On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:39:31 AM UTC-4, Stephen Lin wrote:
> "A deterministic system cannot grant free will, and a system with free
> will cannot choose to become deterministic; however, each is capable of an
> arbitrarily convincing simulation of the other."
A system with free will can choose to become deterministic though. Follow a
leader or flip a coin.
It seems like it must begin there, with free will.
> So how would you know where it began?
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>> On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:23:06 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>> On 20 October 2013 12:15, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Saturday, October 19, 2013 6:31:23 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>> >> On 20 October 2013 00:53, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > Free will is not about an inability to predict your own decisions,
>>> it is
>>> >> > about a desire to directly dictate perceived conditions, and an
>>> >> > expectation
>>> >> > of the effectiveness of that desire.
>>> >> And that too is compatible with randomness or determinism.
>>> > Only from the retrospective view (from which anything can
>>> automatically be
>>> > justified). Prospectively, I can think of no plausible reason for any
>>> > desire or expectation to arise from a random or deterministic
>>> universe. Why
>>> > would it, and how could it?
>>> I don't see how that constitutes any sort of argument. Does the fact
>>> that every human naturally thinks the Earth is flat mean the Earth is
>>> in fact flat, on the grounds that there would otherwise be no reason
>>> for such a belief to be so widespread?
>> Yes, of course the Earth is flat from a local perspective. Flat enough
>> for us to build with levels rather than protractors. If you walked around
>> perceiving the curvature of the Earth all the time, you would not be part
>> of the experience of the world that all animals share. If you were to
>> recreate the universe and failed to include the perception that the world
>> is flat, you would have eliminated a huge chunk of its realism, as you
>> would if you neglected to include the masking of the night sky by blue sky.
>> The only reason that we can accept the world being round is that we can see
>> it and model it from a super-human perspective. To say that that
>> perspective is absolutely true and the local perspective is an illusion is
>> to miss the role that perceptual relativity plays in defining physics.
>>> Does the fact that every
>>> culture has come up with religious beliefs mean God exists?
>> No, but it does mean that human consciousness describes itself in Godlike
>> terms for a good reason. Once we understand what metaphor is, and how it is
>> related to consciousness, then the metaphor of God is recognizable as a
>> projection of metaphor and consciousness as a person (a father to be
>> precise). A meta-metaphor about meta-superlative personhood.
>>> 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
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.