On Saturday, March 9, 2013 1:35:20 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > 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.
>

Everyone except free will deniers know exactly what free will is. It needs 
no description unless you are bending over backward to pretend it doesn't 
exist.


> > 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. 
>

Are you claiming then that it both does not exist and does not not exist?


>  >> 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. 
>

So just standard bigotry. "Whoever disagrees with me about anything is a 
crazy idiot.". So impressive and convincing...
 

>
> > 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;
>

No. Mechanistic means can be employed to teleological ends but teleology 
but teleology itself need not have anything to do with mechanism.
 

> event X happened for a reason, the achievement of result Y.
>

No. From the driver's teleological perspective, the event of him starting 
the car happens for the achievement of the result of going to the store. 
>From the machine's perspective, there is no driver, no store, and the 
engine starts because of the presence of fuel, vapor, and a spark from the 
ignition.
 


> > But I can't blame you - all of your responses are generated randomly or 
>> automatically
>>
>
> 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.
>

You think people should be held responsible for random events and events 
which they were powerless to stop? Just for fun?

Craig
 

>
>    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 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