On Friday, August 24, 2012 3:50:32 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote:

    On Fri, Aug 24, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

        > I did it for many reasons

    And a cuckoo clock operates the way it does for many reasons.

None of them are the reasons of a clock. If you must manufacture reasons, 
then they can only be the reasons of human clockmakers and human consumers 
of clocks. It could be said that there are reasons from the molecular layer 
as well - of tension, density, and mass. There are no cuckoo clock reasons 

        > some of them my own. 

    In other words you have not divulged to others some of the reasons you 
acted as you did, and no doubt some of the reasons you don't know 
yourself.  No matter, they're still reasons. 

No, privacy is not the difference. My motives are not only the motives of 
cells or species, they are specific to me as well. The cuckoo clock can't 
do that. It can't intentionally try something new and justify it with a 
reason later.

Anything that can be imagined as occuring before something else can be 
called a reason - a butterfly wing flapping can be a reason for a typhoon. 
There are countless reasons which can influence me, but I can choose in 
many cases to what extent I identify with that influence, or I can defy all 
of the influences with a creative approach which is not random nor 
predetermined by any particular reason outside of my own.

        > Your argument is that grey must be either black or white. 

    No, grey is a state of being every bit as logical as black or white, 
and because it is logical we know that everything is either grey or not 

And free will is every bit as logical as grey. We know that everything is 
either voluntary or involuntary. I wouldn't say that, but you would have to 
agree to that if you are to remain consistent in your position.

        > It's interesting that you bring up Lewis Carroll (as you have 
before) as an insult, when actually the Alice books are brilliant 
explorations on consciousness and sense-making. 

    And he was a brilliant satirist on how illogical many of our most 
strongly held beliefs are. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson would laugh at your 

And Richard Phillips Feynman would laugh at your lack of ideas. What does 
your opinion of my ideas have to do with anything? If you can't refute 
them, just concede. Why claim the dead as your allies against me?

                >>> Are your opinions on free will robotic or random? In 
either case, would there be any point in anyone else paying attention to 

            >> Point? It sounds like you're asking for a reason, well such 
a reason either exists or it does not.

        > What do your assumptions about my motives have to do with 

    That's a stupid question; if you had motives, regardless of what they 
are, then your actions are deterministic. 

That's a stupid answer. My question was very specific: "Are your opinions 
on free will robotic or random?" You are trying to create a diversion to 
cover up that your approach fails the test of its own limited criteria. If 
your opinions are robotic or random, then they don't matter and they aren't 
opinions. This has nothing to do with me or my motives.

        > What is useful about saying that something 'either exists or it 
does not'?

    That's an even stupider question, true statements always have uses.

An even stupider non-answer. Just because a statement is true doesn't mean 
it is a useful statement. Even if it were true, you are still admitting 
that your edicts of binary mutual exclusivity are no more relevant than 
saying anything at all. 

        > Everything exists in some sense. Nothing exists in every sense. 

    And with that you abandon any pretense that you want to figure out how 
the world works and make it clear that what you really want to do is 
convince yourself  that what you already want to believe is in fact true.  
And its going to work too because if you take the above as a working axiom 
in your system of beliefs then you can prove or disprove anything you want, 
you can even prove and disprove the same thing at the same time. 

Not at all. I am asserting positively that this is actually the nature of 
the world. All forms of proof are relative to the context in which they are 

        > According to your views, you don't have any views, and neither do 
any possible readers of your views.

    That is ridiculous.

I agree, nevertheless it is the inescapable reductio ad absurdum of your 
stated worldview.

        > All of it is either robotic or random. 

    What does that have to do with the price of eggs? What does that have 
to do with not having views??

Because if your views are robotic or random then they are not views, they 
are noise.

Since you mention the price of eggs, lets go with that. The market for eggs 
is not automatic, nor is it random. Despite attempts to beat financial 
markets using technical analysis alone, such attempts repeatedly fail 
because no formula can account for all real world possibilities. There 
might be a new egg substitute invented, which no model can assign a 
probability for. It isn't random, nor is it determined by any historical 
reason except in hindsight.  

        > I am saying that if you are right, then there is no point 
whatsoever for you to ever speak again. 

    In this context a "point" is a reason, a cause, and If I choose to 
speak again I will do so because I have a point to make, that is to say I 
will do so for a reason; OR  perhaps you're right and I will speak again 
but have no point at all, in other words I will do so for no reason, I will 
do so at random.

Why would you speak at all? How can you 'make a point'? To whom? Other 
random robotic minds? What would the difference be?

        > You are trying to wriggle out of it by subjecting anything I say 
to the same black and white reductionism

    Everything is not black or white, BUT everything IS black or not black 
OR white or not white; most things are not black and not white, and 
nothing, absolutely nothing is not black and not not black. 

That's false. Grey is not black in one sense but not not black in another.

Look at this picture:

Can you tell me at what point grey becomes independent of black? If I cut 
off the bottom five rows of pixels, does that mean there is now no black?

When you look at images like this: 

you should be able to understand that visual sense is not an expression of 
objective absolutes, but rather a relativistic continuum of juxtaposition 
and meta-juxtaposition. This is what I am saying is happening on every 
level of consciousness and the cosmos: Realism derived from multiple 
channels of sense interpretation. Everything is true, false, neither true 
nor false, and both true and false in some sense.


      John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
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