Philosophysics of a fundamental substance

[greenbug]

Perhaps a fractural type structure, as the system repeats its self, on the whole or largely, even though infinite in nature can be thought of generally as its structure with in a box. Once generalized and boxed each step can be thought of as progression of a system. Although all your choices seem to be ‘free will’ you are always acting with in the box. The box is a simplistic range of survival vrs obscurity. Out side the box is death of an idea, of life, and or a system, obscurity. Most would have lack of understanding of such system, although laws, lessons and rules guide us from stepping out side the box. In some sense manipulated, if one doesn’t understand the box, the levels or choices, the free will we think we are capable of. And yet isn’t that the idea of our mind? To survive?. Would it be manipulation if some one did not tell us wrong from right?

I guess what I’m thinking is you have free will but if the whole point is to survive then what’s the point of free will? To choose obscurity for the things you don’t want.. Yet for each persons perspective the structure is infinite and so in choosing obscurity for a person is to separate you from that person infinitely. The difference between going to heaven or hell.

In a sense there would be infinite amount of realities but the one in which we all locally reside there is little difference, ultimately from any other. As there are always the same set of choices being repeated generally. So free will can be thought of as local and micro but macro it makes no difference.

So perhaps nature knows this. Perhaps there is a simple structure instead of infinite realities. That is all of them locally reflecting every choice you could possible make and rectify them selves almost instantly. That is separation of choice becomes an illusion, a manipulation of nature, to prevent its self from becoming infinitely obscure. Then every thing you do reflects natures choices to remain in the box. In the micro sense we are free to make many choices but in the grand scheme karma(nature) fixes every thing you do.

Interesting thoughts on freewill.

[analog]

I don't know that my investigations are driven by a goal as I try to allow my explorations to take me where they may. However, I do attempt to apply the logic of cross comparison between varying systems as you know. I try to set nature against itself whereby applying the concept of analyzing the complex with the simple, the strange with the familiar or the small with the large and vice versa. I look for patterns in nature and try to exploit them. Thus, I guess an appropriate goal would be to reduce all universal mechanics to it's simplest natural process whereby perhaps revealing an underlying theme throughout all of nature whereby a single mind can house the entirety of the process of the mechanics which it has taken an entire universe for nature to express. Perhaps to search for the rosetta stone by which we might translate the fundamental language of our world; the language of motion.

It'll also take more than saying 'look what I just decided to do out of the blue' to convince me of free will. As Ive said before, our ability to percieve various choices and paths at all moments doesn't imply that we have any others than the exact ones we make and take. I have my reasons for my beliefs and they are deeply rooted within my investigations and are not just emotional based but are where my studies have led me to believe. This is perhaps another discussion for another time, as I am waiting for the proper alignment for our thinking before delving into the complexities of the deeper of concepts. As suggested by Penrose, our minds don't operate as an algorithym, but I would suggest that that doesn't exclude us from being within one. That's a big difference as the coevolving relationships which would suggest such would be found external to our thoughts within the surrounding relationships and interactions of nature itself. Either way, whether by choice or predestination I think I'll get some sleep now.

Later

[labelwench]

I don't know that my investigations are driven by a goal as I try to allow my explorations to take me where they may. However, I do attempt to apply the logic of cross comparison between varying systems as you know. I try to set nature against itself whereby applying the concept of analyzing the complex with the simple, the strange with the familiar or the small with the large and vice versa. I look for patterns in nature and try to exploit them. Thus, I guess an appropriate goal would be to reduce all universal mechanics to it's simplest natural process whereby perhaps revealing an underlying theme throughout all of nature whereby a single mind can house the entirety of the process of the mechanics which it has taken an entire universe for nature to express. Perhaps to search for the rosetta stone by which we might translate the fundamental language of our world; the language of motion.

It'll also take more than saying 'look what I just decided to do out of the blue' to convince me of free will. As Ive said before, our ability to percieve various choices and paths at all moments doesn't imply that we have any others than the exact ones we make and take. I have my reasons for my beliefs and they are deeply rooted within my investigations and are not just emotional based but are where my studies have led me to believe. This is perhaps another discussion for another time, as I am waiting for the proper alignment for our thinking before delving into the complexities of the deeper of concepts. As suggested by Penrose, our minds don't operate as an algorithym, but I would suggest that that doesn't exclude us from being within one. That's a big difference as the coevolving relationships which would suggest such would be found external to our thoughts within the surrounding relationships and interactions of nature itself. Either way, whether by choice or predestination I think I'll get some sleep now.


