On Apr 26, 3:31 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't understand either because I don't know what the ASCII string "free
> will" means.

Is this tedious sophistry random or determined?

> > Without free will, arguing with you would be like arguing with someone
> > about what color their own eyes seem to them.
> Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string "free will" means.

Convenient. Maybe you also don't know what ASCII string "I may be
mistaken" means.

> > If there is no choosing
> I never said there is no choosing, we choose things all the time.

And that's not free will because...?

> Unlike
> the noise "free will" the word "choose" actually means something; if at a
> particular time I can see that there are 2 actions (X or Y)  I can take and
> I don't know which one to do and then at a later time I find that I am
> performing action Y not action X then I have *chosen* to perform action
> Y.

No. Finding that your heart has begun beating faster is not a choice.
Slapping someone in the face is a choice. It's really not very

> > what you believe, then what could possibly be the point of 'debating'
> > anything?
> It's fun and there is always the possibility my opponent will point out an
> error in my thinking and I will have learned something.

That wouldn't be possible if you had no free will with which to choose
to update your thinking.

> > a billiard ball is an actual thing and a brain state is an abstract idea
> > about patterns
> This Email is a abstract pattern that contains ideas, so is a book, so is a
> symphony;

Only in the context of a learned human mind. Without a person reading
the email or book or listening to a symphony, there is nothing but
meaningless inkblots and vibrating objects.

> as you say a billiard ball is a thing, it is a noun and contains
> no ideas.

It contains all kinds of ideas. Density, momentum, form, acoustic

> So the question you have to ask yourself is am I Craig Weinberg
> more like a billiard ball or more like a symphony.

Why would I choose one or the other when I am obviously like both and

> > the person is the timespace- sense-motive experience of X.
> I don't know what that means.

Our lives 'insist' through time as sense-motive experiences.

> > The whole idea of 'picking' clearly, obviously, relies on a third
> > alternative of intentional choice.
> It's completely binary, your "intentional choice"

There is choice A, choice B and the sense-motive capacity to tell the
difference and to care to choose between them.

> was caused for a reason
> or it was not, if it was then you're a Cuckoo Clock if it wasn't then
> you're a Roulette Wheel; a event happened for a reason or it did not happen
> for a reason, there is no third alternative.

I completely reject your false dichotomy. There is always a third

> > I'm talking about the existence of feeling as a phenomenon in the
> > universe. It makes no sense logically.
> Then how can I deduce what feeling my actions will cause in my fellow human
> beings and be correct most of the time?

Because feeling has its own sense and logic. That has nothing to do
with the existence of feeling though.

> If people did not have this ability
> we could not live together and civilization would be impossible. Turing
> Machines have states that cause them to behave one way rather than another
> to a stimuli, and people have moods.
> > Are cuckoo clocks or roulette wheels responsible for their actions?
> Certainly! If a cuckoo clock no longer cuckoos or a roulette wheel no
> longer turns they get thrown away,

So what? Do you think that teaches cuckoo clocks and roulette wheels a

> and believers in capital punishment
> think that if a human being no longer functions properly with other people
> it should be thrown away too.

You notice we don't apply the same logic to inanimate objects. No
culture in the world does that as far as I know. Maybe they are on to

> > It can't be a deterrent to anyone if nobody has the free will to control
> > their own behavior.
> Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string "free will" means.

Of course. "Cannot admit I'm wrong"

> > Of course matter and mind can change each other. That doesn't mean that
> > mind is a product of matter.
> Change the matter and the mind changes, change the mind and the matter
> changes. What more do you need?

Um, something that's not a logical fallacy. I change the channel and
the TV program changes. Does that mean I control television broadcasts
with my remote control?

> > The TV show isn't a product of the TV set.
> The TV show changes the TV set and if not enough TV sets are changed by the
> TV show the TV show changes or gets canceled;

Cancellation of TV shows are ultimately attributed to the owners of
the TV network. Ratings are important, but it is not a machine that
cancels shows automatically. Human beings make decisions that have
consequences in the world. Its a fact.

> and with AI a TV set could
> create its own TV show, video games are a step in this direction.

What does that say about the relation between mind and body?

> > I am the universe. Whatever I believe is what the universe believes local
> > to me.
> So now your resorting to "truthiness" and all the "it's true for me"
> crapola.

Not at all. I'm just stating the facts.

> >> And it is well known that the naive philosophical beliefs of most people
> >> are always correct.
> > > Have sophisticated theories of established authorities fared much better
> > in history?
> Yes.

For example? What theories are still authoritative from 5000 years
ago? 200 years ago?


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