bkuehlhorn

Karma: −25

bkuehlhorn 31 Mar 2011 23:09 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: Dissolving the Question
Yes, I make the point that these discussions include a presumption of something beyond Science as we know it. The only way to discuss life, mind, Will and the like needs to look at the Universe from outside, but the Universe is everything.

If we accept the premise of something beyond the Universe, sentience exists here and must extend there. Please continue the train of thought yourself. You may reject the logical inference anytime your beliefs are troubled but understand your rejection does not invalidate the conclusion.

Thanks for the feedback. I will be stopping this now.

bkuehlhorn 31 Mar 2011 18:59 UTC
−7 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Dissolving the Question
I was wrong to assume Mind has a physical existence. It’s an invalid to assert properties of minds and rocks together. Rocks are material, and Mind is not. Mind does not have any physical property. It is a property we sometimes ascribe to some matter. A human brain at birth contains matter, at death contains different matter. Both times contain the same mind. Human brain contains the same matter before death and right after death, brain before has mind property and does not have the mind property after.

What is the logic to say rocks do not have a mind? Just because we can not perceive the mind does not prove it does not exist. A tree falling in the forest always makes noise (air vibrations) with out a mind to hear the sound.

bkuehlhorn 31 Mar 2011 17:17 UTC
−5 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Dissolving the Question
It seems you propose a property of matter in a mind different from a rock and the physical laws for a mind are more than a rock. If we agree on that, discussion of Free Will exists, otherwise rocks are just as capable of discussing Free Will.

I would not have problems with not defining the property of mind matter or additional physical laws. Proposing something exists is the beginning of scientific process.

bkuehlhorn 31 Mar 2011 15:56 UTC
−7 points
in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: Dissolving the Question
Yes, I failed to acknowledged the post because in 4 dimensional time-space the stack trace for considering Free Will is same as figuring how to get food or planets moving around a star. They are all physical results from an initial Cause.

bkuehlhorn 31 Mar 2011 1:57 UTC
−7 points
on: Dissolving the Question
Your challenge does not prove anything. A very complex algorithms can never have free will. Complexity may limit predictability but does not demonstrate free will. Collision of two balls can be predicted. Three ball collision are much more difficult to predict. Hundreds of balls may be beyond our current technology to predict. There is a number of balls where computers the size of the Universe could not predict.

Free Will does not exist.

Big statement. I can hear the uproar.

Consider: After the Big Bang, the Universe cooled and matter coalesces. No Free Will was involved. Stars formed and exploded creating heavy elements. No Free Will was involved A cloud of dust coalesces with 8 planets. One in the sweet spot. No Free Will was involved. Life begins on the third planet from the star. No Free Will was involved. Animals crawled our the water. No Free Will was involved. An animal drops from the trees and walked on 2 feet. No Free Will was involved. The Sun rises above the horizon yesterday, today and tomorrow. No Free Will was / is / will be involved. In 200 years, we will all be dead. No Free Will will be involved. Chemical reactions occur in the human brain. No Free Will is involved. A Neuron fires. No Free Will is involved. Million neurons fire. No Free Will is involved. Every thing that did happen because it happened. No Free Will is involved. Tomorrow, things will happen because time moves on. No Free Will is involved.

All of these happen for one and only one reason. Time moves one direction, and there is only one time stream known or knowable to science.