2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> > On Feb 8, 10:14 pm, 1Z <[email protected]> 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? >
Does putting a billions neurons 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 protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