Later

Your 'choice' is predestined by your circadian rhythms, which science has just discovered is NOT regulated by gene activity as formerly thought.

Scientists had thought that the circadian clock was driven by gene activity, but both the algae and the red blood cells kept time without it.

Andrew Millar of the University of Edinburgh's School of Biological Sciences, who led the study, said: "This groundbreaking research shows that body clocks are ancient mechanisms that have stayed with us through a billion years of evolution. They must be far more important and sophisticated than we previously realised. More work is needed to determine how and why these clocks developed in people -- and most likely all other living things on earth -- and what role they play in controlling our bodies."

That which regulates the body cannot help but affect the brain, as the relationship between them is co-dependent.

A better understanding of this mechanism may well answer the question of just how much of our decision making is 'free will' and and how much is directly the influence of these mysterious internal and integral biological time keepers.

Is 'time' a phenomenon exclusive to 'life' or is it property of everything in the universe?

Not my intent to interrupt the direction of this thread, merely to contribute scraps of data that may assist with the ponder of 'free will' currently underway.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0126131540.htm

[SteveA]

Perhaps a fractural type structure, as the system repeats its self, on the whole or largely, even though infinite in nature can be thought of generally as its structure with in a box. Once generalized and boxed each step can be thought of as progression of a system. Although all your choices seem to be ‘free will’ you are always acting with in the box. The box is a simplistic range of survival vrs obscurity. Out side the box is death of an idea, of life, and or a system, obscurity. Most would have lack of understanding of such system, although laws, lessons and rules guide us from stepping out side the box. In some sense manipulated, if one doesn’t understand the box, the levels or choices, the free will we think we are capable of. And yet isn’t that the idea of our mind? To survive?. Would it be manipulation if some one did not tell us wrong from right?

I guess what I’m thinking is you have free will but if the whole point is to survive then what’s the point of free will? To choose obscurity for the things you don’t want.. Yet for each persons perspective the structure is infinite and so in choosing obscurity for a person is to separate you from that person infinitely. The difference between going to heaven or hell.

In a sense there would be infinite amount of realities but the one in which we all locally reside there is little difference, ultimately from any other. As there are always the same set of choices being repeated generally. So free will can be thought of as local and micro but macro it makes no difference.

So perhaps nature knows this. Perhaps there is a simple structure instead of infinite realities. That is all of them locally reflecting every choice you could possible make and rectify them selves almost instantly. That is separation of choice becomes an illusion, a manipulation of nature, to prevent its self from becoming infinitely obscure. Then every thing you do reflects natures choices to remain in the box. In the micro sense we are free to make many choices but in the grand scheme karma(nature) fixes every thing you do.

Interesting thoughts on freewill.

In one sense, I don't think there's free will, but it's simply that ones is whatever one is and pursues whatever desires/motives etc. one has. At least in life that appears a rather inescapable view.

On the other hand, in terms of some precise algorithmic determination of how events unfold over time there's actually nothing that appears to verify the existence of such a predetermination. Logically there seems no way to combine time/change with a completely defined finite form because there's nothing in such a form to be altered. Even making it an infinite precisely predeterminated structure with some finite window of visibility moving through it doesn't appear to describe how such motion can occur or what confines the motion from simply jumping around whimsically.

There are limits in terms of available information and manners of interacting with an environment using some persistent set of rules, which would appear required in order to have space appear to remain as something persistent and able to sustain some order and there are some realistic limits that appear inherent to any form of controlled growth - basically, if you have some present set of properties that are known and an ability to determine how those persist into the future, additions to this, being presently unknown, would not be similarly interactively determinable until they're interacted with and whatever additional properties they present becomes known and determinable.

