some implications of free will

some implications of free will

let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with choice
in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself

let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in with
the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli

those who believe in emergent behavior, believe all of our responses are
predetermined by biological means, in fact they believe all of our urges
and desires result from biology

these two theories are in conflict

I, for one, believe I have free will and that NOTHING determines my
choices but myself, I am not saying we do not have conditioned responses
to stimuli, but we choose based on will alone, what are conditioning is

the implication of free will is that no determined system, like biology,
which is determined by the rules of physics, can result in a free will

what follows is that we are not biology, but psychology, that has a
relationship to biology

this also means that are psychology cannot result from any evolution or
physically determined process of creation

it means, psychology is separate from biology in the sense of life after
death

and in the relationship of psychology to biology, it means there must be
an intermediate, since we do not consciously interact with our central
nervous system, yet the will exhibits times of domain over the body

those who believe in behavior that emerges from biology, emergent
behavior, believe a mysterious subconscious mediates the relationship
between the conscious and the central nervous system

but a free will would negate a subsconscious, in that the conscious will
makes the choices, not the subconscious

this leads to a disconnect in reality, if reality requires an
intermediate, the subconscious, that does not exist, there is a hole in
reality, and what we percieve is not reality at all, but an illusion or
dream, that is driven into us based onn our motives and emotions, by
higher intelligence


--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org

Re: some implications of free will

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:20:22 -0500, Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:

>let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with choice
>in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself
>
>let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in with
>the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli
>
>those who believe in emergent behavior, believe all of our responses are
>predetermined by biological means, in fact they believe all of our urges
>and desires result from biology
>
>these two theories are in conflict
>
>I, for one, believe I have free will and that NOTHING determines my
>choices but myself, I am not saying we do not have conditioned responses
>to stimuli, but we choose based on will alone, what are conditioning is
>
>the implication of free will is that no determined system, like biology,
>which is determined by the rules of physics, can result in a free will
>
>what follows is that we are not biology, but psychology, that has a
>relationship to biology
>
>this also means that are psychology cannot result from any evolution or
>physically determined process of creation
>
>it means, psychology is separate from biology in the sense of life after
>death
>
>and in the relationship of psychology to biology, it means there must be
>an intermediate, since we do not consciously interact with our central
>nervous system, yet the will exhibits times of domain over the body
>
>those who believe in behavior that emerges from biology, emergent
>behavior, believe a mysterious subconscious mediates the relationship
>between the conscious and the central nervous system
>
>but a free will would negate a subsconscious, in that the conscious will
>makes the choices, not the subconscious
>
>this leads to a disconnect in reality, if reality requires an
>intermediate, the subconscious, that does not exist, there is a hole in
>reality, and what we percieve is not reality at all, but an illusion or
>dream, that is driven into us based onn our motives and emotions, by
>higher intelligence

"Free will" may be treated similar to "consciousness",
as is treated in this Edge contribution :

http :// www .edge.org/q2005/q05_10.html

>NICHOLAS HUMPHREY
>Psychologist, London School of Economics; Author, The Mind Made Flesh
>
>I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an
>inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror and why is s/he doing it? The conjuror is natural selection, and the purpose has been to
>bolster human self-confidence and self-importance-so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives.
>
>If this is right, it provides a simple explanation for why we, as scientists or laymen, find the "hard problem" of consciousness
>just so hard. Nature has meant it to be hard. Indeed "mysterian" philosophers-from Colin McGinn to the Pope-who bow down before the
>apparent miracle and declare that it's impossible in principle to understand how consciousness could arise in a material brain, are
>responding exactly as Nature hoped they would, with shock and awe.
>
>Can I prove it? It's difficult to prove any adaptationist account of why humans experience things the way they do. But here there
>is an added catch. The Catch-22 is that, just to the extent that Nature has succeeded in putting consciousness beyond the reach of
>rational explanation, she must have undermined the very possibility of showing that this is what she's done.
>
>But nothing's perfect. There may be a loophole. While it may seem-and even be-impossible for us to explain how a brain process
>could have the quality of consciousness, it may not be at all impossible to explain how a brain process could (be designed to) give
>rise to the impression of having this quality. (Consider: we could never explain why 2 + 2 = 5, but we might relatively easily be
>able to explain why someone should be under the illusion that 2 + 2 = 5).
>
>Do I want to prove it? That's a difficult one. If the belief that consciousness is a mystery is a source of human hope, there may
>be a real danger that exposing the trick could send us all to hell.
--

Re: some implications of free will

On Apr 1, 9:20 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with choice
> in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself

How is the choice determined by itself? You seem to be saying that
free will/choice is random. Would that mean that you are as likely to
shoot your neighbor as make a cup of coffee, and even you do not know
what you will do until you decide?

