On Thursday, April 4, 2013 8:14:27 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:10:45 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:26 AM, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Stathis wrote: >>>> *"I also have a very simple and straightforward idea of free will: I >>>> exercise my free will when I make a choice without being coerced...."* >>>> * >>>> * >>>> And how do you know that you are *not* coerced? your mind works on both >>>> conscious and (sub-? un-? beyond-?) conscious arguments that >>>> 'influence' >>>> (nicer, than 'coerced') your decisive process. Then again you may >>>> decide to >>>> 'will' against your best (or not-so-best?) interest - for some reason. >>>> You even >>>> may misunderstand circumstances and use them wrongly. >>>> All such (and another 1000) may influence (coerce??) your free >>>> decision. >>>> Continuing your sentence: >>>> >>> >>> I'm not coerced when I don't think I am coerced. Obviously, all my >>> actions are due to subconscious influences, namely, the biochemistry of my >>> brain, of which I am unaware. >>> >> >> Why are all of your actions "obviously" due to subconscious influences? >> If that were the case why would personal awareness exist? >> > > Your actions are due to physical processes in your brain which move your > muscles, but you are not actually aware of these physical processes. >
How can you be any more aware of those processes than by being them? > You can't tell me that you feel neurons firing in your cerebellum, for > example. > No, neurons firing are my feeling already, there is no more way that they can be felt from the human perspective. > It is an inference from empirical data that the brain is the organ of > thought at all. > > You seem stuck on the belief that it is not possible to be conscious if > the processes leading to consciousness are deterministic, random or > subconscious. As a matter of logical deduction, this is false. It is > possible for a thing to have qualities different from its parts. > This would be a case where the intentional would have to come from its complete opposite - from the unintentional (determined and random), which could happen theoretically, but not in a universe which had no use for intention. A universe where intentionality is fundamental can pretend to be unintentional, but unintentional can't pretend to be anything. Unintentional is anesthetic and has no plausible use for intention. > >> * "...I never said that the laws of physics deny the possibility of free >>>> will, >>>> but free will is impossible if you define it in such a way as to be >>>> incompatible with the laws of physics or even with logic."* >>>> * >>>> * >>>> The "Laws" of physics are our deduction from the so far observed >>>> incomplete >>>> circumstances - they don't "allow" or "deny" - maybe explain at the >>>> level of their >>>> compatibility. The "impossibility" of free will is not a no-no, unless >>>> it has been >>>> proven to be an existing(?) FACT (what I do not believe in). >>>> Logic is the ultimate human pretension, especially if not said 'what >>>> kind of'. >>>> >>> >>> In order to decide if free will exists the first thing is to understand >>> what is meant by the term. If it means "I choose to do what I want I do" >>> then free will exists. If it means something else such as "neither >>> determined nor random" then it doesn't exist. >>> >> >> What do you claim is the difference between choosing to do what you want >> to do and acting as a physical phenomenon which is intentional rather than >> unintentional (determined or random)? >> > > I don't accept your claim that "intentional" (either in the common sense > or the philosophical sense) is incompatible with the phenomenon being > determined or random. It seems to be something you just made up and present > as self-evident, which it certainly is not. > You don't accept it but you have no reason to offer for your opinion. I present my view as self-evident because to me it certainly is. It's funny for you to talk about 'making things up' since that is certainly a thing which makes no sense in an unintentional universe. Craig > > > -- > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
