On Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:50:55 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>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.

The reasons of my neurons are not my personal reasons. Neurons deal in GABA 
and acetylcholine. I deal in paychecks and days off. Different levels of 
description. My neurons can influence my consciousness from a sub-personal 
level - say feeling unfulfilled when I get my paycheck, but they cannot 
decide for me to get a better job. I decide. Me. I might decide to deal 
steroids on the side instead, or make human jack-o'lanterns out of the 
neighbors heads and sell them at a garage sale. Of these three options, the 
steroids and the premeditated murder and decapitation carry a heavy 
super-signifying charge. My social experience and and innate sensitivity 
circumscribes these acts as criminal, evil, or both, so my range of 
seemingly *realistic* options is quite a bit narrower than the full 
continuum of options available to me in theory. The full scope of what *
might* be available to me is relatively limitless. I can meet someone and 
go into business with them. I can have an idea and make money from it. I 
can get run over by a furniture truck and collect an insurance settlement. 
NONE of these possibilities are realizable on the sub-personal or 
super-signifying levels. They are native to the personal level of 
description. NOT my neurons or molecules, NOT my behavioral statistics, NOT 
determinism, NOT randomness. Personal Preference is the appropriate factor. 
Not the only factor, but a significant factor which you deny like it was 
the Holocaust.

> 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. 

Let's compare. Does your computer worry about it's job? Does it get a 
feeling one way or another if it receives more or less volts? If you remove 
RAM does it miss it? You are welcome to believe any fairytale sophistry you 
like, but you can be sure that the belief in this level of stupidity dwarfs 
any organized religion. Rather than talking myself into entertaining the 
fantasy of a computer with feelings, I have a better explanation for why no 
computer has ever exhibited a personal preference. They have none. There is 
no 'they' there. Instead of a super-signifying level of acculturation and 
ecology, they have instruction codes which impress upon them functions 
which are utterly alien to whatever substance is being borrowed to do the 
computing. Instead of a personal level, they have only sub-personal logic, 
involuntary reflex dictated by the rigidity of the materials specially 
selected for that quality. These are not proto-organisms, they are 
amputated sculptures playing pre-recorded messages. They are sophisticated 
messages - useful messages, but ultimately nothing more than a very 
cleverly organized library.

> >>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.  

You don't need to be embarrassed at all. I do think that I have solved this 
problem though. The question assumes a background of nothing, whereas I see 
that in the absence of our own subjectivity, what is left is 
everythingness. Our awareness is a subtractive partitioning, or temporary 
diffraction from a boundaryless whole, not an evacuated absence. If you 
want to be embarrassed, it would be because you are a staunch critic of all 
possibilities which deviate even slightly from a reductionist logic of true 
or false, but don't see any contradiciton in having a deck of infinite 
wild-cards of 'maybe whatever out of nowhere' in your pocket.

> > X and Y are made up. Like Pepsi and Coke. They are notations. 
> Deep man deep, Plato and Socrates eat your heart out. 

Deep shmeep, I am pointing out that X and Y are information modeling 
symbols, not features of universal truth.

>> > 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.

That's fine, but you don't subscribe to my philosophy, so I was asking how 
you rationalize the purpose of preference in your view.

> > 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.   

True in theory, absurd in reality. We need to use our personal sense to 
tell which is more relevant.

> > 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. 

The second part would be more credible if you were more restrained in the 
first. If you had said "You know just enough science and mathematics to 
make you dangerous" then I might be tempted to take your opinion seriously. 
What does "you don't know any science" even mean? I was a 'Science' major 
in high school and got a 4.00 average in those courses, I read scientific 
articles for pleasure. I have a printout of Einstein's theory of relativity 
at work which I have been reading carefully and making notes. Do you see 
why this spit that comes out of your mouth is directed at some figment of 
your imagination rather than me?

Delusions of grandeur? Sure. I don't claim to know one way or another 
whether that is true. That is ultimately for others to decide. All I know 
is it makes pretty good sense to me, and a few other people seem to agree. 
What do I care how significant or insignificant that makes me? I'm 
interested in taking my crack at solving the problem - doing it my way and 
seeing where it leads. Why is that so repugnant to you? What does your 
awesome philosophy have to offer? Self satisfaction? Freedom from 
intellectual risk? I don't blame anyone for not wanting what I have, but 
you certainly can't expect me to want what you have. I wouldn't trade, and 
that's a fact. Maybe I'm crazy, but if what you have is sanity...no thanks.

> > 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.   

Before you give me advice, you should become a person that I am interested 
in getting advice from.

>  > 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.

Another good example of the limitations of boolean logic. A computer has to 
have training wheels built into its logic or it will try to compute that 
shit in circles forever.


>   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 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to