On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 7:07 pm, RMahoney <rmaho...@poteau.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney <rmaho...@poteau.com> wrote:
> > > > They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
> > > > Universe in ways that avoid it's laws.
> > > Free will is one of the laws of the universe. We are made of the
> > > universe, therefore whatever we do or can do is inherently a potential
> > > of the universe.
> > Free will is not a basic law or building block of the universe. The
> > sense of
> > free will is a result of the process of the universe.
> I used to think that too, but why should a 'sense of free' will be the
> result of any process in any universe? What would it accomplish? What
> process would produce it?
Anything that is in the present universe is here because it is either
stable enough to last a long time or capable enough to survive a long
time, basically the process of evolution. A sense of free will or
consciousness developed as minds became intelligent enough to make
decisions that would increase their chances of survival.

> > > > I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself
> > > > to avoid the end of my existence. While I'm here I cannot break any of
> > > > the laws of the Universe.
> > > You don't break the laws, you make new laws. The law of the universe
> > > was once 'human beings cannot fly'.
> > Laws of the universe I'm referring to are the real laws, not human's
> > attempt
> > at defining them. Human beings cannot fly is a human thought, not a
> > law.
> All laws that we understand are necessarily defined by humans. They
> are our interpretations of observations using our senses, our body,
> and instruments which we have designed with our senses to extend our
> human body and human mind. If there is any truly real law, it is that
> our understanding of what they are gets rewritten frequently.
There is an underlying order to the universe that we have not defined
yet, and may never be able to define. It does not mean that underlying
order does not exist, or that the only order or "law" that exists is
what we define.

> > > > We are all molecular machines.
> > > Then molecular machines are also us and molecules are telepathic.
> > Systems of molecules and energy can transmit information across
> > distances, so?
> Not information. Feelings. Thoughts. Images. Comedy. Irony. Human
> life. A bar graph is information. Getting your molars ripped out with
> a pair of pliers is more different.
Sorry but feelings, thoughts, images, comedy, irony, are all the
result of information processing. These things do not exist without
the programming of our molecular computer.

> > > > Those
> > > > molecules operate within the laws of the Universe.
> > > We wouldn't know. We only experience molecules indirectly through our
> > > instrument-extended perception. What we see of molecules is even less
> > > than what an alien astronomer would see looking at the grey patches of
> > > human mold growing on the land surfaces of the Earth.
> > > > 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.
> > > If I move my arm, I directly move it. I don't even need to cognitively
> > > 'decide' to move it, I just move the whole arm all at once from my
> > > point of view on my native scale of perception. That there are
> > > molecules, cells and tissues which make up my brain and body is a fact
> > > of a different layer, a different perceptual inertial frame where "I"
> > > don't exist at all. The fact remains though, that I can move my arm at
> > > will, and whatever molecular processes need to happen to fulfill my
> > > intention will be compelled to happen. That's why there is a
> > > difference between voluntary muscles and involuntary muscles. Some I
> > > control, some I don't, some control me.
> > There is the molecular process that occurs when you command movement,
> > but there is also the molecular and electrical process that occurs to
> > develop that
> > command. It doesn't happen out of "thin air".
> It happens out of my active participation in the semantic context of
> myself and my world. It happens out of desire, purpose, whim,
> intuition. I command my brain directly. It is top-down as well as
> bottom up. You are assuming bottom up only which would posit the
> tortured reasoning of neurons moving my arm for some evolutionary or
> biochemical reason...which is not true. If it were true, it would be
> easy to tell because we would have no division of voluntary and
> involuntary muscle tissue in our body. It would all be automatic.
Why should evolution not create both voluntary and involuntary muscle
tissue? Animals are mobile for a reason, need to command voluntary
tissue to find food or flee from predators. Need to make decisions.
Develop the will to do so. All in response to outside stimulus. All
programmed in your genes or learned through experience. All
deterministic processes. With a little randomness thrown in to keep it
interesting. Mutations, what not.

