On Feb 8, 10:14 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer > of interest.
That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously. > > > > > If I am very cold and I walk > > > > into a room temperature room, to me the room feels warm. That isn't > > > > right or wrong, it's a reflection of how my sense of temperature > > > > works. My sense of free will may work the same way. If I am used to a > > > > busy social human world, being out in nature may seem to be nothing > > > > but randomness and determinism, but if I grew up in the wilderness, > > > > that may not be the case. The wilderness becomes a living context > > > > which can be read and perhaps dialogued with in some direct way. > > > > Hopelessly vague. > > > Hopelessly unhelpful personal opinion. How is it vague? > > "may not be"...."may not be"... If I don't qualify it, then I get crap because I 'speak as if I know' and if I do qualify it then I get crap because I'm hopelessly vague. This supports my suspicion that when people disagree with what you are saying but can't find any reason they can support, they tend to criticize how you write instead. > > > Perception of > > temperature is relative, is it not? All I'm saying is that perception > > of free will might be exactly the same way. Is 110 degrees hot? Not if > > you are boiling water, but it is hot for ice cream. Do we have a lot > > of free will? Compared to a TV set, sure. Compared to some abstract > > idea of Libertarian Free Will? Probably not. Not sure it matters. The > > capacity to even conceive of that idea though is decidedly impossible > > in a deterministic universe. > > > > > > >My hunch is that there > > > > > > probably is a correlation between what we think of as having free > > > > > > will > > > > > > and it's actual capacity for it, but who knows, we don't seem to be > > > > > > a > > > > > > very good judge of that kind of thing. > > > > > > > > > Free will, as an aspect of > > > > > > > > consciousness, may be subjective. > > > > > > > > The degree to which we infer the > > > > > > > > other as having the capacity for free will may be directly > > > > > > > > proportional to the perception of similarity to oneself. > > > > > > > > That doesn;t affect my point. if we are mistaken > > > > > > > in attributing FW to ourselves ITFP, we will be mistaken > > > > > > > in attributing to others on the basis of similarity to ourselves. > > > > > > > It think the possibility of falsely attributing FW to ourselves ITFP > > > > > > fails since it entails making a distinction between FW and > > > > > > determinism, which would not be conceivable without FW ITFP. > > > > > > It's conceivable. I just conceived it. > > > > > I just conceived it = "I, of my own free will, chose to conceive of > > > > it" > > > > No. The two are not synonymous. > > > Why not? > > Semantics and grammar. Obviously they aren't literally the same words, otherwise there would be no reason to point out that they figuratively mean the same thing. > > > Are you saying that you were coerced into conceiving it? > > Are you saying causation is coercion? If someone is caused to do something against their will, then yes, of course. > > > That > > you are a passive bystander to it's conception > > > > > > It would > > > > > > be like trying to make a distinction between air and the shadow of > > > > > > an > > > > > > invisible palm tree. > > > > > > ??????? > > > > > I'm saying that in a hypothetical universe where no freewill existed, > > > > there would be no way to even conceive of an alternative to > > > > determinism. > > > > You could just conceive of it as a result of deteministic > > > forces. > > > No, just like you can't conceive of a square circle. It would not be > > in the realm of possibility to differentiate determinism from anything > > else. > > I can't see why. Can you see why a universe without light would have no concept of darkness? > Mistakes are possbile under determinism. It isn't possible to do the impossible by mistake. If you posit a universe that is deterministic, then by definition, no shade of free will can exist. Not voluntary action, not will, not intention, accident, nothing at all would exist to define determinism in any way. Everything would be purely automatic and unconscious and have no way to conceive of any other possibility. > so, under determinsim, one could be mistaken about determinism. > > > > > You couldn't get outside of determinism to even imagine > > > > that there could be any other theoretical possibility. > > > > That makes no sense. If you drop LSD, it will > > > cause you to see and believe strange thngs that don't > > > exist. > > > They do exist, they just exist within your experience. > > Existing only in ones experience is for all practical purposes exactly > equivalent to > not existing. That is the most common way to look at it, but it's backwards. Nothing exists unless it exists in something's experience (directly or indirectly). That is what existence is. Detection and participation. > One cannot deny the existence of that which one has > never > imagined or conceived. There is nothing to deny if you haven't experienced its existence in some way. We experience molecules indirectly through description and inference, therefore they seem like they exist to us. We imagine what they are based on models and experiments which have allowed us to feel like we have closed the gap between our indirect experience of mathematics and physics and our direct experience of microscopy and materials science. All of these things are contingent solely on detection and interpretation. We could find out in 10 years or 100 years that the molecular model is only the tip of the iceberg. > > >It's the same > > even without LSD. What you experience isn't what exists objectively, > > it is what you are capable of and conditioned to experience. > > >Deterministic forces can cause false