On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 3/7/2013 4:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/03/2013, at 2:58 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>     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.
>
>
> As I said, it depends on how you define "free will".
>
>> 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.
>
>
> In general, the existence of words for something does not mean it has an
> actual referent; consider "fairy" or "God". An adequate response to your
> position is that you're right - we don't really have choices. Another
> response is that your definition of "choice" is not the only possible one.
> --
>
>
>     How is linguistic analysis going to help your case? You seem to miss the
> point that it is not the symbols on the page that 'contain' meaningfulness,
> it is your mental act of interpretation from whence the meaning emerges.
> Without a conscious mind you are as much a zombie as John Clark and his
> mechanical pony.

We could be arguing about whether Pluto is a planet but won't get
anywhere unless we agree on what "planet" means. It's the same with
free will. We might agree on all the facts of the matter but still
disagree on free will, because different people mean different things
by it.


-- 
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