So, imagine if you wanted to become a teacher but had no idea what the general experiences of being a teacher are, then in a sense the desire to become a teacher is really just a desire to experience some other forms of experience with some expectations of various qualities associated with that. The additional specific qualities of that experience as being a teacher wouldn't be initially predeterminable - that appears a cost inherent in any form of growth and likely the only way to "remedy" that entirely, if it were possible, would be to stop time altogether (I don't believe that's a state that's actually altered by events within time, so I wouldn't cross any fingers in that regard).

Let me point out some areas where the influence of free will could be more significant than is often recognized:

1) Ones own experience of time would seem dependent upon ones own existence - hence, in some ways, the fact that anything is witnessed to occur in the first place is determined by ones own ability to witness such.

So we could flip the self determination (even if it's not necessarily a completely known/controllable or whimsically determinable free will) around and place it in the context of one being practically an absolute tyrrant in the fact that ones existence allows a perception of it to exist.

That leaves a question of whether or not the influence of free will could be something so pervasive that it goes overlooked. (I'm simply trying to show some counter views here and am not trying to claim that this is representative of how things work, though in some ways it appears to be something very legitimate to consider, though I believe it's more a matter of one being the equivalent of an "absolute tyrrant" with respect to ones own ability to participate and interact with the rest. It's not a control or determination of an "external" reality, but an attribute of oneself that defines a compatibility with the aspects present in experience)

2) Recognize that actions have cumulative influences over time. For example, if I decided to work on some specific project, this doesn't mean it's instantly completed but instead that my efforts are directed toward constructing things within that context. Those influences accumulate over time and move conditions toward states representative of that.

Now consider that life is such an accumulation of ones influences throughout life. These don't instantly change in their aggregate form - a decision to do something now doesn't change what has already occured and the past remains, but that energy becomes directed toward whatever is the focus of ones attention (and relatively reduced in other aspects).

If you decide to raise your arm, this occurs in a very short period of time. If you decide to read a book, that can still be done, but it takes a longer period of time. Now consider that the present state of life exists with such cumulative efforts since potentially even before birth and consider how much of an influence such actions/attentions might have on ones present conditions.

3) Knowledge and controllable interactive aspects of experience require various structures to orient and communication actions/effort relative to those desires within whatever contexts they exist within.

In this sense, the influences of ones free will may not be entirely known or controlled in coherent ways, though a consideration here is that freedom itself is not specifically valuable and it would appear there's little purpose to freedom itself, except as a source of growth, but there could be a possibility that one is doing exactly what one desires to do ... even if that is not specifically known or coherently controlled. Look at emotions, dive a bit into what logical/information limits might exist to controllable aspects of experience and consider some of the things that might be most valuable and see if in one manner or another aspects of life are in many ways oriented around those.

Again, it might actually be that the free will is actually something very pervasive in influence and this be why it's not easy to see as something specifically isolatable in the environment (though in many ways it can be seen in the environment - for example, are you able to go drink a glass of water if you desire to right now or go head outside for a view of the town etc.? In some ways it doesn't matter specifically whether it's predetermined or not, a better way of looking at it could be that if things were to be different, how should they be different and if so is there something truly denying that or are you overlooking some potentially conflict in desires that keeps this from being resolved?)

... as usual, I'm just tossing more ideas to look at.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

All right Tim, I think I can work with this as a form of your loose goals. What I want to do is take this as far back into the fundamentals as is possible, and since you’ve relayed it’s your desire to search for the ‘Rosetta Stone’ to translate the fundamental language of the world, or the language of motion, as you’ve put it__I’d have to add ‘motion of what’ exactly, in order to make it more fundamentally understandable…? And furthermore, what properties/attributes does this FS have…? I’ll address this further below…

I don't know that my investigations are driven by a goal as I try to allow my explorations to take me where they may. However, I do attempt to apply the logic of cross comparison between varying systems as you know. I try to set nature against itself whereby applying the concept of analyzing the complex with the simple, the strange with the familiar or the small with the large and vice versa. I look for patterns in nature and try to exploit them. Thus, I guess an appropriate goal would be to reduce all universal mechanics to its simplest natural process whereby perhaps revealing an underlying theme throughout all of nature whereby a single mind can house the entirety of the process of the mechanics which it has taken an entire universe for nature to express. Perhaps to search for the Rosetta Stone by which we might translate the fundamental language of our world; the language of motion.