beliefs. > > > Deterministic forces can suggest false beliefs, but they can't truly > > cause any beliefs, otherwise they wouldn't be beliefs, but mechanisms. > > Belief can only be finally caused by a believer. > > That's your belief Only if my belief is true. Otherwise I can't have a belief. > > > > > It would be to > > > > imagine the opposite of something that cannot even be named. > > > > Where on earth did you get "cannot be named"? > > > Probably from Lovecraft or something. But it's entirely appropriate. A > > deterministic universe means that determinism cannot be named. > > Nope. How could it be named if there is no alternative quality to distinguish it from? Whenever someone resorts to saying 'Nope' or 'No, it isn't' I know that they have nothing to support their opinion and won't admit it. I've seen it many times. > > > What > > name does an engine have for being something other than a non-engine? > > The problem with an piece of clockwork is that it is dumb, > not that it is deterministic. Ok, so what is an intelligent machine's word for a non-machine? > > > > > If there > > > > were no such thing as color, you could not imagine color simply by > > > > trying to conceive of 'not black and white'. > > > > But that is a false analogy. Indeterminism just means lack > > > of determinism. > > > But free will means a positive assertion of intentionality - hence, > > color is not mere non-monochrome, and intentionality is not mere > > indeterminism. > > I was talking about indeterminism. Since the thread is named 'The free will function', I was thinking we were talking about that. I would say that indeterminism is a pseudo- position because it simultaneously assumes an omniscient voyeur and an arbitrary subject for orientation. Indeterminism is a comment on access to knowledge, implying that there is something other than the universe as a whole to either possess or lack that access. > > > > >Without free will in the > > > > first place, there is no possibility of conceiving anything or > > > > wondering about anything. > > > >The entire universe would be a machine that > > > > 'simply is' with no possibility for awareness (what would be the point > > > > of awareness?) > > > > What is the point of anything? > > > Everything has all kinds of points. Generally I think the inside of > > things wants to accumulate significance and the outside of things > > doesn't want anything, which negates significance as entropy. > > That's opinion. You asked a question that can only be answered with an opinion. 'Points' are subjective. > > > > > > > The whole idea of having an opinion of whether or > > > > > > not we have FW rests on our capacity to have and change an opinion, > > > > > > which would be meaningless under determinism. > > > > > > No it wouldn't. Of course you can;t freelly change an opinion > > > > > without some sort of freedom. > > > > > Why? If you have some sort of freedom, then you don't have > > > > determinism. > > > > > > But that is question begging. > > > > > No, it's question answering. You have a question? Then you have free > > > > will, otherwise there would be no point at all in the possibility of > > > > any sort of question. > > > > Oh good grief. You have now gone to assumijng, > > > with no evidence, that everythig has a point. > > > What evidence do you have that evidence has a point? > > I don't have to answer that. Evertyhing-has-a-point is your schtick. Then you do have a perfectly good answer for it but you would rather not say it. Sounds legit. But yet I'm the one with a schtick. > > >A question > > literally embodies a point. It is a motive to elicit sense. I don't > > assume that everything has a point, I assume that sensorimotive > > experience has many points, and that electromagnetic relativity is its > > 'pointless' container. > > Blimey > > > > >There would only be known and unknown, with no > > > > significant difference between them (again, what would be the point? > > > > if you can't do anything about your question except be a helpless > > > > spectator to see whether it gets answered or not, what would be the > > > > point?) > > > > > > But the other forms of the argument are non sequiturs. > > > > > What the palm tree? # > > > > No, the arguments that "you have choices/opinions/concepts therefore > > > FW exists". > > > That isn't a non-sequitur in any sense. It's a coherent and accurate > > explanation of the absurdity of arguing an opinion which, when taken > > literally, explicitly eliminates the possibility of any opinion at > > all. > > > How does a gear or lever have an opinion? > > The problems with gears and levers is dumbness. Does putting a billion gears and levers together in an arrangement make them less dumb? Does it start having opinions at some point? > > > I don't see how this > > isn't obvious. What is an opinion? Is it mandatory and involuntary? > > Deterministic doesn't mean mandatory or involuntary. How could it not? Can you give a counter example? > > >Or > > is it by definition intentional? What is determinism? Is it subject to > > your opinion or is it by definition independent of all voluntary > > cause? I don't understand how I am getting accused of not making > > sense, when this is elementary and crystal clear to me. > > > > >I was trying to explain precisely that determinism > > > > and free will would both be non-sequiturs > > > > Things aren't non sequiturs. Purported arguments are. > > > Any communication can be a non sequitur if it fails to communicate > > coherently. Your association of the phrase non-sequitur with purported > > arguments for example is not a non-sequitur, since I can understand > > what you mean and you are not saying 'purported frog delicious are', > > but it is a factually incorrect assertion. > > So you say. I would have no choice but to say, if I had no free will. Craig -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.