>
> let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in with
> the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli

I cannot imagine a brain under no stimuli. No memories, no prior
intent, no thirst, no need to pee, no determination to prove that damn
determinist wrong, no camera-shy self-consciousness... Living brains
*alwyas have stimulation, and multiple desires.

>
> those who believe in emergent behavior, believe all of our responses are
> predetermined by biological means, in fact they believe all of our urges
> and desires result from biology.

There is also culture and personal history. Some would not consider
them biology.

>
> these two theories are in conflict

Theories are testable. Could you tell me how either of these can be
tested?

>
> I, for one, believe I have free will and that NOTHING determines my
> choices but myself, I am not saying we do not have conditioned responses
> to stimuli, but we choose based on will alone, what are conditioning is

Yes, some people have a biological imperative to say that...

>
> the implication of free will is that no determined system, like biology,
> which is determined by the rules of physics, can result in a free will

I still haven't heard what you mean free will is. Do you mean that at
least some of your behavior is random and meaningless?

>
> what follows is that we are not biology, but psychology, that has a
> relationship to biology

As far as I can tell, you have only offered a series of unrelated
(except by topic) assertions.

You have not yet supported them, explained them, or shown how one
leads to another.

If, for instance, my decision-making processes have at least one
component that is not determined by biology, personal history,
society, etc, then why can evolution *not have produced it?

>
> this also means that are psychology cannot result from any evolution or
> physically determined process of creation

It doesn't "mean" this at all. You simply claim it. You have not yet
justified your premisses.

>
> it means, psychology is separate from biology in the sense of life after
> death

Errmm... what?

>
> and in the relationship of psychology to biology, it means there must be
> an intermediate, since we do not consciously interact with our central
> nervous system, yet the will exhibits times of domain over the body

This is a pretty strong and unusual assertion. Can you back it up in
*any way?

>
> those who believe in behavior that emerges from biology, emergent
> behavior, believe a mysterious subconscious mediates the relationship
> between the conscious and the central nervous system

Too simple, but yeah.

>
> but a free will would negate a subsconscious, in that the conscious will
> makes the choices, not the subconscious

If so, then we have evidence that many classes of decisions take place
before awareness.

>
> this leads to a disconnect in reality, if reality requires an
> intermediate, the subconscious, that does not exist, there is a hole in
> reality, and what we percieve is not reality at all, but an illusion or
> dream, that is driven into us based onn our motives and emotions, by
> higher intelligence

Perhaps free will is the illusion. The self seems to be. I really do
suggest reading any book by Dr. Oliver Sacks. Damage to the brain can
result in all sorts of skewed perceptions.

>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org

Kermit

Re: some implications of free will

Dale Kelly wrote:

> let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with
> choice in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself

No. I refuse, of my own free will, to define it so.

> let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in
> with the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli

I am on drugs right now, and absolutely none of what you just said makes
any sense even to *me*.

> those who believe in emergent behavior, believe all of our responses
> are predetermined by biological means, in fact they believe all of
> our urges and desires result from biology

Emergent properties imply biological determinism? Um, not quite.

Why don't you try smashing together two other ideas that have nothing to
do with each other? Like, say, 'Those who believe in poltergeists,
believe that Cubism sucks, in fact they reject all post-modern art'?

> these two theories are in conflict

What two theories? You have not mentioned any two theories. You started
off with two definitions, and then a statement that the people who
oppose your views are biological determinists.

*whistles* Theory! Theory! *whistles* Come here, boy! Theeeeoooooorrrryyyy!

*waits*

Nope, there is not a single theory anywhere in sight of here.

