issues with evolution and emergent behavior

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Dale Kelly

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 2:08:40 AM4/15/07
to
evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
mind

free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
mechanism like biology or physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29

this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
can describe free will, consciousness or the mind

one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
and animated existences

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

Sir Frederick

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 2:45:12 AM4/15/07
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:08:40 -0500, Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:

>evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
>mind

Yes it can, those are virtual attributes of our evolved self model.
>

Radix2

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 3:31:28 AM4/15/07
to
On Apr 15, 4:08 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
>
> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> mechanism like biology or physics

Your foundless assertions are getting bloody tiresome. "Don't know how
yet" =/= "goddidit".

Besides - there is work in science occurring right now to examine
these things. I cannot agree with their findings always, but your god
is getting squeezed into smaller and smaller gaps.

wf3h

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 4:23:00 AM4/15/07
to

Dale Kelly wrote:
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind

it can't explain ballet dancing, crocheting or dwarf tossing. so what?


>
> one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
> would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
> will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
> will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
> and animated existences
>

only if the brain is deterministic. and you haven't shown that. your
logic is so weak it's like a homeopathic soup made from the shadow of
a pigeon that starved to death.

Rodjk #613

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 4:48:03 AM4/15/07
to
On Apr 15, 10:08 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
>
> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> mechanism like biology or physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_willhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29

>
> this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
> can describe free will, consciousness or the mind
>
> one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
> would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
> will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
> will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
> and animated existences
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org

And yet the evidence shows that evolution did occur, and so it
accounts for whatever aspects of life do exist.

Rodjk #613

Alexander

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 4:48:30 AM4/15/07
to
On Apr 15, 7:08 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
>
> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> mechanism like biology or physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_willhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29

>
> this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
> can describe free will, consciousness or the mind
>
> one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
> would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
> will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
> will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
> and animated existences


Meh ... I think you need to actually read what you linked to.

If dualism is true how is it that lesions and other abnormalities and
damage effecting the brain also have the capacity to change
personality? If mind and body are really separate then damage to the
brain should not impact on things like memory, recognition of people
and objects or mood.

>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org


Bobby Bryant

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 5:02:35 AM4/15/07
to
In article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>,

Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> writes:
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
>
> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> mechanism like biology or physics
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
> this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
> can describe free will, consciousness or the mind
>
> one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
> would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
> will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
> will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be

smoked, like the poor plant that inspired you to this rant.

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

Ye Old One

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 8:04:33 AM4/15/07
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:08:40 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
>mind

How do you know this? You lack even the basic ability to punctuate
your posts or use the shift key. In short, you are a fool.

--
Bob.

Craig T

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 8:08:12 AM4/15/07
to
On Apr 15, 1:08 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
>
> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> mechanism like biology or physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_willhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29

>
> this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
> can describe free will, consciousness or the mind
>
> one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
> would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
> will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
> will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
> and animated existences
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org

Help us narrow down what you are talking about. You say plants don't
have free will. Do all animals have it? Do apes have free will,
consciousness or a mind?

Dale Kelly

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 8:51:50 AM4/15/07
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:48:30 -0700, Alexander wrote:

> If dualism is true how is it that lesions and other abnormalities and
> damage effecting the brain also have the capacity to change personality?
> If mind and body are really separate then damage to the brain should
> not impact on things like memory, recognition of people and objects or
> mood.--

there is a relationship between the external and the internal, the
externall must have some of the same non-physical qualities as the
internal


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

Dale Kelly

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 8:53:30 AM4/15/07
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 05:08:12 -0700, Craig T wrote:

> Help us narrow down what you are talking about. You say plants don't
> have free will. Do all animals have it? Do apes have free will,

> consciousness or a mind?--

yes, all animals have the same free will, consciousness and mind, they
just have not reaped the rewards of certain experiences throughout
reincarnation


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

Thurisaz the Einherjer

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 10:06:02 AM4/15/07
to
Et tu Brute?

"You can't explain why I just rolled 3 on a standard die, therefore
Cthulhu!"

Oh well, keep on the good work of showing all the world what morons you
jebus cultists are.

--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."

