On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer > > > > of interest. > > > > That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously. > > > Why would your subjective concerns matter to me? I take *my* > > subjectivity as seriously as anything! > > You don't have to care about my subjectivity to care about > subjectivity in general.
You mean subjectivity is objectively important? >I feel like Pulp Fiction: > > Jules: You know the shows on TV? > Vincent: I don't watch TV. > Jules: Yeah, but, you are aware that there's an invention called > television, and on this invention they show shows, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I am very cold and I walk > > > > > > > into a room temperature room, to me the room feels warm. That > > > > > > > isn't > > > > > > > right or wrong, it's a reflection of how my sense of temperature > > > > > > > works. My sense of free will may work the same way. If I am used > > > > > > > to a > > > > > > > busy social human world, being out in nature may seem to be > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > but randomness and determinism, but if I grew up in the > > > > > > > wilderness, > > > > > > > that may not be the case. The wilderness becomes a living context > > > > > > > which can be read and perhaps dialogued with in some direct way. > > > > > > > Hopelessly vague. > > > > > > Hopelessly unhelpful personal opinion. How is it vague? > > > > > "may not be"...."may not be"... > > > > If I don't qualify it, then I get crap because I 'speak as if I know' > > > and if I do qualify it then I get crap because I'm hopelessly vague. > > > Philosophy is difficult. > > and accusations are easy. It was an observation, not an accusation. > > > This supports my suspicion that when people disagree with what you are > > > saying but can't find any reason they can support, they tend to > > > criticize how you write instead. > > > > > > > > It's conceivable. I just conceived it. > > > > > > > > I just conceived it = "I, of my own free will, chose to conceive > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > it" > > > > > > > No. The two are not synonymous. > > > > > > Why not? > > > > > Semantics and grammar. > > > > Obviously they aren't literally the same words, otherwise there would > > > be no reason to point out that they figuratively mean the same thing. > > > You are not pointing out a fact to the effect that they mean > > ther same thing "figurativelty". They seem to mean the same > > thing to you because of baggage you are brigning to the issue > > that other people are not bringing. > > If by baggage you mean understanding, then yes, that could be true. Or everyone else could understand better. That's subjectivity for you. > > > > > Are you saying that you were coerced into conceiving it? > > > > > Are you saying causation is coercion? > > > > If someone is caused to do something against their will, then yes, of > > > course. > > > If no other agents, humans, individuals is overrding > > their will, they are not being coerced. Coercion is > > a deliberate act. Gravity does not coerce objects into > > falling. > > You're right from a 3p perspective. From a 1p perspective anything > that winds up changing your mind can be said to convince you or coerce > your decision. >We can project intention on unconscious agents. You can > say, "I was coerced into joining a gym by my expanding gut". You can say your gut tells you things. But it doens;t. That is just figurative language. > > > > > > > I'm saying that in a hypothetical universe where no freewill > > > > > > > existed, > > > > > > > there would be no way to even conceive of an alternative to > > > > > > > determinism. > > > > > > > You could just conceive of it as a result of deteministic > > > > > > forces. > > > > > > No, just like you can't conceive of a square circle. It would not be > > > > > in the realm of possibility to differentiate determinism from anything > > > > > else. > > > > > I can't see why. > > > > Can you see why a universe without light would have no concept of > > > darkness? > > > No. We can conceive of the existence of the non-existent and > > vice versa. > > We can conceive of non-existence because things can cease to exist. If > there were no light, then nothing could be imagined to be lacking > light. if there were no light, everything we imagined would be lacking light. > It would be no more possible than it is for us to conceive of > Non-Gromwalschedness in our universe. > > > > Mistakes are possbile under determinism. > > > > It isn't possible to do the impossible by mistake. If you posit a > > > universe that is deterministic, then by definition, no shade of free > > > will can exist. Not voluntary action, not will, not intention, > > > accident, nothing at all would exist to define determinism in any way. > > > Except determinism itself. > > Not even determinism. It could not be defined, it would simply be the > way that the universe is. And we can't get a handle on the way the universe is? You seem to think you can. > We can talk about determinism only because > we extend beyond it. Gee, I guess you extend beyond everything then. Or your initial premise is wrong. > > > Everything would be purely automatic and unconscious and have no way > > > to conceive of any other possibility. > > > Non-sequitur. You would be determined to conceive whatever > > you were determined to conceive, rightly or wrongly. > > Why would anything be determined to conceive of anything? Why not? You say that if you are deterrmined, you cannot conceive