On May 4, 3:39 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig:
> you seem to be firmly anchored in a reductionist conventional view of the
> "know-it-all" model of yesterday.

I think that I am instead, comfortably camped out in a "make sense of
it all" model of tomorrow which embraces and rejects both
reductionism, holism, relativism, functionalism, and panpsychism.

> Which is OK with me, as YOUR opinion. I
> consider - in my agnostic limitations - those 'factors' (rather: relations)
> we did not encounter SO FAR and give an extended view to the model. Or: not
> "view" - *feeling* is more accurate for something we have no idea about.
> I said: we are PART of an infinite complexity of which we learn details
> continually and have no idea how much of it is still unknown.

We are part of a tremendous complexity, and a tremendous complexity is
part of us. Sense cuts through that though also, giving us a degree of
simplicity and coherence on different levels.

> Those
> (fellow) details influence our 'in-model' relations as well, since they are
> part of the world (our world). Contribute to our FREE(?) will, adding
> influencing details to our ignorance. We FEEL to be FREE, yet we are part
> of a wider complexity - we do not feel.

We are part of a wider complexity which we have no direct influence
over, but that doesn't dilute the reality of the  that we do directly
influence parts of our mind and body, and the changes we make with
them to our environment and it's future.

> Now you can reject this as "MY" belief system, discounting the view of the
> past millennia with increasing our factual image of the world all over
> time, from the gods, the flat earth, faith-induced superstitions, the
> emergence-marvels (miracles) into the poorly (if any) understood "physical"
> marvels (gravitation, atomics, electricity, mass, space, time, waves, etc.
> etc.) together with other 'sciences' (biology, neurology, psych, even
> cosmology and many 'philosophical' terms etc.).
> I see the development into more understanding (did I say: better? No)
> of the belief miraculous that governed human thinking earlier.
> Also humanity developed a technological prowess (that is almost good) by
> the newly (3000yrs?) evolved views of the world.

I don't reject contemporary scientific observations, I only suggest
that we try interpreting all forms of energy as subjective experience
on different scales ('time').

> So I can only envy your self-confidence of a FREE WILL coming from you
> only,

I don't think Free Will comes from me only. All forms of energy are
free will to the entity that experiences it directly. The more
indirectly we experience it, the more it is perceived as deterministic
and random.

> no deterministic leads, as a random choice (random, what I deny:
> there would be no physical 'LAW' if there were "randomly" occurring
> anything.) I cannot DENY what I have no knowledge about.

With what can you conclude that you can or cannot deny something
without free will?


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