My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus

Spencer 忽帕

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 10:50:47 AM4/15/07
to

"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...

| evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
| mind
|
| free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
| mechanism like biology or physics
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29

Note the reference to dualism in the above link. This is the source off all
the other errors.
You begin by assuming dualism. Why? Monism is half as complex so by The
Razor of Occam we should start here. Since a living body and mind are really
one thing all your issues disappear.

| otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
| and animated existences

They do and they are. This does not make humans any less important but does
make plants and animals even more wonderful.

--
Let us reject the cowardly instincts of the Bio-Luddites and embrace
the technology by which to correct the design faults imposed on us by
nature.

Conscious Evolution
http://www.euvolution.com/


Spencer 忽帕

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 10:55:52 AM4/15/07
to

"Bobby Bryant" <bdbr...@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:LSlUh.14993$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

LOL. Nice one Bobby!


Spencer 忽帕

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 10:59:11 AM4/15/07
to

"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...

And Hindus have believed this for thousands of years so it must be true,
right?


Alexander

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 11:41:41 AM4/15/07
to

Which still makes any claim for dualism redundant. Unless you can
define which properties between the internal/external divide are key
then you are back to the 'mind' being an emergent property of our
biological brain.

You will also have to define how a foetus has a 'mind' or how mind
exists during the earlier stages of foetal/cellular development or,
again, you are back to the biological roots of the brain. Otherwise
the 'mind', self-awareness and development of intellect becomes
something imposed at a much later date after birth which seems bizarre
to say the least.

>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org


Timberwoof

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 4:19:37 PM4/15/07
to
In article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>,
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:

How do you know? Many Buddhists disagree with you, and they've studied
the subject longer than you have.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!

Timberwoof

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 4:18:38 PM4/15/07
to
In article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>,
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:

> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
>
> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> mechanism like biology or physics
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

That's not what the article says.


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29

That's not what the article says either.


> this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
> can describe free will, consciousness or the mind

Abiogenesis doesn't have to describe consciousness. Evolution can inform
discussions of consciousness. Physics can describe free will, but hasn't
yet.

> one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies,

One would answer "yes."

> yet how well
> would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
> will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
> will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
> and animated existences

I think you've just shown that the evolution of motile living things may
eventually bring about the evolution of consciousness and free will.

Timberwoof

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 4:20:24 PM4/15/07
to
In article <58esthF...@mid.individual.net>,
"Spencer 忽帕" <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:

Well, no, actually, they have not believed this. But they and the
Buddhists have researched it longer than Dale Kelly has, so I'd pay more
attention to them.

Timberwoof

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 4:22:12 PM4/15/07
to
In article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>,
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:48:30 -0700, Alexander wrote:
>
> > If dualism is true how is it that lesions and other abnormalities and
> > damage effecting the brain also have the capacity to change personality?
> > If mind and body are really separate then damage to the brain should
> > not impact on things like memory, recognition of people and objects or
> > mood.--
>
> there is a relationship between the external and the internal,

I would like for you to define a non-arbitrary boundary between you
(internal) and not-you (external). Then you can talk more about the
relationship between them.

> the
> externall must have some of the same non-physical qualities as the
> internal

What non-physical qualities are there that can be measured?

Spencer 忽帕

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 5:01:09 PM4/15/07
to

"Timberwoof" <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message news:

| "Spencer 忽帕" <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
| > "Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > | On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 05:08:12 -0700, Craig T wrote:
| > |
| > | > Help us narrow down what you are talking about. You say plants don't
| > | > have free will. Do all animals have it? Do apes have free will,
| > | > consciousness or a mind?--
| > |
| > | yes, all animals have the same free will, consciousness and mind, they
| > | just have not reaped the rewards of certain experiences throughout
| > | reincarnation
| >
| > And Hindus have believed this for thousands of years so it must be true,
| > right?
|
| Well, no, actually, they have not believed this.

Hindus don't believe this? That's news to me.

| But they and the
| Buddhists have researched it longer than Dale Kelly has, so I'd pay more
| attention to them.

