On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> > >>> there is really nothing more or less to say about it other than that >>> it is primordial orientation itself. >>> >> >> >> So awareness is the feeling data has when it is being processed, and >> there is not much more you can say about it. >> > > > Data has no feeling when it is being processed. But you said "awareness is primordial" and I agree, so if we're right and awareness is just what happens when certain physical events occur and there is nothing more to be said about it then I don't see why you would make the dogmatic assertion that you made above. > We have evidence of this in Blindsight, I don't find it surprising that physical brain damage can hinder the interpretation of information signals sent from the eyes to that damaged organ, nor do I see how it is relevant to what we were discussing. > and in the lack of indications of any sort of feeling from all data > processing equipment we have ever constructed. > What sort of indication were you looking for, what sort of thing would convince you? > > Acting on the reason you created = Free Will > So this thing called "free will" is deterministic whatever the hell it is, it was caused by the reason you created, and if you created that reason for a reason then it's deterministic too; and it you did not created that reason for a reason then it's random, there is no third alternative. > even random processes are determined If it's determined then it's not random. > within expected ranges of possible outcomes. > And sometime the expected happens and sometimes it does not. The movement of a gas molecule is random and if you put a bunch of them into a container the probability any single gas molecule will hit the side of the container is random, however you can calculate a good approximation of the pressure on the container but only because you are dealing with a astronomically large number of molecules. If one molecule randomly moves in one direction you can be pretty certain another molecule is randomly moving in the diametrically opposite direction and the randomness cancels out, so you can work out the average collision rate of molecules hitting the side of the container, in other words you can calculate the pressure. But the individual molecules still move at random. > Free will is ordinary, not magic, and absolutely represents a third > fundamental alternative that is neither purely random/determined, nor > non-random/non-determined I don't know what the ASCII string "free will" means but I don't need to to know that "free will" is X or "free will" is not X. The desire to have it both ways is just childish, it's time to face logic, and reality. > If I decide to type this sentence, I don't need to create a reason to do > it Certainly, modern physics tells us that pure randomness happens all the time, but if you really did write something for no reason it will not be worth reading. > I just decide what I want to say and type it. And you decided for a reason or you did not decide for a reason. > > by choosing which of those reasons to privilege or ignore, as well as > many other factors which are not necessarily reasonable, I freely choose my > actions. > And you chose which of those reasons to privilege or ignore for a reason or you did not do so for a reason. >> if you ask a computer to find the prime factors of a very large number >> you may have to wait a long time to see what it decides to do while the >> machine makes up its mind. >> > > > It's not making up its mind, you can stop it at any point in the > calculation and see precisely where in the process it is. Yes, so what, Turing proved that in general you still won't know what the computer will end up doing, if you want to know that all you can do is watch the computer and see. > It's like a clutch. The gears are deterministic, but you have to decide > when to put in the clutch and pick which gear you want. OK, and you made that decision to use the clutch for a reason or you did not. > preferring something is neither random nor non-random. It's idiotic to say something is both not X and not not X. Idiotic! John K Clark -- 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.
