On May 17, 12:01 am, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote
> > > I don't say that [the free will noise] means you're not deterministic,
> I would be glad to hear you say that except that according to illogical
> Weinbergian logic just because something is not not deterministic does not
> mean its deterministic, so I don't know what the hell you mean.
Why is it Weinbergian logic? Have you not noticed that others here who
are also trying to tell you what orthogonal means? What might that be
about in Clarkian logic?
> >I say that means you can make determinations.
> If a determination is not made for a reason then its not a determination,
> it’s a crap-shoot.
Determinations are not usually made for A reason, they are made for
MANY reasons. It's always a guess to some degree and an informed
acquiescence to some degree, and a personal preference to some degree.
> > Sometimes those determinations are influenced more by conditions you
> > perceive as external to yourself,
> Sometimes a computer's CPU works on data already in it's memory unit, and
> sometimes it works on newly inputted data.
'Newly inputted' data is still in it's memory unit. The CPU doesn't
spontaneously generate new feelings like the human mind does.
> > and sometimes it is you who are influencing external conditions.
> And sometimes computers output data to external things like printers or
> video screens or internet connections and sometimes they do not.
That's true, but they don't care whether they output or not. It's not
driven by their own intention. They won't EVER discover a printer that
is sitting right next to them without having drivers loaded and
configured to even connect.
> > you can voluntarily choose to reason differently
> Yes I can change my mind, I've done it before but in the past whenever I
> changed my internal programming I have always done so for a reason, if I
> ever find myself changing my mind for no reason then I intend to call 911
> because I'm undergoing a serious medical emergency of some sort and a
> hardware malfunction is going on in my brain.
Did the reason change your internal programming by itself while you
passively watched or did you voluntarily decide to commit to it?
> > If you are completely deterministic, then how do you know that the car
> > isn't driving you instead of you driving a car?
> If I determine that the brake needs to be applied I find that my foot
> depresses the brake peddle and I feel (correctly I think) that I am in
How do you know the car isn't controlling your foot instead? According
to your argument, there would be no way to tell the difference as
either description of the event of braking is equally accurate and
> > free will is neither fully deterministic nor random, nor fully not
> > deterministic nor random.
> That makes no sense. You say "I have free will" so I don't see how
> randomness can help you clarify what that means because "I" is something
> but something does not cause random things to happen,
If you talk to a schizophrenic, what they say will seem more random
than someone else. Their I is causing things to happen with more
> nothing does, so the
> concept of randomness is no help at all in understanding what the ASCII
> sequence "I have free will" means.
You are the one who keeps injecting random into this. I don't need
random at all to understand free will. Random is nothing but a quality
of pattern recognition. If we can't find a pattern, we call it random.
Maybe every radioactive decay event in the universe is eventually
going to synchronize to spell out God's name in Red, White, and Blue
letters on his TV screen, how would we know?
> > Just as Spring is neither fully Summer nor Winter,
> Large complex things like the weather usually happen for many reasons, but
> every one of those reasons themselves happened for a reason or they did not
> happen for a reason.
Um, I'm not saying anything about the weather being deterministic or
not, I am strictly talking about how things can be arranged
orthogonally. I am disproving your claim that everything must be only
one thing or another thing.
> And one thing is beyond dispute to any logical person,
> spring is summer or spring is not summer.
Which is it? Is spring summer or is spring not summer? Isn't spring
nothing but the transition from winter to summer? Without that
transition to summer could you have spring? Spring and summer are just
different degrees of the same thing.
> > If you insist upon arbitrarily reducing the universe to a single
> > dimension of determined vs random, then
> Then I have understood the lesson taught on day one of logic 101, that X is
> Y or X is not Y and there is no third alternative.
You have understood that all too well, but you have not progressed to
logic 102. There are always more than two alternatives and X and Y are
symbolic constructs, not concrete realities.
> > you cannot understand consciousness as it actually is.
> I'll be damned if I understand why determinism is supposed to be the enemy
> of consciousness or why things that happen for no reason at all,
> randomness, is supposed to make everything all better.
Determinism and randomness are both figments of consciousness. They
are not the enemy, they are the fruits.
> >> 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
> Yes, there are many different types of deterministic processes.
And I choose among them and/or create my own new processes
> > I created them by reasoning.
> Yet another deterministic process.
There is a difference between making a determination and being
determined to passively watch a determination be made on your behalf.
Do you deny that? What is that difference? Hint: it's that ASCII
string that you dare not speak.
> >It was caused by me.
> If it's caused then it's obviously deterministic.
Free will = caused by me (intentionally). You can call free will
deterministic if you want, but what would be the point? What does that
word mean if it includes all possibilities including libertarian free
> >I can be described as nothing or not nothing
> Obviously gibberish.
Not at all. Some people only consider matter to be things, so I may by
that definition be nothing. Dan Dennett might argue that he and I and
you are nothing.
> > It determines and fails to determine.
> More of the same, up is down black is white gibberish is not gibberish and
> clarity is nowhere to be found in your universe.
Clarity is a consequence of intention. If your intention is to
describe the universe, then you must clearly describe it in a way that
embraces all of it's involuted paradox/unity.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at