Re: Against Physics

2009-09-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
2009/9/5 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins It seems foolish to beat Basil's car because (1) we know the beating will not improve it's function and (2) we know that is must be possible to fix it (since we built it in the first place).  However

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-05 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/9/5 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins It seems foolish to beat Basil's car because (1) we know the beating will not improve it's function and (2) we know that is must be possible to fix it (since we

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote: Dennett didn't invent compatibilism. It has a long history and extensive literature. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ Dawkins

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote: Dennett didn't invent compatibilism. It has a long history and extensive literature.

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: It seems foolish to beat Basil's car because (1) we know the beating will not improve it's function and (2) we know that is must be possible to fix it (since we built it in the first place).  However neither of these

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Furthermore we have no idea how to fix the person in a mechanistic way - and if we did would it be ethical (c.f. Clockwork Orange). A further thought: the solution to crime in A Clockwork Orange has a similar

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Furthermore we have no idea how to fix the person in a mechanistic way - and if we did would it be ethical (c.f. Clockwork Orange). A further thought: the solution to crime in A Clockwork

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously nobody is pro-poverty, but I think framing the issue in terms of personal responsibility and free-will incorrectly pushes the debate away from systemic solutions towards an excessive focus on individuals. Or,

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: But again, Dennett is mainly interested in pushing his Bright agenda...showing that Atheists are just like everybody else. Seems like you're mainly interested in picking a fight with Dennett.  I don't recall him

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Of course the easiest, and 100% effective way to reduce crime is to repeal laws.  About 1/3 of our prison population is there because of non-violent drug use crimes. Indeed, I'm on board with that. But, I don't see

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-03 Thread Rex Allen
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Dennett's main goal is not to show that determinism is compatible with free will (which it isn't), actually it is, although I don't find it very convincing Asking whether free will is compatible with determinism is like

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-03 Thread Rex Allen
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote: Dennett didn't invent compatibilism. It has a long history and extensive literature. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ I was aware of these facts. But a good SEP article nonetheless, thanks!

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-02 Thread Flammarion
On 2 Sep, 03:10, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:13 AM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: I think his exploration of the constraints on our actions in Freedom Evolves is pretty much on the money. So I can't comment on Freedom Evolves, as I haven't

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-02 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
2009/9/2 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:13 AM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: I think his exploration of the constraints on our actions in Freedom Evolves is pretty much on the money. So I can't comment on Freedom Evolves, as I haven't read it.  But I

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-02 Thread Brent Meeker
Flammarion wrote: On 2 Sep, 03:10, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:13 AM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: I think his exploration of the constraints on our actions in Freedom Evolves is pretty much on the money. So I can't comment

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-02 Thread Flammarion
On 2 Sep, 18:03, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Flammarion wrote: On 2 Sep, 03:10, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:13 AM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: I think his exploration of the constraints on our actions in Freedom Evolves

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-01 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: In this case, I am not responsible (common usage) for the fortune or misfortune that has befallen those who I have stumbled into as a result of the universe's constant

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-01 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Redefine?  You haven't defined it at all - you just assert examples and assert that they are common usage. Pshaw. You asked for an operational definition, and I gave you one. Perhaps you should reread my email. You

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-01 Thread David Nyman
On 1 Sep, 03:52, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: For instance: Bits of matter in particular configurations cause conscious experience. Fine. So what deeper meaning can we draw from this? None. Maybe not meaning, but engineering. That's why I think the hard problem will

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-01 Thread David Nyman
On 31 Aug, 20:51, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: If you make yourself small enough you can avoid responsibility for everything. --- Daniel Dennett, in Elbow Room Yeah, Dennett just redefines words in new ways so that he can say something like that and have it mean

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-01 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:13 AM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: I think his exploration of the constraints on our actions in Freedom Evolves is pretty much on the money. So I can't comment on Freedom Evolves, as I haven't read it. But I have read some of his articles and seen him

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 9 Aug, 06:55, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you suffer epileptic seizures seeing a neurosurgeon may offer considerable advantage. If that's what the future held for me, then that's exactly what I

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On 9 Aug, 06:55, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you suffer epileptic seizures seeing a neurosurgeon may offer considerable

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On 11 Aug, 16:38, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/11 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: Standard physicalism, on the other hand, by banishing self-access from its fundamental notions of causal adequacy

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 31 Aug, 19:15, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On 9 Aug, 06:55, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you suffer

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On 9 Aug, 06:55, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you suffer epileptic seizures seeing a neurosurgeon may offer

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 11 Aug, 16:38, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/11 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: Standard physicalism, on the other hand, by banishing self-access from its fundamental notions of causal adequacy (though arrogating the right to whisk a mysteriously powerless ghost of it

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: If you can't see into the future, you are going to have to make your mind up in the present Assuming physicalism, my brain will make my mind up for me, Asssuming physcialism, your brain is you and not some external

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: If you can't see into the future, you are going to have to make your mind up in the present Assuming physicalism, my brain will make my mind up for me, Asssuming physcialism, your brain is you and not

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Either way, there is only the epiphenomenal experience of making my mind up...not the actuality of doing so. I'd say there was the epiphenomenal experience of making up your mind AND the actuality of doing so.  

