On Friday, October 19, 2012 5:03:05 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>
> >> I do know that it's got to be one or the other.
>>>
>>
>> > But I have just proved to you that it cannot be either one. 
>>
>
> So you have just proven that X is not Y and X is not not Y.  BULLSHIT!
>

X = Sad. Y = Happy.  Nostalgia proves that a memory can make you X, which 
is not the same as being Y, but that in this case being sad X doesn't make 
you unhappy (not not Y). You are neither completely happy, completely sad, 
nor completely a mixture of the two. This is how subjectivity works 
sometimes.

 
>
>> >  you don't have the wisdom to know when you don't know about free will. 
>>
>
>  Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.  
>
> > you have no problem with things happening for no reason
>>
>
> True. 
>
> > yet you have a problem with people causing things to happen for their 
>> own personal reasons.
>>
>
> Not true, I have no problem with that either. I have no problem with you 
> doing what you do for reasons, personal or otherwise, and I have no problem 
> with you doing what you do for no reason at all, but I do have a very big 
> problem with you not doing either one.
>

If you can do something for your own personal reasons then you have free 
will. If you demand that personal reasons still must always come from 
outside of the person themselves, then what free will neither qualifies as 
a reason outside of oneself, nor does it qualify as not a reason outside of 
oneself. It is both and neither, one and the other.
 

>
> > If something can come out of it, then it's not nothing. 
>>
>
> That would only be true if every event must have a cause, but there is no 
> law of logic that demands that must always be true,
>

Then maybe a new law of logic just appeared out of nowhere.
 

> and after more than a century of intensive experimentation on this very 
> subject we find that there is no empirical reason to think that must always 
> be true either. 
>
> > You have no idea where reason came from. It's voodoo to you.
>>
>
> Unlike you I'm not foolish enough to think that I've unlocked all the 
> mysteries of the universe, I'm wise enough to know that I know almost 
> nothing, but one of the few things that I do know is that X is Y or X is 
> not Y.
>

X and Y are made up. Like Pepsi and Coke. They are notations. 
 

>
> > If reason itself can pop into existence for no reason, then who is to 
>> say that everything doesn't also do the same?
>>
>
> Maybe it does, I don't know, you don't know either but you think you do.
>

Every time you revisit this accusation you keep stepping in the same pile 
of crap. You cannot claim to know what I don't know but deny my capacity to 
do the same. 
 

>
> > It [a brick] would need a private will to hurl itself into the air.
>>
>
> Or a volcanic eruption underneath it just as you'd need legs and muscles 
> underneath you to jump.  
>

A volcanic eruption may very well the will of (what we perceive as) the 
Earth.
 

>
> > Why would it matter if you want some things and don't want others if you 
>> have no power to freely choose between them?
>>
>
> I think it's very odd that you keep asking me why I wrote this or that or 
> why I did this or that when you believe that people are not deterministic 
> and thus do things for no reason, in fact its the very foundation of your 
> philosophy. Of course you also believe that people don't not do things for 
> a reason, but even leaving out that idiotic contradiction I just don't 
> understand what you expect me to answer when you ask me "why did you say 
> that?".
>

Was there a part of that grousing and grumbling that resembled an answer to 
my question? I am asking the purpose of preference in a universe devoid of 
... your favorite word.
 

>
> > Free just makes the difference between being in the dungeon and being 
>> released. Why is it controversial?
>>
>
> Assuming I don't like being in that dungeon then if you cut my chains  
> reality is more in accordance with my will and I can do some of the things 
> I wanted to do but couldn't do before, like leave, although I still can't 
> do everything I want, I still can't jump over that mountain. 
>

Exactly. Your will is relatively free to pursue a broader range of possible 
fulfillments. Who said anything about jumping over mountains. Are you 
confusing free will with omnipotence?
 

>  
>
>> >>If the only problem with free will is that it had the property of 
>>> non-existence then it would not be gibberish, dragons don't exist but the 
>>> word is not gibberish, it means something, just something that doesn't 
>>> happen to exist; but "free will" is gibberish because it doesn't even mean 
>>> something mythical, "free will" is just a noise.
>>>
>>
>> > How do you know this? 
>>
>
> I know this because I'm not a idiot.  
>

That's circular and an argument from authority at the same time. Woohoo! 
Double Fallacy Score.
 

>
> > What makes you say it?
>>
>
> WHAT MAKES ME SAY IT?! You're asking me what makes me do something ?? You 
> of all people are asking me that question? As you've told me about a 
> hundred times, I said it for no reason and I didn't say it for no reason 
> because I have this thing you call "free will". If you want to be 
> consistent in your philosophy you should never again ask me or anybody else 
> why they said or did something because you already know why. Or at least 
> you think you do. 
>

Wait, so now you are agreeing with me? Are you saying that now you can 
plainly see that I was right all along in my understanding that truthfully 
nothing in particular forced you say it, but at the same time you could 
name several things which may have contributed directly to your saying it.


> > It's bizarre that you are so haunted by the idea of free will that you 
>> have to turn it into gibberish to keep it at bay - even if it means 
>> throwing your cherished 'reasons' under the bus. 
>>
>
> Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means. 
>  
>
>> > I'm never trying to win a debate. 
>>
>
> Oh I believe you, certainly I do; and I was born yesterday too.
>

Well, you claim that there is no law of logic that prevents being born 
yesterday. Maybe your memories are false. 

>  
>
>> > I am only curious about the truth. 
>>
>
> I don't think so. If you were just curious about the truth you'd look at 
> the facts of the world
>

What fact of the world do you accuse me of being unaware of that would be 
relevant in any way to this or any other discussion on this list?
 

> and try to find theories that might explain a little part of it, instead 
> you find some idea you feel is pleasant and then try to shoehorn facts into 
> it. Nobody who was starting out from first principles and was just curious 
> about the truth would come up with the incoherent hodgepodge of circularity 
> and logical contradictions that you have and try to pass it off as a 
> theory.    
>

I'm not trying to pass anything off to anyone. I am suggesting a way of 
understanding the relation of consciousness and physics that seems 
plausible to me. So far I have not heard anyone say anything that I have 
not already considered carefully, and nobody has been able to make a 
reasonable case for why my interpretation could not be largely true. 

>
> > You claim that things follow rules, 
>>
>
> Some do some don't.
>
> > I'm saying that a yearning for social contact isn't logical 
>>
>
> It's as logical as a dislike of social contact, and If animals with a 
> strong inclination for social contact got their genes into the next 
> generation better then those that didn't then logically that's the sort of 
> animal you'd expect to see in the world.
>

So then being the only person on Earth would only seem undesirable because 
your genetics are inappropriate to that environment. You would just need a 
gene patch and then you'd be fine.
 

>
> > How does the need for social contact factor into a worldview which lacks 
>> free will? 
>>
>
> Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means. 
>

You have lied to me in writing more than any person I have ever 
encountered. Not that it makes you a liar, but you do lie a lot.

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/-/JK3sev3h8dwJ.
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