On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
>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.
I don't know who wrote the above words but whoever it was the writer
clearly does not understand them. I wonder if Tse does. And certainly
before anyone can determine if "free will has a neural basis" they must
first figure out what in the world "free will" is supposed to be. And
nobody has done that.
> Tse's findings, which contradict recent claims by neuroscientists and
> philosophers that free will is an illusion,
People who say "free will" is a illusion are every bit as silly as those
saying it is not. The word "illusion" means something, the phrase "free
will" does not, it doesn't even have the property of nonexistence.
>> It has to be either random or determined.
> > Says who?
Says anyone who has not suffered brain damage or anyone who doesn't want
something to be true so badly that they are willing to renounce logic if
that's what it takes to convince themselves of it.
> This sounds a lot more like teleology than randomness or determinism.
What the hell are you talking about?? If it's teleological then its
mechanistic; event X happened for a reason, the achievement of result Y.
> But I can't blame you - all of your responses are generated randomly or
But you can blame me, it doesn't matter if its random or mechanistic
everybody is always responsible for their actions, or at least I can see no
reason why they shouldn't be.
John K Clark
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 email@example.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.