> those who believe in behavior that emerges from biology, emergent
> behavior, believe a mysterious subconscious mediates the relationship
> between the conscious and the central nervous system

You're really not very good at this 'describing what other people
believe' thing, you know. You should probably stop doing it so much.

> this leads to a disconnect in reality, if reality requires an
> intermediate, the subconscious, that does not exist, there is a hole
> in reality, and what we percieve is not reality at all, but an
> illusion or dream, that is driven into us based onn our motives and
> emotions, by higher intelligence

Dude, you are one wacky motherfucker. You should be exhibited at freak
shows.

--
--Sean
http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
'Like I always say, there's no "I" in "team". There is a "me", though,
if you jumble it up.' --Dr Gregory House

Re: some implications of free will

On Apr 1, 11:36 pm, Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Dale Kelly wrote:
> > let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with
> > choice in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself
>
> No. I refuse, of my own free will, to define it so.
>
> > let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in
> > with the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli
>
> I am on drugs right now, and absolutely none of what you just said makes
> any sense even to *me*.
>
> > those who believe in emergent behavior, believe all of our responses
> > are predetermined by biological means, in fact they believe all of
> > our urges and desires result from biology
>
> Emergent properties imply biological determinism? Um, not quite.
>
> Why don't you try smashing together two other ideas that have nothing to
> do with each other? Like, say, 'Those who believe in poltergeists,
> believe that Cubism sucks, in fact they reject all post-modern art'?
>
> > these two theories are in conflict
>
> What two theories? You have not mentioned any two theories. You started
> off with two definitions, and then a statement that the people who
> oppose your views are biological determinists.
>
> *whistles* Theory! Theory! *whistles* Come here, boy! Theeeeoooooorrrryyyy!
>
> *waits*
>
> Nope, there is not a single theory anywhere in sight of here.
>
> > those who believe in behavior that emerges from biology, emergent
> > behavior, believe a mysterious subconscious mediates the relationship
> > between the conscious and the central nervous system
>
> You're really not very good at this 'describing what other people
> believe' thing, you know. You should probably stop doing it so much.
>
> > this leads to a disconnect in reality, if reality requires an
> > intermediate, the subconscious, that does not exist, there is a hole
> > in reality, and what we percieve is not reality at all, but an
> > illusion or dream, that is driven into us based onn our motives and
> > emotions, by higher intelligence
>
> Dude, you are one wacky motherfucker. You should be exhibited at freak
> shows.

He might choose otherwise. *chuckle*

W ; )


> --
> --Sean http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
> 'Like I always say, there's no "I" in "team". There is a "me", though,
> if you jumble it up.' --Dr Gregory House

Re: some implications of free will

On Apr 2, 12:11 pm, "Wordsmith" <wordsm...@rocketmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 11:36 pm, Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dale Kelly wrote:
> > > let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with
> > > choice in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself
>
> > No. I refuse, of my own free will, to define it so.
>
> > > let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in
> > > with the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli
>
> > I am on drugs right now, and absolutely none of what you just said makes
> > any sense even to *me*.
>
> > > those who believe in emergent behavior, believe all of our responses
> > > are predetermined by biological means, in fact they believe all of
> > > our urges and desires result from biology
>
> > Emergent properties imply biological determinism? Um, not quite.
>
> > Why don't you try smashing together two other ideas that have nothing to
> > do with each other? Like, say, 'Those who believe in poltergeists,
> > believe that Cubism sucks, in fact they reject all post-modern art'?
>
> > > these two theories are in conflict
>
> > What two theories? You have not mentioned any two theories. You started
> > off with two definitions, and then a statement that the people who
> > oppose your views are biological determinists.
>
> > *whistles* Theory! Theory! *whistles* Come here, boy! Theeeeoooooorrrryyyy!
>
> > *waits*
>
> > Nope, there is not a single theory anywhere in sight of here.
>
> > > those who believe in behavior that emerges from biology, emergent
> > > behavior, believe a mysterious subconscious mediates the relationship
> > > between the conscious and the central nervous system
>
> > You're really not very good at this 'describing what other people
> > believe' thing, you know. You should probably stop doing it so much.
>
> > > this leads to a disconnect in reality, if reality requires an
> > > intermediate, the subconscious, that does not exist, there is a hole
> > > in reality, and what we percieve is not reality at all, but an
> > > illusion or dream, that is driven into us based onn our motives and
> > > emotions, by higher intelligence
>
> > Dude, you are one wacky motherfucker. You should be exhibited at freak
> > shows.
>
> He might choose otherwise. *chuckle*
>
> W ; )
>
>
>
> > --
> > --Sean http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
> > 'Like I always say, there's no "I" in "team". There is a "me", though,
> > if you jumble it up.' --Dr Gregory House- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We are but a mass of atoms spinning about each other in an effort to
destroy the Earth. We are human.