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Either way, there is only the epiphenomenal experience of making my mind up...not the actuality of doing so. I'd say there was the epiphenomenal experience of making up your mind AND the actuality

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Where are you trying to get? to an immortal soul? a ghost-in-the-machine? What's wrong with my mind is what my brain does? Where I'm trying to get is that there is no explanation for our conscious experience. It

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Where are you trying to get? to an immortal soul? a ghost-in-the-machine? What's wrong with my mind is what my brain does? Where I'm trying to get is that there is no explanation for our

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Where are you trying to get?  to an immortal soul? a ghost-in-the-machine?  What's wrong with my mind is what my brain

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you make yourself small enough you can avoid responsibility for everything.        --- Daniel Dennett, in Elbow Room If determinism is

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Where are you trying to get? to an immortal soul? a ghost-in-the-machine? What's

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you make yourself small enough you can avoid responsibility for everything. --- Daniel Dennett, in

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Right.  And Dennett is choosing his words carefully, so as to advance his social re-engineering agenda.  He want's to keep the idea of responsibility for utilitarian reasons..it's hard to keep a society going without

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: SO, with that in mind...what were you implying when you added that quote?  What was your motivation?  What were you accusing me of? In short...why did you introduce that Dennett quote into this thread? Probably I should

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: In this case, I am not responsible (common usage) for the fortune or misfortune that has befallen those who I have stumbled into as a result of the universe's constant pushiness. I AM responsible

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 26 Aug 2009, at 05:26, Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:50 AM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Recalling your interest in Chalmers: I was re-reading Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness recently, and I realised - I think for the first time - that his own

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-25 Thread David Nyman
On 17 Aug, 01:02, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Rex Recalling your interest in Chalmers: I was re-reading Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness recently, and I realised - I think for the first time - that his own double-aspect theory of information is effectively a

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-25 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:50 AM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Recalling your interest in Chalmers: I was re-reading Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness recently, and I realised - I think for the first time - that his own double-aspect theory of information is effectively a

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 Aug 2009, at 02:02, Rex Allen wrote: On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I exist could be, perhaps, tautological. But Reality? I don't think so. Certainly not from inside. What is reality, beyond our conscious experience of existence? This is

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-17 Thread Rex Allen
I'm afraid you are solipsist. Ha! Ouch! But it's not quite as simple as that. I don't deny that there MAY be something that causes consciousness, BUT if there is...this ultimately doesn't matter. In the final view, the conclusion is the same...consciousness experience just is what it is.

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-17 Thread John Mikes
Rex, (I guess the unsigned text below came from you) thanks for your one-liner gemstone of a definition on Conscious Experience! John Mikes On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-17 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM, John Mikesjami...@gmail.com wrote: Rex, (I guess the unsigned text below came from you) thanks for your one-liner gemstone of a definition on Conscious Experience! John Mikes Indeed! Thanks John, glad you liked it! On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM,

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Aug 2009, at 09:11, Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: As such, I feel that it is reasonable to say that conscious experience itself is uncaused and fundamental. This has no meaning for me. It is like saying don't ask.

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: So I lean towards the idea that only our conscious experiences are real.  Things obviously exist as contents of conscious experiences. I deeply disagree here. Even to understand a word like content I have to believe in some more basic entities

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Aug 2009, at 09:11, Rex Allen wrote: ... Uncaused things can't be explained. They just are. So what causes the complexity and structure of the things that I am conscious of? Nothing. That's just the way my experience is. ? I can't accept this, because I am

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Here's what I think is the problem with all this: H. I didn't see anything in your post that seemed like an actual problem for my view. As I think my virtual-gas example illustrated, meaning is subjective, like

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Aug 2009, at 18:35, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Aug 2009, at 09:11, Rex Allen wrote: ... Uncaused things can't be explained. They just are. So what causes the complexity and structure of the things that I am conscious of? Nothing. That's just the way my

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/16 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Here's what I think is the problem with all this: H.  I didn't see anything in your post that seemed like an actual problem for my view. But weren't you were arguing

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:42 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/16 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Here's what I think is the problem with all this: H.  I didn't see anything in your post that

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: There seems to be a lot switching back and forth between cause and meaning and explanation as though were interchangable. And even those have different modes, e.g. first cause, effective cause, proximate

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I exist could be, perhaps, tautological. But Reality? I don't think so. Certainly not from inside. What is reality, beyond our conscious experience of existence? The conclusion will be that consciousness, or anything

