> On May 20, 1:49 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > All free will means is any change made because you wanted to.
> That would be fine except I know that is NOT all you believe "free will"
> means because I know you would not be happy about a calculator having free
> will, but when the keys "2" "+" "3" and "=" are depressed in that sequence
> the calculator wants to display a "5".

Would you be happy about saying that a trash can lid that says THANK
YOU means that the trash can wants to thank you?

> "No!", I can hear you scream, that's different! Well if it's different then
> obviously that's not "all free will means", there is also a very
> substantial gibberish component to it.

It's different because you smuggled the word 'wants' into your example
and that is a begging the question fallacy. Wants is free will. If the
calculator wants something then it has free will. If we knew that the
calculator wanted something then we wouldn't be having this
conversation. I know that the calculator does not want to show '5'. It
doesn't know what that ASCII-like shape is.

Actually that's the key to this whole exchange. Your claims of not
understanding free will are exactly why the calculator doesn't have
free will, only it's not pretending. It really doesn't know the
meaning of the words.

> > > You decide what reasons you care about
> The calculator decides what LED number to light up.

No, it decides nothing. It has no choice. You decide what LEDs to make
it light up and you decide that stands for the number you expect. The
calculation is correct, but only because there are electromagnetic
regularities in the solid state crystals that we exploit. Those
electronic conditions are symptoms of the only real wants in the thing
- holding and releasing synchronized feelings and actions amongst
semiconducting molecules.

> > My decisions aren't events that happen unless I decide to make them
> > happen.
> Very deep. And a calculator can't calculate unless it's calculations
> happen.

Right, but it's calculations aren't decisions at all. It can't decide
that 2 + 3 = 17.

> Can a cuckoo clock decide to nail the door of the clock shut?
> No.


> How can you tell the difference between something random and something
> > caused by an agent you have no understanding of?
> You can't.

That's what I'm saying.

> >> Spring is not summer.
>  >Why not?
> I do not consider that point worth debating.

You would if you had a position worth defending.

> > > I have never made any choice for only one reason.
> So a large number of deterministic factors caused you to do what you did,
> or perhaps it was random and no factors at all caused you to do what you
> did; there is no third way.

Of course there is a third, orthogonal way. Intention.

> > If you won't respect free will
> I respect it just as much as I respect a burp.

No, that's false. You don't claim to not know what the word burp

> > What you think liberty is if not free will?
> The ability to do what you want to do. As I said before I have no problem
> with the word "will" it's "free will" that is gibberish.

All will is free to some extent. What would it mean not to have will
otherwise? If someone hypnotizes you and turns you into their slave,
would you not have lost your freedom to express 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