On May 16, 12:41 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> That's exactly what a sore looser would say after he'd been thoroughly
> >> beaten by a opponent.
> > > If I were beaten by a human opponent, why would I accuse them of not
> > making decisions? What does winning or losing a game against a non-person
> > have to do with awareness and subjectivity? If you get run over by a car
> > does that mean it's suspicious if you state that the driver was at fault
> > and not the car?
> That's a awful lot of questions and they all seem related to figuring out
> why I wrote what I did, and yet I don't see how that can possibly be the
> case. You think I have this thing you call "free will" and you say that
> means I'm not deterministic,

I don't say that means you're not deterministic, I say that means you
can make determinations. Sometimes those determinations are influenced
more by conditions you perceive as external to yourself, and sometimes
it is you who are influencing external conditions. The result is that
you are neither 100% deterministic nor 100% indeterministic.

> so asking me the reason I wrote that sentence
> you don't like makes no sense, if I'm not deterministic then obviously
> there is no reason whatsoever I wrote that sentence.

I didn't ask you the reason you wrote that sentence, I was giving
examples of how the reasoning you used in that sentence applied to
another situation doesn't work. I point this out only to present an
alternative to you that you can voluntarily choose to reason
differently if it makes the same sense to you as it does to me.

If you are completely deterministic, then how do you know that the car
isn't driving you instead of you driving a car? There are stories
about the drug scopolomine being used to turn people into 'zombies' in
Columbia...whether there is any truth to those stories or not, the
fact that we understand the difference between someone who is able to
determine their own actions vs someone who is under the control of
another would need to be explained in a deterministic world. What
difference could it make who controls you, when everyone is controlled
by physical forces?

> And someone might think my sentence cause you to write your list of
> questions, that is to say you wouldn't have written what you did if I
> didn't first write what I did; but no, you have free will too so you wrote
> what you did for no reason just like me and it must have been a coincidence

Some of us have been pointing out repeatedly that free will is neither
fully deterministic nor random, nor fully not deterministic nor
random. Just as Spring is neither fully Summer nor Winter, nor is it
completely not Summer or Winter. Subjectivity sets teleological
purpose as orthogonal to the objective determinism. If you insist upon
arbitrarily reducing the universe to a single dimension of determined
vs random, then you cannot understand consciousness as it actually is.

> that your list of questions came out right after my sentence.  And you
> believe that although there was no reason behind your list of questions

There were all kinds of reasons behind my listing of questions, but
they were mostly my reasons. I created them by reasoning.

> it
> was not random either, it was caused by nothing and it wasn't caused by
> nothing,

It was caused by me. I can be described as nothing or not nothing,
depending on what kind of thing you are comparing me to.

> and that doesn't make the free will noise a logical self
> contradiction because,..., because,... because you just don't want it to be
> contradictory and if you wish hard enough you can make it so.

It's not me that doesn't want it to be a contradiction, it's the
universe. Determinism and randomness are ideas within the experience
of conscious deliberation. Consciousness itself precedes those
categories. It determines and fails to determine. Consciousness is
like the mammal and determinism is the like the primate. You are
flipping the taxonomy and forcing reality which is far richer and
deeper than the intellect into a reduced intellectual framework that
has no way to accommodate the reality of awareness, just as you can't
draw a graph that explains 'dizzy' or 'sleepy'.

> >> And even I could beat Kasparov at chess if a robot or a surgeon first
> >> gave Kasparov a brain lobotomy.
> > But Kasparov would know the difference. Deep Blue never would.
> Machines can detect when they have suffered damage just like people,
> otherwise the red warning light on the dashboard of your car would never
> come on.

The red light doesn't grow out of the dashboard by itself like ours do
though. Nothing in the car will know the difference if you remove it.
Your car has no way to feel that 'It seems like something is wrong but
I'm not sure what'.


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