> > > > 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.
> > > No, just free from automatism. If you look at the patterns of low
> > > level inorganic matter and distill the most simplistic mathematical
> > > patterns within that, and then consider them the only 'laws of the
> > > Universe' then you succumb to the cognitive bias of mechanemorphism.
> > > The laws of inorganic matter cannot be applied to meaning and
> > > awareness.
> > There is no such thing as magic.
> Imagination is pretty close to magic and it is part of the universe.
Imagication? Magic is a break in the natural process of the universe.
Miracles, etc. They are impossible. Imagination is a mental process
that does not break from the natural process of the universe.

> > A computer program can become self aware,
> > and obtain the sense of a free will.
> No byte of information has ever felt anything or done anything by
> itself. No program will ever obtain any sense of free will. We may
> fool ourselves into projecting our own free will onto it, as we do
> with stuffed animals and good luck charms, but a program has no
> reality. It's a sophisticated recording.
A sufficient number of bytes of information properly organized have
felt and have done and have obtained consciousness, the human mind,
and many many other animal minds as well. I can't say you are anything
but a sophisticated recording with any certainty, but because I know I
am, I can guess you probably are. We are a very long ways from
developing a computer with enough capacity and learning capability to
evolve self awareness, but there is nothing that says that computer
has to be made of flesh and blood to achieve it.
> > > > 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.
> > > Where would sequences of molecular action get a sense of 'will' from?
> > > It doesn't make sense.
> > The molecular and electrical action creates a closed loop system of
> > action
> > and observation of it's action, and resulting adjustment of it's
> > action. It is a
> > program with a broad matrix of inputs and outputs.
> > That matrix of senses is consciousness. Molecular action doesn't get a
> > sense
> > of "will", it creates a sense of will. Therefore, it does, make,
> > "sense".
> That isn't a sense of will at all. It's a self-correcting behavior. It
> would hardly need some kind of 'feeling' to accomplish that. A sense
> of will would add nothing to the functionality that you describe.
I was describing it at it's basic level. When the system becomes
complex enough and knows what it's doing and makes decisions at a high
enough level, it will have consciousness and can have a sense of will.

> > > > 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,
> > > What are the laws of probability built on?
> > Mathematics. Quanta.
> Which are built on...?
We may never know. The universe may never create a high enough
intelligence to find the bottom turtle. But then again it may. I doubt
you'll find it here though. Or in our lifetimes.

> > > > 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. If it is possible for it to
> > > > exist, it exists, and always can exist. Else it would be impossible,
> > > > and not exist. I doubt anything like this could ever be proven, but it
> > > > makes logical sense to me.
> > > > But I do not see that this non-deterministic quality of the Universe
> > > > in any way creates a free will. It just makes the Universe really
> > > > infinite in possibilities. Will cannot be executed without cause. Even
> > > > if the result of that process of executing a will was at some point
> > > > affected by a random quantum event.
> > > What you have written here...were you a helpless spectator to the
> > > event of it being written deterministically or was it random? Why do
> > > you have any more awareness of it than you have of peristalsis or your
> > > hair growing?
> > I was a spectator (or observer) yes, I was not helpless.
> It's either one or the other. If you are purely a spectator, then you
> are helpless to change the outcome.
> > The
> > development of my
> > brain shaped by my past experiences has created an internal program,
> > that,
> > along with present input determined what I ultimately wrote, and too
> > what I am
> > currently writing.
> The program has no reason to feel anything, let alone feel like you
> are able to decide what you write if you are not able to do that.
Survival is the reason. It enabled our evolutionary line to survive
over the ages to the present time.

> >I am the product of all past events and I can fly,
> > I can feel
> > the freedom of flight, but I cannot cheat gravity. I can only use
> > gravity to my
> > advantage, and soar to the clouds. It has all been determined by the
> > universe
> > which makes it possible.
> The universe also makes it possible for you to change aspects of the
> universe according to your imagination.
Not outside the natural process of the universe. No magic. No

> >Evolution determined that my consciousness
> > has
> > no need to be aware of my hair growing, other than to notice when I
> > need
> > a hair cut. :-)
> Evolution did it = God did it (in reverse).
Magic and miracles are impossible.

- 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