On Fri, Oct 19, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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[...]
>

But I don't demand that at all! You might picked X and not Y entirely for
internal reasons, entirely because of the state of the neurons inside your
very own personal head. And my computer did X and not Y entirely because of
the state of its memory banks and microprocessor inside its very own
personal aluminum box.

>>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.
>

Maybe, if so it wouldn't be the first time something appeared out of
nowhere. But I don't understand why I should be embarrassed to have an
answer to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" that
is not entirely satisfactory, its not as if you or anybody else can do
better.

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

Deep man deep, Plato and Socrates eat your heart out.


> > 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.
>

As I said before, you can't ask me why I did or wrote something because
according to you I have this thing called "free will" and so I prefer X
over Y for no reason and I prefer X over Y not for no reason. I don't
understand why a person with you philosophy fails to find this a perfectly
reasonable, logical, and satisfying answer. For a person with your
philosophy there is simply nothing more to be said.

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

Could be. Maybe I came into existence 5 minutes ago and all the memories I
have as a child were also created 5 minutes ago. I can't prove it's not
true.

> 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?
>

You don't know any science and you don't know any mathematics and don't
even seem to think they're important, and yet you believe you've discovered
the secrets of the universe. Delusions of grandeur.

> I am suggesting a way of understanding the relation of consciousness and
> physics that seems plausible to me.
>

Before you connect physics with anything it might be helpful to know a
little physics, and it you're really interested in consciousness study
neurology and computer science; amateur two bit armchair philosophy just
doesn't cut the mustard.

 > 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.
>

I am lying right now.

  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 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