On Sunday, March 10, 2013 9:33:52 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >> That would mean it is impossible to have
> >> voluntary control of one's actions independently of physics.
> > No, it means that physics must support voluntary control of one's
> >> Now you
> >> are saying the opposite.
> > Nope. The problem is that you assume that we know a lot about physics
> > already. I think that we have an extremely, laughably primitive
> > understanding of physics at this point in history. We may be too stupid
> > arrogant to figure that out though. We like to think that the universe
> > we experience is the actual universe when it suits our expectations, but
> > decide that it must be nothing like our experience of the universe when
> > suits other expectations. We are clueless and clueless of how clueless
> > are.
> As I have said many times, it would be a simple matter to prove
> experimentally that biological processes go against the mechanistic
> laws of physics as we currently understand them. Why has it never been
> observed in the history of science?
Your misconceptions about my view are addressed here:
> 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 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.