On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:54:35 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg > <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > 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. >
Free will and laws are the same thing, except that the former is a private participation and the latter is a public representation. > > >What law allows laws to simply exist? >> > > I don't know and don't know why such things are needed, or even desired. > You are the one that is saying everything happens for a reason or not for a reason. Which category do laws fall under? > > > I am asking about the origin of 'reason' itself: >> > > I don't even know if reason had a origin and neither do you. > Yet you claim that it had to originate for a reason or randomly, right? And since reason can't originate for its own reason, then it has to be random. If reason can come out of randomness however, then it can't really be random. > > >> > 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. > All you have to do is apply your excuse to your own experience and you have free will. > > > fails because it is circular >> > > Describe that circle. > If the first reason happened for a reason then it can't be the first reason, since there must always be a prior reason which it supervenes on. > > > 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. > There's everything wrong with that. Reasons can't just appear out of nowhere and proliferate in an endless variety of reasonable ways and still be called randomness. My theory isn't in trouble at all because it is grounded in sense to begin with. Origins are a character within sense, but sense itself has no origin, or all origin, or some but not all, or whatever. It's all sense. > > > 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. > Free will is supposed to mean the capacity to try to execute your private will publicly with relative personal autonomy. It's really not that tough of a concept. If I am locked in a dungeon, the effect of my will is constrained. If I am released from the dungeon, I have greater degrees of freedom through which to publicly express my private personal motivations. > 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; > I have told you many, many times. Have you not even listened once? > 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. > See above. Let the debate begin. > > > 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. > Yet you claim to know that free will does not exist. > > > but that free will could not have emerged the same way. >> > > Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means. > What's the difference between that ASCII sequence and the other one, "reasons" that you have no idea about what it is or where it comes from, except that the former you deny like it was radioactive and the latter you cling to like it was the Bible. > > > I got an A in algebra. >> > > And I was a math major. > cool. > > >>> 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. > How do the eggs follow the rule? Are they kept up to date by a bulletin board? > > > >> >>> 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. > The question though is specifically why is that the case? How does the need for social contact factor into a worldview which lacks free will? Your worldview implies that you will go on with your daily activities regardless of how you might feel about them. You have no free will to change the outcome so what really would be the difference - it would just be a slightly different movie that you would be watching. Craig > > 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 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/DIwHr-yHxQEJ. 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.
