> > Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in
> > this Universe?
> Some can believe that. Open question in comp. Actually "this universe"
> is a quite vague concept with comp.
Don't know comp. As far as I'm concerned, universe can be everything,
all permutations.
I don't believe there is a mind separate from body. You don't have a
mind (or a soul,
or whatever metaphysical description of consciousness one might
subscribe to) until
you have the matter and energy arranged to form the mind. I know
matter is a mental
concept but yeah, whatever makes up the calculation of that stuff we
perceive as
matter and energy. When that comes together, you have a mind, and at
some point
that mind develops a will, but not the other way around.
> > They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
> > Universe in ways that avoid it's laws.
> Not the compatibilist one. I think free will is not prevented at all
> by determinism.
I agree, will (free has no meaning to me) is enabled by determinism.
If there were no
process of cause/effect then there could be no calculation of will.
> > I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself
> > to avoid the end of my existence.
> If that exists. Again "my existence" is quite a vague notion.
Basically I'm saying existence is needed before a will can exist, not
the other way around.
You have to build the computer before you can execute a program, not
the other way around.

> > While I'm here I cannot break any of
> > the laws of the Universe. We are all molecular machines.
> Locally, that is very plausible, but near death, this is no more
> assured unless you introduce actual infinities in bith matter and
> mind, and some link between. We are not bodies, we own bodies.
> Molecules are clothes, and actually they are map of our most probable
> computations in arithmetic. This is a consequence of the idea that "we
> are machines". It makes materialism wrong eventually. Matter is a mind
> construction.

We are the program which does not exist without the machine

> > Those
> > molecules operate within the laws of the Universe.
> If that exists. Locally, it is true, but not globally.

Locally and currently, yes, I understand.

> > The result of their
> > action allows me to think and reason and decide on a course of action,
> > execute a will so to speak, but that will is determined by the
> > sequence of events of the molecules that make up my self. To say "free
> > will" implies that I somehow avoided the laws of the Universe and
> > resulting cause and effect. "Free" from the laws of the Universe. In
> > that sense, there is no such thing as "free will", only "will", that
> > is determined by your physical being and sequence of molecular action.
> OK. Locally.
> > Now I myself believe that probably the laws of the Universe allow it
> > to be non-deterministic. My logic might be simple on this, but if
> > there were no randomness at all, there could be no evolution of the
> > Universe (and probably the laws of the Universe) to become the
> > Universe we observe today. I think if we started (over and over again)
> > with the same initial condition of this moment, that the next moment
> > could be any number of potential outcomes, all within the same laws of
> > the same Universe. The Universe is built upon the laws of probability,
> > and at the short term macro level things can be fairly predictable,
> > but at the micro level and over long periods of time, things are not
> > so predictable, due to random events at the quantum level. I also
> > subscribe to the idea that all possible outcomes exist simultaneously
> > and forever, as do all possible histories.
> OK. But with different probabilities, and we can manage them from
> inside.

Yes I understand. We can manage to an extent. There are probable
of our attempts at managing. If restarted with all same initial
conditions, our
same attempt at managing the probable outcome may result in a
outcome. (Many with equal probability, some not so probable). At any
in time I think multiple outcomes emerge in the next instant, each
just as real
to the observer/manager. Or should I say observers/managers, as there
multiple of these for each multiple outcome.

> A good thing to avoid sending to a gibberish message.

I didn't catch the intent of this statement. Maybe I did.

Snipped the rest as we seem to agree on the rest.

- Roy

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