On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 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.
>
> Why would your subjective concerns matter to me? I take *my*
> subjectivity as seriously as anything!

You don't have to care about my subjectivity to care about
subjectivity in general. I feel like Pulp Fiction:

Jules: You know the shows on TV?
Vincent: I don't watch TV.
Jules: Yeah, but, you are aware that there's an invention called
television, and on this invention they show shows, right?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> Philosophy is difficult.

and accusations are easy.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> You are not pointing out a fact to the effect that they mean
> ther same thing "figurativelty". They seem to mean the same
> thing to you because of baggage you are brigning to the issue
> that other people are not bringing.

If by baggage you mean understanding, then yes, that could be true.

>
>
>
> > > > 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.
>
> If no other agents, humans, individuals is overrding
> their will, they are not being coerced. Coercion is
> a deliberate act. Gravity does not coerce objects into
> falling.

You're right from a 3p perspective. From a 1p perspective anything
that winds up changing your mind can be said to convince you or coerce
your decision. We can project intention on unconscious agents. You can
say, "I was coerced into joining a gym by my expanding gut".

>
> > > > > > 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?
>
> No. We can conceive of the existence of the non-existent and
> vice versa.

We can conceive of non-existence because things can cease to exist. If
there were no light, then nothing could be imagined to be lacking
light. It would be no more possible than it is for us to conceive of
Non-Gromwalschedness in our universe.

>
> > > 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.
>
> Except determinism itself.

Not even determinism. It could not be defined, it would simply be the
way that the universe is. We can talk about determinism only because
we extend beyond it.

>
> > Everything would be purely automatic and unconscious and have no way
> > to conceive of any other possibility.
>
> Non-sequitur. You would be determined to conceive whatever
> you were determined to conceive, rightly or wrongly.

Why would anything be determined to conceive of anything?

>
> Let's say they brain state of someone who believes in
> free will is state S. Does it really make a difference whether
> S is arrived at by  a history involving indeterminism and free will,
> or by a history involving involving strict determinism? It's the
> same state either way.

There is no state S. Each person's 'belief' isn't arrived at at all.
That is not how it works. Opinions are dynamic impressions driven by
motive. (Another movie reference is helpful: Zelig). The reality of
belief is context dependent fugues of memory and influence with
feeling and sense in the moment. What we believe arises organically
from who we are and how we feel. When we assume instead from the
beginning that there is this abstract entity of 'belief in free will'
then it turns reality upside down and we end up thinking we have to
justify reality to the abstraction.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 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).
>
> Unsupported assertion.

No more unsupported than the opposite assertion.

>
> >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.
>
> You mean we could discover the existence of something we
> have not at this point in time experienced?

Of course. But we can never discover the existence of something that
nothing has experienced, unless we create it ourselves - which
wouldn't be discovery.

>
> > > >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.
>
> Sure you can. it's just that your theory of belief would be wrong. It
> would
> be a false belief.

How could any belief be possible under determinism? Belief implies a
voluntary epistemological investment. To be a believer is to choose to
believe.

>
> > > > > > 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?
>
> Because naming is lingusitic, and language allows
> us to negate concepts even if we don;t have
> experience of their negations. We can conceive
> the im-material in a material universe, the im-mortal,
> the a-temporal, the in-finite, etc, etc.

You don't know that our universe doesn't extend beyond qualities that
seem material, mortal, temporal, and finite to us though. The only
example that could be used is a nonsense example. The universe could
actually be 100% X-istic but we have no way of knowing it. The ability
of the mind (which is part of the universe) to conceive of X in the
first place means that the mind can figuratively extend beyond it.

>
> You seem to be runnign off a theory of concept-formation
> whereby concepts are only ever recongnitions of percerived
> realities.

Not perceived realities, but ontological possibilities. We can't
imagine a square circle, not because we haven't seen one, but because
the two figures are mutually exclusive. The most basic requirement of
any pattern we can recognize or conceive is to discern the difference
between it's presence and it's absence. We cannot know finite without
there being the possibility of in-finite. We cannot know determinism
without there being the possibility of in-determinism. Light without
dark, sanity without insanity, etc. Without a foreground, there can be
no background (and vice versa).

>That does not remotely do justice to human thought and
> language. Language is combinatorial, it allows you to stick a
> pair of wings on a horse.

Of course. Provided that wings and horses are conceivable in that
combination in the first place. It does not allow you to stick wings
on irony. You can put them together in the trivial sense,
syntactically, but there's no semantic referent.

>
> >Whenever someone resorts to saying 'Nope' or 'No,
> > it isn't' I know that they have nothing to support their opinion
>
> or they haven;t got the energy to explain the bleedin' obvious.

Then why bother saying anything?

>
> > > > 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?
>
> "Non machine", if it speaks English.

What does it think it means by that though?

>
> > > > > 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.
>
> I can't imagine why you would think that.

Because it makes sense?

>
> > 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.
>
> Blimey!

Same as 'no' or 'nope'.

>
> > > > > 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.
>
> it could have been answered: "actually, there is no good reason
> to think nothing can exist without having a point. My argument fails".

That would still be an opinion. There is no good reason to think that
having a point is some kind of static commodity. If I pick up a rock
and throw it through a window, then it could be said that there was a
point to my picking up the rock.

>
> You think opinion is the only option because you think admitting you
> are wrong is not an option.

It's an option, but it's still an opinion. You criticized my answering
with an opinion, then you disqualify my pointing out that any answer
to that question is necessarily an opinion, then you make a special
case exception for that disqualification in the event that my answer
makes me wrong about something (anything, everything apparently).

>
> > > > 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?
>
> Why not?

Because then intelligence becomes a magical power that appears
inexplicably. You would have the reverse of the zombie problem -
conjured qualia...Pinocchio providence.

>
> >Does it start having opinions at some point?
>
> You were a single cell once. Now you are billions, and you started
> having opinions
> at some point.

I'm saying that point was at the beginning. Mitosis.

>
> > > Deterministic doesn't mean mandatory or involuntary.
>
> > How could it not? Can you give a counter example?
>
> I am not physically determined to pay taxes, but it is mandatory.

It's not physically mandatory either. It's only legally compulsory.

>
> I am physically determined to fall under the influence of gravity, but
> no one mandated it.

It's mandated by the laws of physics, if you want to get that
technical on the meaning of mandatory. The main thing is that it's not
within your power to refuse, or more importantly, that it cannot be
refused without awareness of the possibility of refusing.

Craig

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to