On Thursday, April 4, 2013 8:14:27 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<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 <jam...@gmail.com> 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 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