On May 22, 12:49 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > In addition to approving of one presented option and disapproving of
> > another,
> Approved for a reason or approved for no reason.


> > free will allows us to nominate our own option for approval.
> Nominated for a reason or nominated for no reason.

Wrong. I am doing the nominating. I have many reasons, feelings,
whims, etc. but it is not necessary for me to choose any of those or
not choose any of them. I can create a new course of action which
synthesizes some existing elements and projects forward my own novel
intention which cannot be reduced to 'for a reason or no reason'.

> > I don't see much of a difference between 'will' and 'free will'.
> The meaning of will is clear and its existence beyond dispute, I want to do
> some things and don't want to do other things. But free will "means" that
> simultaneously something happened for no reason and that same something did
> not happened for no reason; this is not even nonsense because there is no
> sense for it to be opposite to. The stories of Lewis Carroll are nonsense
> but they are not gibberish, the "free will" noise is gibberish.

You are defining free will as an a priori non-sequitur and then
insisting that anyone other than you is defining it that way. When you
say "I want to do some things and don't want to do other things" how
is that not free will? You can argue that this feeling of wanting to
do things is an illusion as far as it being truly causally efficacious
in our body and the world, but that leaves the problem of what would
be the point of such a feeling to exist in the universe that is purely

It's not that free will is ambiguously deterministic and non-
determistic, it's that it is orthogonal to determinism. Why? Because
our initiative is on the same level as the ground of being. There are
laws of physics and we represent some of them personally. We are the
Sheriff of voluntary muscle movement in our body and of executive
functions of our central nervous system. We interpret and execute the
law personally. There are laws we are compelled to observe and
preserve, but the way we choose to do that, what we emphasize and let
slide, those are actually up to us as individual people and nobody

> >They are both colloquial
> Translation: Shallow. Not thought through. Vague. Ignorant.

Not at all. Informal, popular, useful, general rather than technical
or academic.

> > terms that don't need to be put under a microscope.
> Philosophers have been studying these terms for thousands of years without
> the use of modern tools like microscopes and logic and the scientific
> method, and that is why they have made precisely ZERO progress in all that
> time. All your posts could have been written by any philosophically minded
> well educated man living in 1000BC, but the thing is the human race has
> learned far more good philosophy since then, but not from philosophers.

How is that really working out for us though? 

Maybe it's time to take our hypertrophied objectifying minds and give
subjectivity a fresh look, you know, without the chip on our shoulder.


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