On Saturday, March 2, 2013 6:38:23 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > He does talk about QM statistical randomness as far as synaptic activity 
> > goes,  but he states clearly here: 
> > 
> > 
> > "How exactly such weights or probabilities of firing might work is not 
> > understood, but Tse argues that weights would constitute 
> > "informational" criteria as opposed to being simply physical. They 
> > could represent mental events that supervene on the physical brain 
> > events." 
> > 
> > This sounds a lot more like teleology than randomness or determinism. 
> It's still random. 

No, it isn't. If it were, then his book would be about the Neuronal Basis 
for The Illusion of Free Will.

His subtitle would not be "Criterial Causation" but rather "Random 

It doesn't matter though, no amount of scientific evidence will budged your 
entrenched bias.

I could claim that random events in my brain are a 
> manifestation of the mental acting on the physical but that's 
> meaningless, since there is no substantive difference between that 
> claim and its contradiction. 

Except for the constant waking experience of every human being in history.  
But don't let that count for anything.

> >> It has to 
> >> be either random or determined. 
> > 
> > 
> > Says who? The entity whose every uttering is a random or determined 
> > jittering of meaningless neural activity? 
> Yes, and everyone else who understands what "random" and "determined" 
> mean, including apparently Tse. 

So you admit that what you say contradicts the fact that you are 
intentionally saying it?

> >> If you say it's something else you're 
> >> making up something that is not only physically but also logically 
> >> impossible. 
> > 
> > 
> > A clearer statement of psuedoskeptical prejudice I could not hope for. 
> But I 
> > can't blame you - all of your responses are generated randomly or 
> > automatically and so cannot possibly contain any intentional meaning. 
> So you believe that if something is either random or determined it 
> cannot have meaning? Then you believe that nothing has any meaning. 

Meaning is relative to personal experience, which requires direct and fully 
invested participation. Without that, of course there is no meaning. 
Meaning to what? Galaxies winking in and out of existence? If you have 
intention and participation, then there is meaning, and then random and 
determined phenomena can have meaning by extension.


> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to