Article <uva6fj$fhsu$1@solani.org>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <uva6fj$fhsu$1@solani.org>
Deutsch English Français Italiano
<uva6fj$fhsu$1@solani.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Making your mind up
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 21:32:18 -0500
Organization: University of Ediacara
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <uva6fj$fhsu$1@solani.org>
References: <t6801jdmgcgr0fdvm4e9qpp1q18tsodheo@4ax.com>
 <uupqff$68rm$2@solani.org> <phu11jpedm7que73fh9f4hr6ho837j6roj@4ax.com>
 <uusjf8$7l2g$3@solani.org> <ocd51jpqnqhdc7t7g7i04ub9hr3phbn98c@4ax.com>
 <uuuk95$8l91$1@solani.org> <fat91jtecqk56ldqouhgnp7okervabrf1u@4ax.com>
 <uv3jon$ba50$1@solani.org> <cvma1jdffjhfod2sgp3u1mpqj3u16quhq9@4ax.com>
 <uv3qaq$beph$1@solani.org> <h4lc1j9glrutmqkctq6girr5eh0cpcivn3@4ax.com>
 <uv6amg$dd9d$2@solani.org> <qu3f1jhjbmca014jf9uvs73u4im9152ntn@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="75217"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:I6kskEl84h0bl4U7LfgeZl1FPOk=
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <qu3f1jhjbmca014jf9uvs73u4im9152ntn@4ax.com>
Bytes: 6574
Lines: 99

On 2024-04-11 2:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:19:45 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2024-04-10 4:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 11:28:11 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
> 
> [snip for focus]
> 
>>>>>> Yep. It's just the spectre (ha) of the supernatural that seems to
>>>>>> inevitably arise when 'free will' is invoked that bothers me.
>>>>>
>>>>> What bothers me is when people dismiss things out of hand just because
>>>>> they might have even a hint of the supernatural.
>>>>>
>>>> Hint? Is is supernatural
>>>
>>> Funny how in the whole discussion about free will and determinism, you
>>> are the only one to raise the supernatural.
>>>
>> see just below
>>
>>>> and that bothers me because it invalidates much
>>>> of what we believe we know about the universe.
>>>
>>> I think at this stage, you have a broad idea of my beliefs but just to
>>> summarise them - I'm a religious believer (Catholic), I'm a dualist
>>> inclined towards panpsychism and I believe there is such a thing as
>>> free will. I don't reject any scientific knowledge or *evidence-based*
>>> conclusions, finding my beliefs readily compatible with them. What in
>>> my beliefs invalidates much of what we know about the universe?
>>>
> 
>> It's the 'dualism' bit. Perhaps I misunderstand, but It seems to me that
>> dualism requires the existence of some non-material entity that can
>> cause material changes in defiance of physical laws.
> 
> What physical laws are being defied?

Non-random physical activity without the required energy supply.
> 
>> That meets my
>> definition of supernatural.
> 
> The general definition of 'the supernatural' is "caused by forces that
> cannot be explained by science" (adj) or "things that cannot be
> explained by science" (noun)
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/supernatural
> 
I'm happy with that definition as long as it is taken quite strictly, ie 
"cannot be explained by science" and not 'is not presently completely 
explicable by science'.

> As discussed just a couple of months ago, science, at least at this
> point in time, cannot explain consciousness of which decision-making
> is a subset.

Except that there are scientists working on the problem and believe they 
have some promising ideas (there is a short discussion in last months 
Scientific American on AI)And there is no indication that it violates 
any physical laws. so I would call it paranormal, not supernatural.

  In that sense, therefore, determinism also qualifies as
> the supernatural. I think your definition of the supernatural is
> related to a particular association of the supernatural with religious
> belief but that is down to your own personal belief

I'm sure you do believe that, but then I believe you had no choice but 
to do so, it's just who you are. I also believe that you are wrong.

  and, if you want
> to be consistent in your scientific arguments, you really need to
> treat belief in determinism just as much based on the "supernatural"
> as free will is.
> 
That does not follow. I believe that I did not chose my belief, I 
believe that I hold my belief because of who I am. where is the 
supernatural in that?

BTW, I am a bit pissed off by part of your other earlier reply and will 
not be responding to it. In future, I would appreciate it if, in 
responding to my points, you refrained from comparing me to some other 
arsehole on the web, I am arsehole enough on my own.
> 
>> I can't help (ha) but feel that belief in
>> free will and dualism are two sides of the same coin.I'm sure you don't
>> *reject* scientific knowledge but I think you must be allowing some
>> 'leeway?' to accept dualism.
> 
> I honestly can't think of any area of scientific knowledge where I
> have to allow any such 'leeway'; can you suggest any in particular?
> 
> […]
> 

-- 
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)