On May 23, 1:54 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>  Nominated for a reason or nominated for no reason.
> > > Wrong. I am doing the nominating.
> You are doing the nominating for a reason or you are doing the nominating
> for no reason.

Reason is not nominating anyone by itself. I am doing the nominating
by reasoning. Reasons don't care what I nominate, but I do.

> > > I have many reasons
> Then you are deterministic.

In the sense that I make determinations, but if that's true than being
deterministic means having free will, and so the word loses all

> Many reasons do not make something less
> deterministic, it just makes it more complex; but if there were NO reasons
> then things really would be different, then things would be random.

Many reasons is important because there is a conscious agent who can
not only understand existing reasons and pick from among them, but who
can *generate new reasons themselves*.

> > I can create a new course of action
> And you created that new course of action for a reason (or reasons) in
> which case it was deterministic, OR you created that new course of action
> for no reason, not even one, in which case your action was random.

I understand what you are saying completely. I understand that in
theory it should make sense. What I have been telling you though, is
that rigid logic is not sufficient the phenomenological reality of the
actual universe we inhabit. You are literally thinking in black and
white. In that metaphor, free will is the unquestionable existence of

> > > which cannot be reduced to 'for a reason or no reason'.
> There is only one thing that can not be reduced to X or not X, gibberish.

There are many terms for that approach to thinking. I would call it
epistemological fascism or Aristotelian reductionism. It's good for
some things, but not everything, certainly not for explaining
awareness itself.

> > When you say "I want to do some things and don't want to do other things"
> > how
> > is that not free will?
> So, you demand to know what the reason was that caused me to write what I
> did. If I said I wrote that for no reason at all then I am certain you
> would interpret that as a admission that I had lost the argument.

There is no such thing as winning or losing an argument without free
will. I have reasons and you have yours and we are impotent
spectators. There can be no argument.

> But you
> are a fan of the "free will" noise so I don't understand why me saying I
> had no reason for doing something would not satisfy you.

You can say you had no reason for writing that but I know it isn't
true, because I have free will to decide whether I trust my own sense
or to accept an external position as my own.

> However I personally think it's bad form to write things for no reason,

That sounds like you are making a free will choice out of a personal
preference rather than involuntarily watching reasons do your writing
for you. What is allowing you to do that? What reason do you have for
wanting to take credit for 'personally thinking'? What is this
'personally think' ASCII noise?

> and
> so as it happens I did have a reason for writing what I wrote. The word
> "will" is not logically contradictory because I want to do something for a
> reason OR I want to do something for no reason.

Who said that what you want to do matters? What reason do you have to
believe that? Don't you see that you are using free will to choose to
deny free will?

> In "free will" I don't want
> to do something for a reason AND I don't want to do something for no
> reason; and that's what makes the "free will" noise triple distilled extra
> virgin 100% pure GIBBERISH.

Several people have tried to explain this to you here several times,
but your ego is too invested in it. The argument ended as soon as you
said "I don't want..." That is free will and nothing else. Do you say,
'these reasons want'? No, it's I who does the wanting and choosing and
creating. I have reasons. Reasons do not have me.

> So the reason that caused my writing to differentiate  between "will" and
> "free will" is that one is gibberish and the other is not.

Without free will, there would be no difference between the two. You
take consciousness for granted and then deny that it exists.

> > You can argue that this feeling of wanting to do things is an illusion
> I honestly don't know what to make of that. In the first place illusion is
> a perfectly real subjective phenomena and in the second place it's true, we
> really do want to do some things and not do other things.

So then we agree, the feeling is real.

> > > but that leaves the problem of what would be the point of such a feeling
> > to exist in the universe that is purely deterministic.
> If the universe determines that my life has no meaning then the universe
> can kiss my ass because the universe is not in the meaning conveying
> business, intelligence is.

Do you imagine that meaning and intelligence are not part of the

>A cloud of hydrogen gas a billion light years
> away can not give meaning to me but I can give meaning to it, and if the
> universe doesn't like that fact the universe can lump it.

All that you are is a cloud of hydrogen gas that has been fused
together in a complex pattern. Hydrogen is, in fact, the only thing
that has ever given meaning to you.

> > > We interpret and execute the law
> Here we go again. We interpret and execute the law for a reason or we
> interpret and execute the law for no reason.

That doesn't change the fact that the law doesn't get interpreted and
executed by itself. We made the laws out of our own free will, to be
interpreted and executed by ourselves for no other purpose than to
circumscribe the consequences of each others free will. If there were
no free will, there would be no need for laws. Whatever happens,
happens. Why or how could anything try to interfere with that in a
deterministic universe?

> > There are laws we are compelled to observe and preserve
> Then we are deterministic.

Sure, but we also have free will. We aren't a bowling ball that does
one thing. We are trillions of things.

> > but the way we choose to do that [...]
> We choose the way we do that (and it does not matter what "that" is) for a
> reason or we choose the way we do that for no reason.

I've heard your mantra, and I understand why you will never admit that
it isn't the whole truth.


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