On Apr 29, 1:26 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How many times do you want me to restate the obvious third alternative
> > YOU CREATE the reason to act.
> OK, then you create the reason to act for a reason OR you create the reason
> to act for no reason, there is no third alternative.
You create the reason to act for many reasons, but you may not be
determined by any one of them to make the choice you make. Your own
capacity to create a reason (ie to 'reason') is as causally
efficacious as any of the outside influences. Your preference can
count as much as any other consideration.
> > You are saying that whatever is done in a non-systematic way has no
> > cause.
> > That is a the most basic logical fallacy there is.
That isn't a rebuttal.
> > > You are erroneously assuming that all causes are systematic
> If it was caused then something about it must be systematic.
I understand that you believe that, but I think that it's an
unexamined assumption. I have no system for writing these words. I am
writing them in real time based on nothing whatsoever other than what
makes sense to me at the moment. Why do you have to make that
systematic? Can't you just let it be what it is?
> If not, if
> it's a miracle and not repeatable
If it's a miracle it's quite an ordinary miracle, as every living
person and many animals participate in it continuously. Exercising
your will may not be as repeatable as a machine, but it's repeatable
enough for most purposes.
> and you still insist on calling it a
> cause then the word "cause" has no meaning, or at least it becomes
> operationally indistinguishable from the word "random".
Not random. Not systematically determined. Spontaneously generated
from consciousness. This is the primary function of consciousness. To
change the self and the world from the inside out, countering the
random and systematic changes imposed from the outside in. If you had
to make the universe from scratch, that is the way you would have to
do it if you wanted to create experiences like we have.
> > My point is that intention is neither caused entirely by a system nor it
> > is entirely without a system - will is the creation of system; a third
> > option.
> So you think X is not Y and you also think X is not not Y, now THAT sort of
> doublethink is the most basic logical fallacy there is.
A Yellow traffic light is not Go and it isn't Stop, but doesn't mean
'don't stop' or 'don't go' either. Your assumption of black and white
thinking is the problem, not reality. I am only describing common,
ordinary reality in the simplest and most straightforward terms I
> > You are determined by your will?
> Yes, or at least you want to be determined by your will, but sometimes
> events conspire in such a way that you can't always get what you want; a
> great Rolling Stones song by the way.
But are you a passive spectator of an alien force or can you influence
some things in some ways?
> > So you think we should say "I am walked across the street by my will".
> Obviously, although that's a rather awkward way of phrasing it; I usually
> just say "I'm walking across the street because I want to", of course just
> like everything else I want to for a reason OR I want to for no reason.
It doesn't work. Why did the chicken cross the road? Because road
crossing determined to express itself as a chicken.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at