On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The color white is not red, but since white cannot be made without using
> red wavelengths, then it can't be said that it is not not red either.

If that's true, and you're the one who keeps telling me that the qualia
color has nothing to do with wavelengths of electromagnetism, then either
your assumption is wrong and the white is red or you are talking gibberish
again. It's mind boggling to me that I must continually explain grade
school logic to someone who thinks he's unraveled the secrets of the

> Warm water can be said not to be hot but also not to be not hot either,

BULLSHIT. If warm is not hot and warm is not not hot then the concept of
"warm" is as useful as a bucket of warm spit.

> > Free will doesn't need to be defined because it is inescapable and
> obvious.

I've escaped it and free will is not obvious to me, I don't know what the
hell you're talking about! And not only can't you define "free will" you
can't point to example of it that is not deterministic and not random and
not gibberish.

>> Just exactly like you the program is the way it is for a reason OR it is
>> the way it is for no reason.
> > The reason that the machine stops has nothing to do with the goals of
> the machine.

You continue to make oracular declarations and insisting without evidence
or argument that you speak the truth, but I don't believe the Pope when he
engages in that sort of crap so I don't see why I should believe you either.

> >>> I can catch a mouse in a trap and the mouse will stop moving.
>> >> True, and the mouse trap will stop moving too.
> >You could make one that resets itself. What's the difference?

The difference is that then the mouse trap would have a different goal.

> It could have been a child's finger broken in the trap instead.

And the trap moved very fast and then stopped when it was touched.

 >>> I respond to the game voluntarily,
>>  >> So you responded the way you did for a reason, namely because you
>> wanted to. The computer game responds the way it does for a reason too.
> > 'Because I wanted to' is the opposite of 'because it is programmed to'.

Both the program and you behaved the way they did for a reason. Or are you
saying its opposite because a program does what it does because it doesn't
want to?

> The former intentionally creates and initiates a sequence of actions, the
> latter executes and acts as a consequence of unintentional following.

So if we follow your chain of reasoning its voluntary because its
intentional and its intentional because its voluntary. Well, that's as
illuminating as much of what modern philosophers say so there may be a
future for you in that line of work yet.

 That doesn't mean that we have no access to valid intuition and judgment
> beyond the evidence of objects.

As a practical matter both you and I judge that something is conscious in
exactly the same way, we look for intelligence. That's why neither of us
believes our fellow human beings are conscious when they are sleeping or
under anesthesia or dead.

> There might be a way to conduct some useful experiments to prove whether
> or not people can unconsciously detect the presence of living organisms

ESP parapsychology junk science.

> > I'd be in favor of that,

I sure as hell don't want my tax money funding that crap.

> but I don't need it to know exactly why machines built from the bottom up
> from human motives are different from organisms who grow from the inside
> out from their own motives.

Organisms grow according to digital instructions encoded in their DNA, and
they learn from their environment. Machines are built from written digital
instructions and can learn from the environment as we do,  and they are
continually getting better at it. People are not.

> >>And people have control over their actions for a reason and so are
>> deterministic or they have control over their actions for no reason and so
>> are random, and if they have no control over their impulses to murder then
>> they should be treated more harshly not less than those that do because
>> they are far more dangerous.
> > What do you mean by "control over their impulses"? How does such a
> concept fit in with determinism?

Some systems are more nonlinear than others and allow trivial fluctuations
in the environment to grow without bound and overpower everything else in
the system. I was reading about a guy in a movie theater who got up to get
popcorn and accidentally stepped on a stranger's foot, so the stranger got
out a knife and stabbed popcorn guy to death. Knife guy was a very
nonlinear system, that is to say poor impulse control.

> Deterrence makes no sense to a machine.

Nonsense.  The environment is a important factor in determining the way
machines behave, just like with people.

> without free will, their "want" isn't connected to anything that can
> cause changes in the universe.

Cannot comment, don’t know what ASCII sequence “free will” means.

>> Deterrence wouldn’t work if people actions were always non deterministic
>> (random)
> > It wouldn't work if people's actions were always deterministic either.

What the hell are you talking about? If it's deterministic its cause and
effect so if society changes the environment (the cause) then the effect
(behavior) will change.

> > Free will is so obvious that a four year old can understand it.

And a four year old understands that Santa Claus lives at the north pole,
but by the time he reaches 5 he understands that a year before he did not
understand even though he thought he did.

> There is no culture on Earth which fails to recognize the obvious and
> unavoidable reality of our own voluntary participation in the world.

Yeah, every culture on Earth makes the "free will" noise and they all have
turned their laws into a ridiculous tangled mess in a hopeless attempt to
make sense out of that noise.

  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