Re: some implications of free will

On Apr 2, 12:11 pm, "Wordsmith" <wordsm...@rocketmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 11:36 pm, Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dale Kelly wrote:
> > > let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with
> > > choice in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself
>
> > No. I refuse, of my own free will, to define it so.
>
> > > let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in
> > > with the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli
>
> > I am on drugs right now, and absolutely none of what you just said makes
> > any sense even to *me*.
>
> > > those who believe in emergent behavior, believe all of our responses
> > > are predetermined by biological means, in fact they believe all of
> > > our urges and desires result from biology
>
> > Emergent properties imply biological determinism? Um, not quite.
>
> > Why don't you try smashing together two other ideas that have nothing to
> > do with each other? Like, say, 'Those who believe in poltergeists,
> > believe that Cubism sucks, in fact they reject all post-modern art'?
>
> > > these two theories are in conflict
>
> > What two theories? You have not mentioned any two theories. You started
> > off with two definitions, and then a statement that the people who
> > oppose your views are biological determinists.
>
> > *whistles* Theory! Theory! *whistles* Come here, boy! Theeeeoooooorrrryyyy!
>
> > *waits*
>
> > Nope, there is not a single theory anywhere in sight of here.
>
> > > those who believe in behavior that emerges from biology, emergent
> > > behavior, believe a mysterious subconscious mediates the relationship
> > > between the conscious and the central nervous system
>
> > You're really not very good at this 'describing what other people
> > believe' thing, you know. You should probably stop doing it so much.
>
> > > this leads to a disconnect in reality, if reality requires an
> > > intermediate, the subconscious, that does not exist, there is a hole
> > > in reality, and what we percieve is not reality at all, but an
> > > illusion or dream, that is driven into us based onn our motives and
> > > emotions, by higher intelligence
>
> > Dude, you are one wacky motherfucker. You should be exhibited at freak
> > shows.
>
> He might choose otherwise. *chuckle*
>
> W ; )
>
>
>
> > --
> > --Sean http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
> > 'Like I always say, there's no "I" in "team". There is a "me", though,
> > if you jumble it up.' --Dr Gregory House- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think somebody broke the mirror it all turning into jagged mosaics
of me.

Re: some implications of free will


"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.02.04.20.40@comcast,net ...
| let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with choice
| in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself
|
| let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in with
| the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli
|
| those who believe in emergent behavior, believe all of our responses are
| predetermined by biological means, in fact they believe all of our urges
| and desires result from biology
|
| these two theories are in conflict
|
| I, for one, believe I have free will and that NOTHING determines my
| choices but myself, I am not saying we do not have conditioned responses
| to stimuli, but we choose based on will alone, what are conditioning is

You believe in a lot of things that aren't true because your conditioning is
built into the language you use to think. We talk as if we had free will
because there is nothing to say about the real world which is beyond words.
Language is useful to organise groups of people to cooperate. For instance
planning and running a hunting party. Except for these practical things
language is just a game we engage in for amusement. I amuse myself writing
this. I have no ullusions that what I say will change what you believe.
Maybe someone else who thinks like me will read me and there will be a
connection.
People with whom I have a connection need no words to talk to me except to
plan practical stuff like the next meal. We may well talk to amuse each
other and make jokes....

Re: some implications of free will

On Apr 2, 6:25 am, "Spencer ©¿©¬" <q...@supahat,com > wrote:

> You believe in a lot of things that aren't true because your conditioning is
> built into the language you use to think. We talk as if we had free will
> because there is nothing to say about the real world which is beyond words.

Whereas your conditioning leads you to believe in things which are
true?

