some implications of free will

Re: some implications of free will

On Apr 6, 7:07 am, "Fred Weiss" <fredwe...@papertig,com > wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:49 pm, "Immortalist" <reanimater 2...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> > The theory that the brain's activities (are) subjectivity gets more
> > evidence by the day, the counter-theories of a independent-from-the-
> > brain-soul weaken proportionatly.
>
> Evidence based on what? Other "subjectivity" or reality? If it's all
> subjective, there is no evidence.
>
> You can't have this both ways. You are trying to have your truth,
> while denying it, too.
>

Brain science is based upon theories and experiments, some theories
about subjectivity are better than other theories about subjectivity
whether its all subjective or not, based upon repeatable
circumstances. Your theory of "forget about subjectivity because we
cannot be certain" just doesn't stand up to theories based upon
decades of research experiments and inductive or probability theories
that have stood the test of time.

As I was also trying to imply, a similar argument can be used against
your ability to assert anything and claim it is certain, like the
sentence beginning with "Evidence based on what." The same criteria
could be used to claim that you are making an over-determined
assumption.

This is a similar argument that would make you out as talking about
subjectivity when you have attempted to eliminate dogmatically the
entitlement to speak about subjectivity my man, why do you violate
your own law by claiming you can determine the effects of
subjectivity, either understandable or not, and at the same time say
you cannot;

http :// groups.google,com /group/alt.philosophy/msg/b86ea8051203c7f6

> Fred Weiss

Re: some implications of free will

On Apr 2, 4:20 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


Why? Needing to keep your Kantian crap alive? Entities act according
to their nature and there is fuck all you can do about it. e.g. You
will act in contradiction of your nature at your peril, eg this
Kantian reguritation of yours is making you look a fucking stupid
unthinking git.


MG

Re: some implications of free will

I was busily flonking away in alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
Herself suddenly made me reply to "Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@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


Let's not bother.

Spencer

You laugh just like the angles dancing on the head of the pin jabbed
into my mind's eye.

Re: some implications of free will

On Apr 4, 8:46 am, "Spencer ©¿©¬" <q...@supahat,com > wrote:
> I was busily flonking away in alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
> Herself suddenly made me reply to "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@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
>
> Let's not bother.
>
> Spencer
>
> You laugh just like the angles dancing on the head of the pin jabbed
> into my mind's eye.

Laughter should be much greater than that. It's all good so grin big
and
laugh loud and proud. Your brain makes your mind shuffle the degree
of laughter or so I've been told by several wizards I've encountered
over
the decades.

Re: some implications of free will

On Apr 2, 12:20 am, 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
>
> let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in with
> the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli
>

the problem with definitions this is one is that one could program a
machine (like a computer) to satisfy the above conditions (randomly
generate a response at random time), so you must eventually conclude
that computers have free will

Re: some implications of free will


<bungalow_steve@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:1175804532.886178.202830@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups,com ...
| On Apr 2, 12:20 am, 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
| >
| > let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in with
| > the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli
| >
|
| the problem with definitions this is one is that one could program a
| machine (like a computer) to satisfy the above conditions (randomly
| generate a response at random time), so you must eventually conclude
| that computers have free will

True randomness cannot be programmed but must be generated from the quantum
noise fenerated by a semiconductor. In fact, to be on the safe side 2
semiconductors are used with the output from the first sampling the output
from the second.

Just observe the "random" powerups you get in a blockbreaker game and you
will see they come in groups where if you get powerup #1 you will probably
get it several times in a row.
The programmer's method simply samples the time shown by the system clock
and is far from truly random.
--
Spencer

"Our mission is not to stop Judgement Day, but to survive it." -- Terminator
3 - Rise of the Machines.