On Oct 21, 11:42 am, benjayk wrote:
> Somehow I am bored by this discussion. I'll still post my reply (as I have
> already written it), in case you are interested. I am unlikely to continue
> the dicussion, though, so don't bother responding, unless you really want
> to.
>
It seems like we are tal
it does, including having opinions, talking to
>> >> interesting
>> >> >> >> people,
>> >> >> >> etc... Why is all of that nothing worth if there is no
>> controller
>> >> of
>> >> >> >&g
On Oct 20, 11:06 am, benjayk wrote:
> Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >> >> The thought
> >> >> experiment doesn't mean much in that case, it is simply neurons
> >> >> determining
> >> >> the behaviour of two brains. I don't see that it matters what the
> >> outcome
> >> >> of
> >> >> the experiment i
at matter is
all there is anyway, and even believes qunatum mechanics is BS because it is
to unmaterialist), an objective spiritual person (bruno - there are
objective 3p facts that are the ontology, yet the 1p world is fundamentally
spiritual), an open minded materialist ("yeah, matter is all
On Oct 19, 11:41 am, benjayk wrote:
> I am not responding to some parts of the post, I don't really see the
> importance of the more detailed discussion...
No worries. I'm all in favor of compressing things whenever
convenient.
>
> Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >> >> So to control it, you'd have to
; to transcend this, or rather, see
>> that
>> >> there is no owner in the first place (just the appearance of one). I
>> find
>> >> this liberating, not dehumanizing.
>>
>> > Right, but that's a whole other conversation. I'm just talking to the
&g
e an
> emotional attachment. A materialistic world may be meaningless, but it is
> potentially understandable and controllable, so if that's important to you,
> you won't let go of that belief.
True, yes. I think it may even go beyond that to a kind of
neurological orientation
e an
> emotional attachment. A materialistic world may be meaningless, but it is
> potentially understandable and controllable, so if that's important to you,
> you won't let go of that belief.
True, yes. I think it may even go beyond that to a kind of
neurological orientation
> >> rather
>> >> control is just a phenomenon arising in consciousness like all other
>> >> phenomena eg feelings and perceptions.
>>
>> > Sure, but that's all that it needs to be. As long as we get the
>> > sensory feedba
On Oct 18, 3:15 pm, benjayk wrote:
> >> Complete control over anything is simply impossible. Control is just a
> >> feeling and not fundamental.
>
> > It depends what you mean by complete control. If I choose to hit the
> > letter m on my keyboard, am I not controlling the keyboard to the
> > ext
ng enough they will start hallucinating that they are
> an organism with a conscious will? Why? How? It's totally nuts and
> explains nothing.
OK, I agree with you that it is not a meaningless by-product, certainly not.
That doesn't make it fundamental, though. It is fundamental to our
On 16 Oct 2011, at 20:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here’s a little thought experiment about free will. Let’s say that
there exists a technology which will allow us to completely control
another person’s neurology. What if two people use this technology to
control each other? If one person started
On Oct 18, 10:00 am, benjayk wrote:
> Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Here’s a little thought experiment about free will. Let’s say that
> > there exists a technology which will allow us to completely control
> > another person’s neurology. What if two people use this technology to
> > control each ot
the universe.
That is not to say that we are predetermined by a material universe, rather
control is just a phenomenon arising in consciousness like all other
phenomena eg feelings and perceptions.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/The-Overlords-Gambit-tp32662974p3267
On Oct 16, 4:49 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> Craig.
> I dislike thought experiments: they are figments to prove one's point
> irrespective of other views (I refrain from writing 'truth' or even
> 'experimental fact' etc.).
> However: two people getting 'conjoined' as a SINGLE organism, both having
> di
Craig.
I dislike thought experiments: they are figments to prove one's point
irrespective of other views (I refrain from writing 'truth' or even
'experimental fact' etc.).
However: two people getting 'conjoined' as a SINGLE organism, both having
different perceived reality
(I will salute a better e
Here’s a little thought experiment about free will. Let’s say that
there exists a technology which will allow us to completely control
another person’s neurology. What if two people use this technology to
control each other? If one person started before the other, then they
could effectively ‘disar
17 matches
Mail list logo
