it because that is the way their brain is wired; that is a
perfectly legitimate deterministic reason for a perfectly legitimate cuckoo

> The difference between biology and  physics is specifically that it is
> neither a cuckoo clock nor a  roulette wheel, it is living flesh;

I'm talking about something much more fundamental than just the difference
between life and death, I'm talking why things, any thing, happen at all;
and there can be no doubt that things happen for a reason or they do not
happen for a reason.

>  >  If that were true than an identical twin would be the same person
> sometimes.

They are natural clones, they have the same genes but different memories
and I know very well they are different people, I have identical twin

>   > The genetic code can certainly be thought of as a digital  code,
Obviously it's a digital code.

   >  but it's execution is all analog biochemistry.

BULLSHIT! The genetic code and its execution is entirely mechanical and as
digital as a digital  watch. When a single strand of DNA duplicates itself
it forms a mirror image of itself, in the new strand the base adenine
always replaces the base thymine (and vice versa) and the base guanine
replaces the base cytosine (and vice versa), thus when the new strand
duplicates themselves you get a exact copy of the original grandfather DNA
strand. All these rules are entirely digital.

Of course DNA does not make protein directly, that heavy lifting is the job
of Messenger RNA
(mRNA), so the DNA must make some and the digital rules for making mRNA are
identical to the DNA duplication rules except that thymine is replaced by
another base called uracil, but the rules are still 100% digital, and
remember it is the sequence of these bases that caries the genetic

For example, the triplet CAT in DNA makes the mRNA triplet CAU and in and
in the language of the genetic code that mRNA is written in that triplet
symbolizes the amino acid histidine, BUT their are no special analog
chemical properties that relate that triplet to the amino acid, and yet
that triplet always causes that amino acid an no other to be added to the
sequence making the protein. Why? The reason for that is another very small
type of RNA called transfer RNA (tRNA). One type of tRNA has an anticodon
that connects to the CAU triplet of messenger RNA like a key fitting into a
lock. At another part of the transfer RNA molecule an amino acid can be
attached, in this case histidine. However tRNA can't tell one amino acid
from another, the amino acid attachment part is IDENTICAL in all tRNA
molecules, but in practice, only those that have the anticodon for CAU are
attached to histidine. Why? The reason for this is an enzyme
(aminocyl-tRNA synthetase). This enzyme can tell one amino acid from
another, and it can tell one tRNA molecule from another, and it can a
attach a amino acid to it. But this enzyme does NOT look at the anticodon
at all but at another part of the transfer RNA, the DHU loop. In the lab
the DHU loop from one type of tRNA has been grafted onto another type of
tRNA and that changes the genetic code. It's also interesting that this
enzyme is a protein encoded by, what else, the digital genetic code. So the
genetic code does not reside in any one of these stages, it resides in all
of them, and all of them are digital

 >  I'm not sure that analog is inherently an inferior format for copying,

You're not sure?? Don't be ridiculous. When you download a program from the
internet it has to be perfect, 99.99% fidelity is not nearly good enough
because just one bit out of place could render the entire large program
nonfunctional; you can never make a 100% perfect analog copy but such
perfection is the norm in the digital realm, and even if a error is made
there are error correcting algorithms that can usually correct it and get
back to that 100% perfection that is required, there is nothing like that
for analog copies. So analog copies are never perfect but digital copies
are usually perfect. As the chain of copies of copies of copies lengthens
the quality of the copies ALWAYS decreases if it's analog, but not if it's
digital, and some of your genes go back millions of generations.

> > >  At the temperatures  and pH conditions found in cells any linear
>> protein string with the same
>>  sequence of amino acids ALWAYS folds up into exactly precisely the same
>> shape. Different sequence different shape, same sequence same shape.

>  >  If you change the temperatures and pH conditions, then they do not.
> Sequence isn't everything
What the hell difference does that make? In the cell, any cell, the the
temperature and pH is always in a certain range or the cell is dead, and in
that range the same sequence always gives you the exact same shape no
matter how complex that shape is, so obviously that shape information HAD
to be in that linear sequence of amino acids. It's digital.

> > It's nothing like a program being executed from a script

It's EXACTLY  like running a program from a script, input a digital one
dimensional linear program sequence and output a very complex 3D shape; the
same sequence gives you the same shape, always.

 >  Any computer should be able to emulate another computer of lesser
> capacity and know exactly what it will do. That's what digital is all
> about.

But exactly the same thing is true of you. A man is walking down a road and
spots a fork in the road far ahead. He knows of advantages and
disadvantages to both paths so he isn't sure if he will go right or left,
he hadn't decided. Now imagine a powerful demon able to look into the man's
head and quickly deduce that he would eventually choose to go to the left.
Meanwhile the man, whose mind works much more slowly than the demon's,
hasn't completed the thought process yet. He might be
saying to himself I haven't decided I'll have to think about it, I'm free
to go either way. From his point of view he is in a sense correct, even a
robot does not feel like a robot but from the demon's viewpoint it's a
different matter, he simply deduced a purely mechanical operation that can
have only one outcome.

 But is it really a purely mechanical operation, what about the uncertainty
principal? I don't see how it effects matters one way or another. It says
that some things can happen for no cause and thus are truly random, but
happenstance is the very opposite of intelligence and even emotion. Things
either happen because of cause and effect or they don't and if they don't
then they are by definition random and have nothing to due with volition.
Those who claim that this is the source of the will must also
believe that a nickel has free will when you flip it.

 In our example the demon did not tell the man of his prediction, but now
lets pretend he did. Suppose also that the man, being of an argumentative
nature, was determined to do the exact opposite of what the demon
predicted. Now our poor demon would be in a familiar predicament. Because
the demons decision influences the man's actions the demon must forecast
his own
behavior, but he will have no better luck in this regard than the man did
and for the same reasons. What we would need in a situation like this is a
mega-demon able to look into the demon's head. Now the mega-demon would
have the problem.

 >  My theory is multisense realism. It is all about what is real and in
> what sense. Information is not objectively real because it is  subjective
> phenomena imagined as object, which it isn't.

If information is not real why are you giving me all this information about
your theory?

> > Free will is the difference between true/false and Yes!/No!.
So free will is negative one.

>  > Free will  is  the difference between how voluntary muscle tissue and
> smooth muscle tissue is activated.

I can control some things like the muscles in my fingers but I can not
control the muscles in my heart. My car's computer can control the air fuel
ratio in the engine but it can't control the pressure in the tires.

> >  Free will is the difference between  premeditated murder and accidental
> manslaughter.

Free will gibberish is one of the most important reasons the criminal
justice system is such a joke.

>  > Free will is the ordinary process by which we choose to express
> ourselves in words and gestures.

Did one mind choose to transferring information from his mind to another
mind for a reason, or did one mind choose to transferring  information from
his mind to another mind for no reason?

>  > How many more do you want?

Just one more will do, one that is not circular or gibberish.

 > Free Will is Subjectivity * Significance. Determinism is Objectivity รท
Entropy. Randomness is Insignificance.

I couldn't fail to disagree with you less. Free will is a wet bird that
never fly's at night. Free will is a little tweeting squirrel chirping in a
meadow. Free will is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad. Free will
is a colorless green idea that sleeps furiously.

  John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to