As a Buddhist myself who has researched the question quite deaply, I am
aware that the common Buddhist in the street often has beliefs similar to or
overlapping with Hindu beliefs, but this is not what The Buddha taught. He
did, however, teach that it is harmless to have these beliefs, and also
permissable to pray to worldly gods for worldly things.
--
"I fought the Dharma, and the Dharma won." (Allen Ginsberg)


Timberwoof

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 6:50:20 PM4/15/07
to
In article <58fi4oF...@mid.individual.net>,
"Spencer 忽帕" <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:

> "Timberwoof" <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message news:
> | "Spencer 忽帕" <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
> | > "Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
> | > | On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 05:08:12 -0700, Craig T wrote:
> | > |
> | > | > Help us narrow down what you are talking about. You say plants don't
> | > | > have free will. Do all animals have it? Do apes have free will,
> | > | > consciousness or a mind?--
> | > |
> | > | yes, all animals have the same free will, consciousness and mind, they
> | > | just have not reaped the rewards of certain experiences throughout
> | > | reincarnation
> | >
> | > And Hindus have believed this for thousands of years so it must be true,
> | > right?
> |
> | Well, no, actually, they have not believed this.
>
> Hindus don't believe this? That's news to me.

Well, okay. I was splitting hairs between certain and any. Beings do
gain from experiences in different incarnations.

> | But they and the
> | Buddhists have researched it longer than Dale Kelly has, so I'd pay more
> | attention to them.
>
> As a Buddhist myself who has researched the question quite deaply, I am
> aware that the common Buddhist in the street often has beliefs similar to or
> overlapping with Hindu beliefs, but this is not what The Buddha taught. He
> did, however, teach that it is harmless to have these beliefs, and also
> permissable to pray to worldly gods for worldly things.

Yeah, that's one of the things I like about Buddhism: It plays well with
others. :-)

Dale Kelly

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 7:27:09 PM4/15/07
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:22:12 -0700, Timberwoof wrote:

> What non-physical qualities are there that can be measured?--

spirits can be measured spiritually, it is beyond physics, you cannot
have a spiritometer, so forget it, you must accept the spirit itself as a
measurer of other spirits


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

Mark Isaak

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 8:51:43 PM4/15/07
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:08:40 -0500, Dale Kelly wrote:

> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or
> the mind

Evolution *has* explained the emergence of free will, consciousness, and
the mind (or rather, evolutionary explanations have been proposed).
Those explanations are tentative and likely incorrect in many details,
but they exist.



> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> mechanism like biology or physics

Biology and physics are not determinate, nor are they mechanisms.

> this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
> can describe free will, consciousness or the mind

Since your premises are false, you will need to go back and rethink
everything you have ever believed. (If you have free will, you can do
that, but I'm betting you can't.)

> <snip more invalid conclusions>

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 9:36:07 PM4/15/07
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:08:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale....@comcast.net>:

>evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
>mind

Sorry, but this is incorrect, by observation.

>free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
>mechanism like biology or physics

Please provide evidence for this assertion.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
>this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
>can describe free will, consciousness or the mind

That's nice. Is it supposed to mean something?

>one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
>would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
>will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
>will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
>and animated existences

I'd like Thousand Island on that word salad. Thanks.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Immortalist

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 10:45:46 PM4/15/07
to
On Apr 15, 7:50 am, "Spencer 忽帕" <q...@supahat.com> wrote:
> "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote in message

>
> news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
> | evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> | mind
> |
> | free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> | mechanism like biology or physics
> |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
> |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
> Note the reference to dualism in the above link. This is the source off all
> the other errors.
> You begin by assuming dualism. Why? Monism is half as complex so by The
> Razor of Occam we should start here. Since a living body and mind are really
> one thing all your issues disappear.
>

Great point! But better than that, this looks alot like a case of the
fallacy called "The Stolen Concept." He asumes the very thing that he
claims is not derterminable either way.

Stolen Concept

Definition: One or more concepts on which an argument logically
depends are denied in the argument.

Examples:

(i) There are absolutely no absolutely true statements.

(ii) It is impossible for people to communicate with one another.

(iii) I do not exist.

(iv) Physics has proven science is incapable of telling us anything
true.

Proof: In putting forth his argument the author both accepts and
denies the same proposition, (though usually not explicitly) thus
accepts contradictory positions. This is essentially the same as
Aristotle's "reaffirmation through denial".

http://www.goodart.org/stolen.htm

[1] - Positive Universal Skepticism:

In its positive form it consists
of the doctrine that man
can know nothing.

This belief can be easily dismissed, because anyone who defends it
finds himself immersed in hopeless absurdities.

In asserting that there is no knowledge, the skeptic is asserting a
knowledge claim-which according to his own theory is impossible.

