On Thu, May 24, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Reason is not nominating anyone by itself. I am doing the nominating
>

Are you doing the nominations for a reason? There are only two possible
answers.

 >Reasons don't care what I nominate, but I do.
>

And if you were constructed differently you would care about different
reasons.

>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 meaning.
>

Finely! I thought this day would never come but at last you start to get
the point, at least for a instant.

> who can *generate new reasons themselves*.
>

Did you generate new reasons for a reason? There are only two possible
answers.

> rigid logic is not sufficient the phenomenological reality of the actual
> universe we inhabit.


You don't know any science and now you admit you believe even logic is
unimportant, and yet you still expect to unlock the secrets of the universe
just by sitting in your armchair and thinking, and you don't even have to
think very hard because the colloquial terms that are key to your ideas
"don't need to be put under a microscope". Well good luck with that little
endeavor, you're going to need it.

> There is no such thing as winning or losing an argument without free
> will.


I knew it could not last, for a instant you understood that the noise had
no meaning but now you're right back to saying "free will", and cows still
say "moo" and ducks still say "quack".

> You can say you had no reason for writing that but I know it isn't true


Interesting, you may not think my reasons are good but you think they are
reasons nevertheless; so you think I'm deterministic.

> I have free will to decide [...]


Did you decide for a reason? There are only two possible answers.

> That sounds like you are making a free will choice
>

A choice made for a reason or a choice made for no reason. There is no
third alternative.

> out of a personal preference


The reason I have that personal preference is because that's the way my
brain is wired, or perhaps there was no reason at all and thus random.


> > What reason do you have for wanting to take credit for 'personally
> thinking'?


So you think I'm deterministic, you want to know what caused me to do what
I did. Well, if there was a reason it was because that is the way my brain
is wired, of course there may not have been a reason at all, it could have
been random.

> What is this 'personally think' ASCII noise?
>

>From this and other things you have said I gather that you believe that
thinking and the fact that things happen for a reason or the don't is
contradictory, but I'll be damned if I understand why that is supposed to
be true. I don't see the connection.


> > What reason do you have to believe that?


Once again you demand to know the cause of my belief, you want to know the
reason behind it. Once again you assume I am deterministic, and no doubt in
your next breath you will insist that I am not deterministic, and not
random either!

> Don't you see that you are using free will to choose to deny free will?
>

The "idea" is not good enough to deny, free will is so bad it's not even
wrong. And I choose to say that free will is gibberish for a reason or I
say free will is gibberish for no reason, there is no third alternative.

> The argument ended as soon as you said "I don't want..."


I don't want for a reason or I don't want for no reason, there is no third
alternative.


> > I have reasons.


Then you are deterministic.

> Reasons do not have me.
>

I don't know what that means so this is a case where there may actually be
a third alternative. Reasons do not have you for a reason, or reasons do
not have you for no reason, or "reasons do not have you" is gibberish.


> > You take consciousness for granted and then deny that it exists.
>

What the hell are you talking about?? Consciousness is the one thing I'm
absolutely certain of, my consciousness anyway, but I don't see what that
has to do with the price of eggs, I thought we were discussing determinism
and randomness.

>> 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.
>

Certainly.

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

No.

> We made the laws out of our own free will


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string "free will" means.

> Whatever happens, happens.


I think that's probably true, the alternative, whatever happens doesn't
happen just does not ring true to me somehow.

> Why or how could anything try to interfere with that in a deterministic
> universe?
>

The question is moot, the universe is not deterministic, some things happen
for no reason.

> Then we are deterministic.
>>
>
> > Sure, but we also have free will.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string "free will" means.

  John K Clark

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to