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
controversial.

>
> > 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
interaction.

> 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
neither?

>
> > 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
alternative.

>
> > 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
lesson?

> 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
something?

>
> > 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?

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