The universal skeptic wishes to
claim truth for a theory that
denies man's ability to arrive
at truth, and this puts the
skeptic in the unenviable
position of uttering
nonsense.

...he cannot even begin to argue for his position, because the
"possibility of knowledge is presupposed in the very possibility of
argument, in the very possibility of having recourse to reasons."

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

To understand this fallacy, consider an example of it in the realm of
politics: Proudhon's famous declaration that "All property is theft."

"Theft" is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the
antecedent concept of "rightfully owned property"-and refers to the
act of taking that property without the owner's consent. If no
property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there
can be no such concept as "theft." Thus, the statement "All property
is theft" has an internal contradiction: to use the concept "theft"
while denying the validity of the concept of "property," is to use
"theft" as a concept to which one has no logical right-that is, as a
stolen concept.

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/the_stolen_concept.html

Spencer 忽帕

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 11:48:06 PM4/15/07
to

"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:11766

| On Apr 15, 7:50 am, "Spencer 忽帕" <q...@supahat.com> wrote:
| > "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote in message
|
| > | evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or
the
| > | mind
| > |
| > | free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
| > | mechanism like biology or physics
| > |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
| > |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
| >
| > Note the reference to dualism in the above link. This is the source off
all
| > the other errors.
| > You begin by assuming dualism. Why? Monism is half as complex so by The
| > Razor of Occam we should start here. Since a living body and mind are
really
| > one thing all your issues disappear.
|
| Great point!

Thnx. I'm not appreciated enough so it's nice to read that.

| But better than that, this looks alot like a case of the
| fallacy called "The Stolen Concept."

"The Case of the Stolen Concept." from The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes.

c.f. The purloined Letter -- E. A. Poe. & The Purloined Butter -- John
Sladek.

Proudhon actually wrote, "Property is Theft." -- a slogan rather than a
statement.
It was just a short way of saying we should question the idea of exclusive
ownership.
The slogan is effective so it is OK -- it achieves it's purpose.

Timberwoof

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 2:54:49 AM4/16/07
to
In article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>,
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:22:12 -0700, Timberwoof wrote:
>
> > What non-physical qualities are there that can be measured?--
>
> spirits can be measured spiritually, it is beyond physics, you cannot
> have a spiritometer, so forget it, you must accept the spirit itself as a
> measurer of other spirits

So in other words, there is no way in the physical world to measure
spiritual effects. That is, there is no causal link between the
spiritual and the physical. That's fine with me because then in all my
physical calculations and theories, I can safely ignore any spiritual
effects. I can pretend they don't exist and there would be no
consequences whatsoever. Therefore, consciousness and free will arise
from chemical interactions in the brain.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Ye Old One

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 11:47:34 AM4/16/07
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:27:09 -0500, Dale Kelly

<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:22:12 -0700, Timberwoof wrote:
>
>> What non-physical qualities are there that can be measured?--
>
>spirits can be measured spiritually, it is beyond physics, you cannot
>have a spiritometer, so forget it, you must accept the spirit itself as a
>measurer of other spirits

Logic failure. Concept rejected.


--
Bob.

David Canzi -- non-mailable

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 7:15:53 PM4/16/07
to
In article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>,
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
>evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
>mind
>
>free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
>mechanism like biology or physics

What if a thermometer you just bought had free will? Would you
use it to measure temperatures, or would you take it back to the
store and demand a refund?

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |

skyeyes

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 7:25:09 PM4/16/07
to
On Apr 14, 11:08 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:

> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind

The more I learn about neurochemistry, the less I believe in free
will.

<Snip remainder>

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net

Spencer 忽帕

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 10:19:54 PM4/16/07
to

"David Canzi -- non-mailable" <dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in
message

|
| Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
| >evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
| >mind
| >
| >free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
| >mechanism like biology or physics
|
| What if a thermometer you just bought had free will? Would you
| use it to measure temperatures, or would you take it back to the
| store and demand a refund?

Whatever the thermometer wants.


David Canzi -- non-mailable

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 3:45:26 PM4/17/07
to
In article <58ip5mF...@mid.individual.net>,

Give me a pair of pliers and a glass tube the same size as the
thermometer. By crushing a quarter inch off the end of the glass
tube, then another quarter inch, then another, etc., I could *MAKE*
the thermometer want to return to the store.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages