On 08/03/2013, at 2:43 AM, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
>> 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
To act on itself, as far as I can understand it, would mean to be uncaused or
truly random, which is indeed incompatible with determinism. But why should
that have anything to do with "intentionality"?
>> 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...
Which part do you disagree with? That people can define free will differently?
Or that people wouldn't care if they learned that under a particular definition
they lack free will?
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.