It'll also take more than saying 'look what I just decided to do out of the blue' to convince me of free will. As I’ve said before, our ability to perceive various choices and paths at all moments doesn't imply that we have any others than the exact ones we make and take.

But Tim, to me__this is exactly what free-will is. I can’t see what you are reading into it to think it is not just as you describe it. What pre-suppositional/pre-dispositional facts of defining your position are you using to decide on determinism over free-will…? I think this is one of the most important aspects of science and logic’s foundations__upon deciding and defining all other aspects of the mechanics of our Universe, and on into our personal self-mechanics. I see no way to progress with logical and scientific definitions until this major hurdle is logically cross compared, as by using your own words above… To me, to think it not free-will with some mixed determinism, would be to demand some ‘background dependence’, which, imo, would be denying the fundamental randomness into uniformity mechanics of the base motions of FS, we are trying to resolve__so this avenue poses a puzzle for me, as to why__and you are far from alone, as many scientists I also know state as you__Determinism over free-will, but I think you’re going to have to explain it to me__as I take the opposite probability camp of logic and math, as espoused by Schrodenger, and not Bohr’s ‘background dependence and discreteness’, as to me Bohr’s ‘background dependence’ belongs more to the theocratic/dogmatic schools of thought… It must be realized that at this level of logical theorizing and defining of meanings and facts, none of us have complete information(therefore its background independence)__which I am going to attempt to explore__iff you are willing__but it will take co-operation in exploring the depths of the free-will/determinism debate__from the science of its fundamental mechanics, and possibly its rational meta-intellectual mechanics…

I have my reasons for my beliefs and they are deeply rooted within my investigations and are not just emotional based but are where my studies have led me to believe. This is perhaps another discussion for another time, as I am waiting for the proper alignment for our thinking before delving into the complexities of the deeper of concepts.

And how can we go any further/deeper, when we’ve already reached an impasse over free-will/determinism__as my scientific investigations of logic, motion and physics also reveal the opposite path of information__which I’m well aware of since the Early Greeks, as the known mathematical incommensurabilities…? As to proper alignment__I think that’s gonna’ take a bit o’ free-will, to set the ‘Goal’ of discovery, in this very area__or at least agreeing to dis-agree, and thoroughly discuss the dis-agreements__to find out their deepest foundations…

As suggested by Penrose, our minds don't operate as an algorithm, but I would suggest that that doesn't exclude us from being within one. That's a big difference as the coevolving relationships which would suggest such would be found external to our thoughts within the surrounding relationships and interactions of nature itself. Either way, whether by choice or predestination I think I'll get some sleep now.

No matter how much be external to our thoughts within the surrounding relationships and interactions of nature itself__still does not exclude the possibility of free-will mechanically functioning within the external surrounding relationships and interactions of nature itself… Realize, I’m never saying 100% free-will__as I’ve often mentioned this in the past__but a % of free-will mixed with nature’s determinism… As you may recall, I’ve suggested it can vary as much as 90-10% free-will/determinism to 10-90% free-will/determinism, as easily as 0% to 100% and vice versa…

Let me just cut to the absolute fundamentals of logic and math, to possibly explain my positions, as I see them__and don’t get me wrong here, as I do recognize your great gift of being able to hold in one piece, most all the logical concepts everyone discusses__better than anyone I’ve ever spoken to__Even better than Dave could…

Now:
1. Which is more fundamental__Logic…?__Math…?__FS…?__Motion…?__Energy…?__Mass…?__Matter…?
2. Can we know…? How…?
3. What is Logic…?
4. What is Math…?
5. What is FS…?
6. What is Motion…?
7. What is Energy…?
8. What is Mass…?
9. What is Matter…?
10. Iff we go more fundamental than FS Matter, Mass, Energy and Motion__Can we even define Logic and or Math…? With what…?
11. Iff we have no FS Matter__What’s Mass, Energy or Motion…?
12. Iff we have None of the Four__What’s viewing and defining Logic and or Math…?
13. Is FS more fundamental than Matter…?
14. Is the Bio-Mechanics of Multi-Agent Beings absolutely necessary for Logic and Math to exist, and be known by Bio-Agent Beings…?
15. Iff 14 be yes and true__Then how do we connect the fundamental concepts of 1 through 13, with 14__Rationally, Logically, Mathematically, Empirically and or Physically…?