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/16 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:42 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/16 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Here's what I think is the problem with all this:

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-15 Thread Rex Allen
Brent and 1Z (the twins...a dynamic duo of blunt skepticism): On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Well, I think that's what I'm saying. Causal explanations are not really explanations, because you can never trace the causal chain back to it's

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-15 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: Brent and 1Z (the twins...a dynamic duo of blunt skepticism): On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Well, I think that's what I'm saying. Causal explanations are not really explanations, because you can never trace the causal chain

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: As such, I feel that it is reasonable to say that conscious experience itself is uncaused and fundamental. This has no meaning for me. It is like saying don't ask. Hm. You don't at all see what I'm trying to say?

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: As such, I feel that it is reasonable to say that conscious experience itself is uncaused and fundamental. This has no meaning for me. It is like saying don't ask. Hm. You don't at

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread Rex Allen
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: The living brain and the executing computer program both just represent the contents of my conscious experience, in the same way that a map represents the actual terrain. When you set fire to a map the land doesn't

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread Rex Allen
Brent, On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Uncaused things can't be explained. They just are. Didn't anyone ever explain arithmetic or geometry to you? Not every explanation needs to be a causal one. Well, I think that's what I'm saying. Causal

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: The living brain and the executing computer program both just represent the contents of my conscious experience, in the same way that a map represents the actual terrain. When you set

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread 1Z
On 14 Aug, 09:51, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Brent, On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Uncaused things can't be explained. They just are. Didn't anyone ever explain arithmetic or geometry to you? Not every explanation needs to be

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: Brent, On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Uncaused things can't be explained. They just are. Didn't anyone ever explain arithmetic or geometry to you? Not every explanation needs to be a causal one. Well, I think that's what

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-13 Thread Rex Allen
I owe Bruno and Brent a response also...it's in the works! David: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: The standard view of physics is that things are causally closed 'out there', and this seems to rule out that such causation can in any sense be

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-13 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/13 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: Causality.  Causality.  Causalty.  Hmmm. So really I am arguing against causal explanations.  I think this the core of my current argument.  The feeling that something is happening *NOW* is just another example of qualia I think.  The certainty of

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-11 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/11 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: You speak as if though we have a choice as to how we behave!  This I can't see at all. Whether our behavior is caused subatomic particles or arithmetic, or is completely uncaused, there is no room for libertarian free will. Whether will is free,

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Aug 2009, at 07:13, Rex Allen wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I don't see the theory. What do you ask us to agree on, if only for the sake of the argument. So, while the contents of my experience...the things that I'm conscious OF

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-11 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I don't see the theory. What do you ask us to agree on, if only for the sake of the argument. So, while the contents of my experience...the things that I'm conscious OF are complex and

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-11 Thread russell standish
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:02:03PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: Didn't anyone ever explain arithmetic or geometry to you? Not every explanation needs to be a causal one. And being uncaused doesn't prevent explanation - for example decay of an unstable nucleus is uncaused, i.e. it is

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-10 Thread David Nyman
On 9 Aug, 07:41, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Rex, just a few general points on your posts. The various 'existence' arguments I've been putting forward recently are intended precisely to show how our first-person world of meaning and intention is embedded in a more general environment

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-10 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I don't see the theory. What do you ask us to agree on, if only for the sake of the argument. So, while the contents of my experience...the things that I'm conscious OF are complex and structured, my conscious experience of

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-10 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote What of course is striking about your proposals is that in reality nobody behaves as though they believe this sort of thing: which is not of course to say that this makes it uninteresting. You speak as if though we have

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-09 Thread Rex Allen
Brent, BTW, this was intended as a (mostly) sincere response to your point. On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you suffer epileptic seizures seeing a neurosurgeon may offer

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-09 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Aug 2009, at 22:44, rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: So physicalism in fact offers no advantage over just asserting that our conscious experience just exists. Why are my perceptions orderly and why are my predictions

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Aug 2009, at 08:41, Rex Allen wrote: On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Aug 2009, at 22:44, rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: So physicalism in fact offers no advantage over just asserting that our conscious experience just exists. Why are

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 08 Aug 2009, at 22:44, rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: So physicalism in fact offers no advantage over just asserting that our conscious experience just exists. Why are my perceptions orderly and why are my predictions about what will happen next usually correct? Because that's just the

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-08 Thread Brent Meeker
rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Against Physics Let me go through my full chain of reasoning here, before I draw my conclusion: ... So physicalism in fact offers no advantage over just asserting that our conscious experience just exists. If you suffer epileptic seizures seeing a

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-08 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you suffer epileptic seizures seeing a neurosurgeon may offer considerable advantage. If that's what the future held for me, then that's exactly what I would do. Otherwise, I wouldn't do that, since it wouldn't