On Fri, Jul 27, 2012  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> >> You just evade the definition of free will that I gave to you,
>>>
>>
>> >>You're going to need to be a lot more specific than that. I'd need to
>> use scientific notation to count the number of definitions of the "free
>> will" noise I've heard over the last few months, but every single one of
>> them turns out to be just translations and paraphrasing of the original
>> gibberish.
>>
>
> > I gave one. You need only to look at it. It is a compatibilist one,
>

Yet again you talk about this marvelous strictly logical definition of Free
Will that you had provided at some unspecified time in the past! The last
time you made reference to this mythical definition (July 19) I said this:


" The following is not deep but it is true: You are aware that sometimes
you are not aware of the cause of your action and you are also aware that
you don't know what the result of a calculation is until you have finished
the calculation. Is this pap the marvelous new definition of the free will
noise that you claimed you had yesterday, the one you said that "many of us
have given new precise, and compatibilist, definition of" ?"

And you responded to my comment (on July 21) by admitting:

"It is close. It has been defended by Popper, I.J. Good and some others,
and it suits well mechanism."

So until you have something new and much much much better stop saying I'm
ignoring your marvelous new definition of the "Free Will" noise.

> and actually it is the same as the usual "gibberish"


Yes.

> exc ept that I substitute the absolute indeterminacy with the relative
> one.


So it's random.

 > Compatibilist don't oppose reason
>

I don't know if I'm a "Compatibilist" but I certainly don't oppose reason.

> and (free) will.


Other than issues concerning noise pollution I don't oppose people making
sounds with their mouth either.

> it is debatable if 0 ≠ s(0) happens for a reason or not.


It is NOT debatable that  0 ≠ s(0) happens for a reason OR 0 ≠ s(0) happens
for NO reason! If it is not gibberish (and it is not) then one of those two
things is true even if we don't know which one.

> I take thing like consciousness and free will as first person data that
> we have to explain,


Consciousness is first person data but it may not have a explanation that
would satisfy you; it could be a fundamental primitive, and after saying
consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed there may
not be anything more to say on the subject. As to "free will" I have no
opinion, first you're going to have to explain what those ASCII characters
mean.

> I don't see how you can accept will and not free-will.
>

I accept "will" because I know for a fact that somethings I want to do and
other things I do not. I neither accept nor reject "free will" because I
don't know what those ASCII characters mean and despite your protests to
the contrary it's now pretty clear to me that you don't either.

  >> All I'm saying is that our will is in the state it is in for a reason
>> or it is not, and to claim otherwise is idiotic.
>>
>
> > So we have the same religious devotion.


So let's see, you think that the belief " if X is not gibberish then either
X is true or ~X is true" is religious and you also think the belief  " The
integer 1 is not equal to zero" is religious. As I've said before for
something to be meaningful you need contrast, so please provide me with an
example of something that is NOT religious.

  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