of non-determinism. i say that if you are determined, you will necessarily and inevitably conceive of whatever you are determined to conceive of. That may or may not include indeterminism. I don't have to argue that the conception of indeterminism is inevitable. > > Let's say they brain state of someone who believes in > > free will is state S. Does it really make a difference whether > > S is arrived at by a history involving indeterminism and free will, > > or by a history involving involving strict determinism? It's the > > same state either way. > > There is no state S. You know that how? >Each person's 'belief' isn't arrived at at all. > That is not how it works. Opinions are dynamic impressions driven by > motive. (Another movie reference is helpful: Zelig). The reality of > belief is context dependent fugues of memory and influence with > feeling and sense in the moment. What we believe arises organically > from who we are and how we feel. When we assume instead from the > beginning that there is this abstract entity of 'belief in free will' > then it turns reality upside down and we end up thinking we have to > justify reality to the abstraction. Vague. FMRI contradicts you. > > > > so, under determinsim, one could be mistaken about determinism. > > > > > > > > You couldn't get outside of determinism to even imagine > > > > > > > that there could be any other theoretical possibility. > > > > > > > That makes no sense. If you drop LSD, it will > > > > > > cause you to see and believe strange thngs that don't > > > > > > exist. > > > > > > They do exist, they just exist within your experience. > > > > > Existing only in ones experience is for all practical purposes exactly > > > > equivalent to > > > > not existing. > > > > That is the most common way to look at it, but it's backwards. Nothing > > > exists unless it exists in something's experience (directly or > > > indirectly). > > > Unsupported assertion. > > No more unsupported than the opposite assertion. You contradict it below. > > >That is what existence is. Detection and participation. > > > > > One cannot deny the existence of that which one has > > > > never > > > > imagined or conceived. > > > > There is nothing to deny if you haven't experienced its existence in > > > some way. We experience molecules indirectly through description and > > > inference, therefore they seem like they exist to us. We imagine what > > > they are based on models and experiments which have allowed us to feel > > > like we have closed the gap between our indirect experience of > > > mathematics and physics and our direct experience of microscopy and > > > materials science. All of these things are contingent solely on > > > detection and interpretation. We could find out in 10 years or 100 > > > years that the molecular model is only the tip of the iceberg. > > > You mean we could discover the existence of something we > > have not at this point in time experienced? > > Of course. that;s the contradiction. > But we can never discover the existence of something that > nothing has experienced, unless we create it ourselves - which > wouldn't be discovery. Another unsupported assertion. what witnessed the dark side of the moon before we did? > > > > > > >It's the same > > > > > even without LSD. What you experience isn't what exists objectively, > > > > > it is what you are capable of and conditioned to experience. > > > > > >Deterministic forces can cause false beliefs. > > > > > > Deterministic forces can suggest false beliefs, but they can't truly > > > > > cause any beliefs, otherwise they wouldn't be beliefs, but mechanisms. > > > > > Belief can only be finally caused by a believer. > > > > > That's your belief > > > > Only if my belief is true. Otherwise I can't have a belief. > > > Sure you can. it's just that your theory of belief would be wrong. It > > would > > be a false belief. > > How could any belief be possible under determinism? Deterministically. >Belief implies a > voluntary epistemological investment. Nope. Eg brainwashing. >To be a believer is to choose to > believe. Nope > > > > > > > It would be to > > > > > > > imagine the opposite of something that cannot even be named. > > > > > > > Where on earth did you get "cannot be named"? > > > > > > Probably from Lovecraft or something. But it's entirely appropriate. A > > > > > deterministic universe means that determinism cannot be named. > > > > > Nope. > > > > How could it be named if there is no alternative quality to > > > distinguish it from? > > > Because naming is lingusitic, and language allows > > us to negate concepts even if we don;t have > > experience of their negations. We can conceive > > the im-material in a material universe, the im-mortal, > > the a-temporal, the in-finite, etc, etc. > > You don't know that our universe doesn't extend beyond qualities that > seem material, mortal, temporal, and finite to us though. Re-read the above. " language allows us to negate concepts even if we don;t have experience of their negations." That's "we don't have experience", not "they exist unexperienced" (although that;s impossible too, according to you...) > The only > example that could be used is a nonsense example. The universe could > actually be 100% X-istic but we have no way of knowing it. According to you. > The ability > of the mind (which is part of the universe) to conceive of X in the > first place means that the mind can figuratively extend beyond it. That's not figurative, it's just meaningless. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