How did you manage to be so blessed?

Also, do I understand you correctly that if we could somehow manage to
talk without words we would have free will? Sign language,
grunts...perhaps?

Fred Weiss

Re: some implications of free will


"Fred Weiss" <fredweiss@papertig,com > wrote in message
news:1175518035.086119.252680@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
| On Apr 2, 6:25 am, "Spencer ©¿©¬" <q...@supahat,com > wrote:
|
| > You believe in a lot of things that aren't true because your
conditioning is
| > built into the language you use to think. We talk as if we had free will
| > because there is nothing to say about the real world which is beyond
words.
|
| Whereas your conditioning leads you to believe in things which are
| true?
|
| How did you manage to be so blessed?

I do not believe in anything. Some things I *know* to be true.
My mother blessed me every night after tucking me in to bed.
OTOH my father cursed me like this, "Go to Hell!".

| Also, do I understand you correctly that if we could somehow manage to
| talk without words we would have free will? Sign language,
| grunts...perhaps?

No, I communicated very well with my Thai wife using hugs, holding hands and
frottage.
We only needed a few words of each other's language, mainly related to food
or money ie the material side of life. The spiritual/sexual (they are the
same thing) stuff needs no words. Free will is an illusion,
--
Spencer

The first sign of a nervous breakdown is when you start
thinking your work is terribly important.

Re: some implications of free will

On Apr 2, 5:47 am, "Fred Weiss" <fredwe...@papertig,com > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 6:25 am, "Spencer ©¿©¬" <q...@supahat,com > wrote:
>
> > You believe in a lot of things that aren't true because your conditioning is
> > built into the language you use to think. We talk as if we had free will
> > because there is nothing to say about the real world which is beyond words.
>
> Whereas your conditioning leads you to believe in things which are
> true?
>
> How did you manage to be so blessed?
>
> Also, do I understand you correctly that if we could somehow manage to
> talk without words we would have free will? Sign language,
> grunts...perhaps?
>
> Fred Weiss

Grunts are my FAV and morphine mumbling also and spontanious grinning
and giggling from threshhold Wellbutrin dosage and.............damned
I'm
down to only three cigarettes I'd better go to the corner market after
the hot
tub/spa session.

Re: some implications of free will

On Apr 2, 11:25 am, "Spencer ©¿©¬" <q...@supahat,com > wrote:
> "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.04.02.04.20.40@comcast,net ...
> | let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with choice
> | in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself
> |
> | let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in with
> | the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli
> |
> | those who believe in emergent behavior, believe all of our responses are
> | predetermined by biological means, in fact they believe all of our urges
> | and desires result from biology
> |
> | these two theories are in conflict
> |
> | I, for one, believe I have free will and that NOTHING determines my
> | choices but myself, I am not saying we do not have conditioned responses
> | to stimuli, but we choose based on will alone, what are conditioning is
>
> You believe in a lot of things that aren't true because your conditioning is
> built into the language you use to think. We talk as if we had free will
> because there is nothing to say about the real world which is beyond words.
> Language is useful to organise groups of people to cooperate. For instance
> planning and running a hunting party. Except for these practical things
> language is just a game we engage in for amusement. I amuse myself writing
> this. I have no ullusions that what I say will change what you believe.
> Maybe someone else who thinks like me will read me and there will be a
> connection.
> People with whom I have a connection need no words to talk to me except to
> plan practical stuff like the next meal. We may well talk to amuse each
> other and make jokes....

Maybe that's because you suck at building stuff?

If you were an engineer, or an inventor, you'd realise that all
technical things are built from words.

