On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
You mean subjectivity is objectively important?
>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.
It was an observation, not an accusation.
> > > 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.
Or everyone else could understand better.
That's subjectivity for you.
> > > > > 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".
You can say your gut tells you things. But it doens;t.
That is just figurative language.
> > > > > > > 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
if there were no light, everything we imagined would 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.
And we can't get a handle on the way the universe is?
You seem to think you can.
> We can talk about determinism only because
> we extend beyond it.
Gee, I guess you extend beyond everything then.
Or your initial premise is wrong.
> > > 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?
Why not? You say that if you are deterrmined, you cannot conceive
of non-determinism. i say that if you are determined, you will
necessarily and inevitably conceive of whatever you are determined
to conceive of. That may or may not include indeterminism.
I don't have to argue that the conception of indeterminism
> > 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.
You know that how?
>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.
Vague. FMRI contradicts you.
> > > > 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.
You contradict it below.
> > >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.
that;s the contradiction.
> But we can never discover the existence of something that
> nothing has experienced, unless we create it ourselves - which
> wouldn't be discovery.
Another unsupported assertion. what witnessed the dark side
of the moon before we did?
> > > > >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.
Nope. Eg brainwashing.
>To be a believer is to choose to
> > > > > > > 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.
Re-read the above. " language allows
us to negate concepts even if we don;t have experience of their
That's "we don't have experience", not "they exist
that;s impossible too, according to you...)
> 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.
According to you.
> 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.
That's not figurative, it's just meaningless.
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