On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> while most people are content to accept that these [physical] 'laws' > simply 'are', I am more inclined to question what exactly we mean by that. > It's a pity you weren't also inclined to question what exactly we mean by "free will" given that you love to make that sound and write that ASCII sequence so much. >What law allows laws to simply exist? > I don't know and don't know why such things are needed, or even desired. > I am asking about the origin of 'reason' itself: > I don't even know if reason had a origin and neither do you. > > How can reason be created (for the very first time in the cosmos) for a > reason > Beats me. I don't know if there was a "very first time", logic does not demand that there be one; and even if there were logic doesn't demand that everything happen for a reason. > fails because it is circular > Describe that circle. > fails because it attributes something from nothing > Nothing wrong with that, and even if there were your "theory" would be in as much trouble as mine or anybody's theory. > Do you see that you argument against free will is also an argument > against the existence of any reason at all? > No I don't see that. There are no arguments against free will and there are no arguments in favor of free will and there never can be any such arguments until we know what the hell "free will" is supposed to mean. I don't know and I am certain that you don't know either because if you did by now you would have told me; but all I get is circularity and gibberish. Tell me in a clear non-circular way what "free will" is and I'll be happy to debate with you if Human beings have this property or not, but until then there is nothing to debate. > You are claiming that causality emerged from randomness > I am claiming that I don't know, and admitting to such is far superior to claiming wisdom YOU DO NOT HAVE. Maybe causality did emerged from randomness, or maybe causality emerged from nothingness, or maybe causality didn't need to emerge from anything because it has always existed and so there was no first causal event, or maybe my brain is just too small to figure it out. I don't know and neither do you. > but that free will could not have emerged the same way. > Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means. > I got an A in algebra. > And I was a math major. >>> Functions potentially cause physical changes. >>> >> >> >> And so can rules. >> > > > Explain to me how exactly that happens. Use a real example please. > Gravity sucks is a rule. Eggs thrown off Leaning Tower of Pisa break. Breaking eggs is physical change. > >>> Why couldn't you function if you believed you were the only conscious >>> being in the universe? >>> >> >> >> I think we can all agree that's a pretty stupid question. As I've >> said, just negating everything your opponent says doesn't work, you've got >> to have a strategy. >> > > > I didn't negate anything - you did. I asked you a question. You did not > answer it because you don't have an answer for it, > Because Craig Weinberg doesn't think the answer to that question is obvious I can only conclude that he is the most antisocial person who ever lived, he is the one and only Human that wouldn't be profoundly psychologically troubled to discover that he was the only conscious being in the Universe. Craig Weinberg would take the news in stride and continue on with his daily activities as usual. As for me, I wouldn't be worth a bucket of warm spit if I found that out. 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 protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
