On May 24, 4:27 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

My doing the nomination is the reason for the reasons. You have it
backwards and there are not 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.

Yes of course. That doesn't necessarily mean that I wouldn't continue
to enjoy free will. My choices would have different ranges and
limitations, so what? Some constructions may not be as conducive to
expressing will than others, but where will is expressed, it is free
will or it is nothing.

> >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.

I have said from the start that we make determinations. We make them
with our free will.

> > who can *generate new reasons themselves*.
> Did you generate new reasons for a reason? There are only two possible
> answers.

No, there is always the third answer when it comes to free will.

It's like this. If you are the color yellow, and all yellow is you,
then your universe will consist only of shades of blue and red. You
can't see yourself so you say 'yellow is nonsense'. To understand my
position, you would need to see that my description of the universe
achieves a complete accounting of phenomenology, and not just the
reductionist view from a hypothetically objective view.

If I generate reasons, then *the reason needs me*, not the other way
around. John Clark's reasons exist for a John Clark. You are their
reason. See? You are part of the universe just as much as anything

> > 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,

It's not unimportant at all, but it is impotent when it comes to
explaining awareness or feeling. You accuse me of not thinking that
jackhammers are important when we are talking about surgery.

> 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.

No, I actually have already unlocked the secrets of the universe. I
could care less if anyone else knows it.
I am sharing what I have found as a service to others who are

> > 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".

I hope, for your sake that you are under the age of 30.

> > 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.

No. Your reasons arise from you. You are partially deterministic but
writing something voluntarily is not an automatic action being imposed
on you from outside. You have not been kidnapped by cartoon characters
and forced to type words blindfolded.

> > I have free will to decide [...]
> Did you decide for a reason? There are only two possible answers.

See above, ad nauseum.

> > 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.

Why does the wiring of your brain want "you" to take credit for
'personally thinking'?

> > 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.

I know you don't see the connection. That's the problem.

> > > 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.

No. I want you to admit that your reasons are your own and not
determined for you exclusively by foreign elements.

> 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!

You are certainly deterministic in part, and you certainly have free
will. Random is debatable. It may be the case that nothing is random
in an absolute sense.

> > 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.

Dodging the question. Again. Don't you see that you are using free
will right now?

> > 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.

What do you mean by 'I don't want'? What meaning does that ASCII
string have without free will. It is nothing whatsoever except a
direct assertion of your free will. I don't want. What is the reason
for I? What is the reason for want?

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

No, I didn't say that I am reasons. I have a car too, am I a car?

> > 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.

Reasons don't have me because they don't exist independently of
experience. If that were not the case, though, and my reasons could
have reasons, then I would be their reason. Me. My free will is their
reason. I buy you flowers and the reason for you getting flowers is my
will to send them to you. The reason is me. The reason is my free
will. The only question is can you admit that I'm right. I am nearly
certain the answer is no.

> > > 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.

We are discussing free will. Which is the sole purpose of your
consciousness. Note the title of the thread. Not 'Determinism and
Randomness in MWI' but Free will in MWI.

> >> 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.

So you don't deny that I am absolutely right.

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

It's an expression. You may have heard of it.

> > 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.

And some reasons happen for people's will.

> > Then we are deterministic.
> > > Sure, but we also have free will.
> Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string "free will" means.

Hahahaha, it NEVER gets old.


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