On Apr 26, 3:31 pm, John Clark <[email protected]> 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 [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.
