On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:43:06 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 3/7/2013 10:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Friday, March 8, 2013, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>>  On 3/7/2013 8:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:59:50 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: By the 
>>> definition I gave above a stone does not choose to roll down the hill 
>>> because it does not consider each option in order to decide which one to do.
>>>
>>
>> Why doesn't it choose when and which direction to roll? A deterministic 
>> universe means that there is no such thing as 'considering each option' - 
>> there are no options, only things happening because they must happen. They 
>> have no choice, there is no choice, the lack of choice is the defining 
>> feature of a deterministic world. You are saying that this is the world 
>> that we live in and that we are the stone, except that for some reason we 
>> have this delusional interactive narrative in which we could not stand 
>> being still any longer and decided to push ourselves down the hill.
>>  
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>     From my studies of the math of classical determinism, the subsequent 
>> 'behavior' of the stone follows strictly in a one-to-one and onto fashion 
>> from the prior state of the stone. There are no 'multiple choices' of the 
>> stone, thus no room at all for "choice". Thankfully we know that classical 
>> determinism is a delusion that some, for their own reasons, cling to.
>>  
>
>  Yes, we know that classical determinism is wrong, but it is not 
> logically inconsistent with consciousness.
>
>
>     I must disagree. It is baked into the topology of classical mechanics 
> that a system cannot semantically act upon itself. There is no way to 
> define intentionality in classical physics. This is what Bruno proves with 
> his argument.
>
>
Exactly Stephen. What are we talking about here? How is a deterministic 
system that has preferences and makes choices and considers options 
different from free will. If something can have a private preference which 
cannot be determined from the outside, then it is determined privately, 
i.e. the will of the private determiner. 
 

>
>  It is also not logically inconsistent with choice and free will,  unless 
> you define these terms as inconsistent with determinism, in which case in a 
> deterministic world we would have to create new words meaning pseudo-choice 
> and pseudo-free will to avoid misunderstanding, and then go about our 
> business as usual with this minor change to the language.
>
>
>     So you say...
>

Yeah, right. Why would a deterministic world need words having anything to 
do with choice or free will? At what part of a computer program is 
something like a choice made? Every position on the logic tree is connected 
to every other by unambiguous prior cause or intentionally generated 
(pseudo) randomness. It makes no choices, has no preferences, just follows 
a sequence of instructions.

Craig
 

>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>  

-- 
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