Re: some implications of free will


<collection60@googlemail,com > wrote in message
news:1175518309.943315.279130@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
| On Apr 2, 11:25 am, "Spencer ©¿©¬" <q...@supahat,com > wrote:
| > "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote in message
| >
| > news:pan.2007.04.02.04.20.40@comcast,net ...
| > | let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with
choice
| > | in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself
| > |
| > | let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in
with
| > | the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli
| > |
| > | those who believe in emergent behavior, believe all of our responses
are
| > | predetermined by biological means, in fact they believe all of our
urges
| > | and desires result from biology
| > |
| > | these two theories are in conflict
| > |
| > | I, for one, believe I have free will and that NOTHING determines my
| > | choices but myself, I am not saying we do not have conditioned
responses
| > | to stimuli, but we choose based on will alone, what are conditioning
is
| >
| > You believe in a lot of things that aren't true because your
conditioning is
| > built into the language you use to think. We talk as if we had free will
| > because there is nothing to say about the real world which is beyond
words.
| > Language is useful to organise groups of people to cooperate. For
instance
| > planning and running a hunting party. Except for these practical things
| > language is just a game we engage in for amusement. I amuse myself
writing
| > this. I have no ullusions that what I say will change what you believe.
| > Maybe someone else who thinks like me will read me and there will be a
| > connection.
| > People with whom I have a connection need no words to talk to me except
to
| > plan practical stuff like the next meal. We may well talk to amuse each
| > other and make jokes....
|
| Maybe that's because you suck at building stuff?
|
| If you were an engineer, or an inventor, you'd realise that all
| technical things are built from words.

So you admit that your inventions are nothing but words and don't exist in
the material world.
In other words they don't work and have no practical applications.
An idea has to be earthed to manifest in the real world. That is your
disconnect from reality.
You live in an imaginary world of your own and that is insanity.

Re: some implications of free will

On Apr 2, 8:17 am, "Spencer ©¿©¬" <q...@supahat,com > wrote:
> <collectio...@googlemail,com > wrote in message
>
> news:1175518309.943315.279130@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
> | On Apr 2, 11:25 am, "Spencer ©¿©¬" <q...@supahat,com > wrote:
> | > "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote in message
> | >
> | >news:pan.2007.04.02.04.20.40@comcast,net ...
> | > | let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with
> choice
> | > | in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself
> | > |
> | > | let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in
> with
> | > | the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli
> | > |
> | > | those who believe in emergent behavior, believe all of our responses
> are
> | > | predetermined by biological means, in fact they believe all of our
> urges
> | > | and desires result from biology
> | > |
> | > | these two theories are in conflict
> | > |
> | > | I, for one, believe I have free will and that NOTHING determines my
> | > | choices but myself, I am not saying we do not have conditioned
> responses
> | > | to stimuli, but we choose based on will alone, what are conditioning
> is
> | >
> | > You believe in a lot of things that aren't true because your
> conditioning is
> | > built into the language you use to think. We talk as if we had free will
> | > because there is nothing to say about the real world which is beyond
> words.
> | > Language is useful to organise groups of people to cooperate. For
> instance
> | > planning and running a hunting party. Except for these practical things
> | > language is just a game we engage in for amusement. I amuse myself
> writing
> | > this. I have no ullusions that what I say will change what you believe.
> | > Maybe someone else who thinks like me will read me and there will be a
> | > connection.
> | > People with whom I have a connection need no words to talk to me except
> to
> | > plan practical stuff like the next meal. We may well talk to amuse each
> | > other and make jokes....
> |
> | Maybe that's because you suck at building stuff?
> |
> | If you were an engineer, or an inventor, you'd realise that all
> | technical things are built from words.
>
> So you admit that your inventions are nothing but words and don't exist in
> the material world.

He said no such thing. Words are a necessary tool for anything more
advanced than fire starting. While words may only exist in human
brains and in the media we use to pass them back and forth, without
words there would be no computers, no shoes, no crops, no glasses. no
gameboys; no tools, toys, or coffee distribution.

As a computer geek I wonder that anyone could say that inventions are
nothing but words. There's not much more real than a crowbar, and a
crowbar can't be built without millions of words being said over many
generations.

> In other words they don't work and have no practical applications.

While there may be a time and place for grunts, I can't diagnose a
networking problem without many words.

> An idea has to be earthed to manifest in the real world. That is your
> disconnect from reality.
> You live in an imaginary world of your own and that is insanity.

Try this experiment: take off your clothes and go into the back yard.
Eat and drink whatever you want, but don't use any tools that
required more than one person to make. If your neighbors ask what
you're doing, just grunt at them.

Let me know the results, but don't use any words or computers.

Kermit

Re: some implications of free will

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:25:34 +0100, Spencer ©¿©¬ wrote:

> I amuse myself--

implies free will


--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org