On 30 September 2013 14:26, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:

>
> I'm complete missing your point here??? The self-other distinction is a
> 1p thing, not part of physics at all. There are no persons in
> physics. Even when talking about the self-other distinction in (say)
> bacteria, it is our modelling that makes the bacteria a distinct
> system from its environment. Physical interactions reach through the
> system boundary as though it weren't there.
>

it's far more likely that I'm missing the point. Maybe if I try to
explicate my point, such as it is, it will be more obvious what I'm
missing...

I can't see how this relates to free will in a way that is different from,
say, tossing a coin to make decisions. If the point is simply that the
source of randomness is inside the physical structure involved. rather than
external, how does that stop it being a "slave to randomness" ? I could
(poetically) call a geiger counter a slave to randomness even if the
radioactive source it was measuring happened to be inside it.

Sorry. Obivously I've missed the point big time.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to