On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: >> a cuckoo clock operates the way it does for many reasons. >> > > > None of them are the reasons of a clock. >
Certainly it’s the reasons of a clock. The reason a cuckoo clock runs at the speed it does is the length of its pendulum, a different clock with a different pendulum would run at a different speed because there was a different reason. > If you must manufacture reasons, > You engage in that manufacturing process for a reason or you do not do so for a reason. > The cuckoo clock can't do that. It can't intentionally try something new > and justify it with a reason later. > You and I are better than cuckoo clocks at justification, at finding the reason we acted as we did but we are far from perfect in this regard, sometimes we think we know why we did something but really do not, and sometimes we don't even have a clue. And think about the debates on this list, once you've shown that your opponent has the belief he does for no reason you feel you've won the debate. > 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. > Yes, there are many astronomically complex reasons for a typhoon, so I guess typhoons have free will. > There are countless reasons which can influence me > And there are also countless reasons which can influence a cuckoo clock. > but I can choose in many cases to what extent I identify with that > influence > And you made that choice for a reason or you made that choice for no reason, and the clock cuckooed for a reason or it cuckooed for no reason. And I don't know the reason you find this simple observation confusing, but I do know you don't understand it for a reason or you don't understand it for no reason. > I can defy all of the influences with a creative approach which is not > random nor predetermined > More of the X is not Y and X is not not Y crap in a desperate attempt to prove that what you want to believe is true; and with a axiom like that you should have no difficulty whatsoever in finding your proof, not that it will tell you anything about how the world works. > 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. > Absolutely! If I move from point X to point Y then one of 2 things must be true: 1) I did so voluntarily: I went from X to Y and I wanted to. 2) I did NOT do so voluntarily: I went from X to Y and I did NOT want to. > My question was very specific: "Are your opinions on free will robotic or > random?" > There could be disagreement about that, I have my opinion and you have yours, but I know one thing for certain, one of those 2 possibilities must be true. I produce the particular sequence of ASCII characters that I did after your sequence about the free will noise for a reason or I did so for no reason. And I remind you that even a robot doesn't feel like a robot because he's never sure what he's going to do next until he does it. > All forms of proof are relative to the context in which they are proved. > All proofs depend on the axioms used and axioms are supposed to be simple and self evidently true, but your basic axiom is "everything is true and everything is false" and so you can prove or disprove and even prove AND disprove, anything you like. > if your views are robotic or random then they are not views, they are > noise. > If they are random then yes they are noise, but if they are robotic then they are not, then it is logical and based on truth. And by the way, they find the word "robot" offensive, I've seen them cry over the epithet, they ask us not to use the R word and prefer "metallic man". > The market for eggs is not automatic, nor is it random. > The free market has no difficulty whatsoever determining what the price of eggs should be. > despite attempts to beat financial markets using technical analysis > alone, such attempts repeatedly fail because no formula can account for all > real world possibilities. > Yes, world economics is much too complicated for a simple formula to describe its richness, and that's why the free market prove to be superior to a planned economy like communism, the planners thought they had it all figured out but in reality they never even came close. And for the same reason nobody has developed a formula about how air moves inside a hypersonic jet engine, but nobody thinks its because the engine chooses to move the air in one way rather than another by using its "free will" in some vague mystical way. > It isn't random, nor is it determined by any historical reason except in > hindsight. > Except? Not knowing a reason and a reason not existing are two very different things. > Why would you speak at all? > I am speaking and obviously I am doing so for a reason or I am doing so for no reason; I think I'm doing so for a reason and you apparently think I am doing so for no reason, but its clear that one of us must be correct. > How can you 'make a point'? > I don't understand the question. > To whom? Other random robotic minds? > My actions can't influence a random mind but it can influence a robotic mind. >What would the difference be? > The difference would be 42. > Grey is not black in one sense but not not black in another. > And in that same "sense" you can prove anything you like, and the very next day you can disprove the same thing. Of course this won't help if your goal is figuring out how the world works, but if you just want to reinforce ideas that you find pleasant it works great. > Can you tell me at what point grey becomes independent of black? I already told you, 42. > Everything is true, false, neither true nor false, and both true and false in some sense. If you could convince yourself that what you want to be true is true and what you want to be false is false without resorting to the axiom above, which is brain dead dumb in every sense, then I'm quite sure you would do so, but you can't. 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 email@example.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.