Tim, these are just a few of the fundamentals I’m looking at… Is fundamental experience of our base 5 senses, the only true connection…? I say no__Logic, Math and Rationality are independent symbol processings__within intellect__which is processed by the logic of cross comparisons of all 5 base senses__truly giving us the 6th ‘Universal Common Sensus’ of Scientific Conceptual Rationality__just as Leibniz long ago pointed out__yet not dependent on any super-naturals…

Tim imo, we all have the free-will to process our 5 basic senses within our intuitive emotional experiences__or within our rational intellectual experiences__as I do both__and this would be my basic interpretation of Free-Will__the choice to use our decisions, definitions, meanings and judgments either emotionally, subjectively__or logically, objectively… It’s as simple as this to me. We need such distinctions to establish the ground-spaces of science__and of what is not science… Imo, the science of mind works no other way…

Hope I’ve helped, instead of confused…

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I think this may also be of help, as it explains much of the subjective probability problems...

Frank Ramsey(1903-1930) was the brilliant and precocious son of a Cambridge don. In his short but productive life, he made significant corrections to the Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead and he was a principal translator of the works of Wittgenstein.
Ramsey was a pragmatic thinker who frequently made references to Charles Sanders Peirce.
In his work with John Maynard Keynes, Ramsey made significant contributions to economics and to probability theory. Ramsey distinguished personal probabilities from the objective probabilities in physics and logic. He argued that personal probabilities could be determined by observing actions that reflect an individual's beliefs.
Ramsey argued that the quantitative degree of probability that an individual attaches to a particular outcome can be measured by finding what odds the individual would accept when betting on that outcome.
This is similar to establishing the presence of personal belief (knowledge?) - actionable information - in a mind by observing the person's actions.
In his brief remarks on knowledge, Ramsey suggested the epistemological methods of reliabilism and causality as views justifying knowledge.
Knowledge
I have always said that a belief was knowledge if it was (i) true, (ii) certain, (iii) obtained by a reliable process. But the word 'process' is very unsatisfactory; we can call inference a process, but even then unreliable seems to refer only to a fallacious method not to a false premiss as it is supposed to do. Can we say that a memory is obtained by a reliable process? I think perhaps we can if we mean the causal process connecting what happens with my remembering it. We might then say, a belief obtained by a reliable process must be caused by what are not beliefs in a way or with accompaniments that can be more or less relied on to give true beliefs, and if in this train of causation occur other intermediary beliefs these must all be true ones.
E.g. 'Is telepathy knowledge?' may mean: (a) Taking it there is such a process, can it be relied on to create true beliefs in the telepathee (within some limits, e.g. when what is believed is about the telepathee's thoughts)? or (b) Supposing we are agnostic, does the feeling of being telepathed to guarantee truth? Ditto for female intuition, impressions of character, etc. Perhaps we should say not (iii) obtained by a reliable process but (iii) formed in a reliable way.
We say 'I know', however, whenever we are certain, without reflecting on reliability. But if we did reflect then we should remain certain if, and only if, we thought our way reliable. (Supposing us to know it; if not, taking it merely as described it would be the same, e.g. God put it into my mind: a supposedly reliable process.) For to think the way reliable is simply to formulate in a variable hypothetical the habit of following the way.
One more thing. Russell says in his Problems of Philosophy that there is no doubt that we are sometimes mistaken, so that all our knowledge is infected with some degree of doubt. Moore used to deny this, saying of course it was self-contradictory, which is mere pedantry and ignoration of the kind of knowledge meant.
But substantially the point is this: we cannot without self-contradiction say p and q and r and . . . and one of p, q, r . . . is false. (N.B.— We know what we know, otherwise there would not be a contradiction). But we can be nearly certain that one is false and yet nearly certain of each; but p, q, r are then infected with doubt. But Moore is right in saying that not necessarily all are so infected; but if we exempt some, we shall probably become fairly clear that one of the exempted is probably wrong, and so on.
(Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays , 1931), Last Papers, D. Knowledge, p.258-9)
Reasonable Degree of Belief
When we pass beyond reasonable = my, or = scientific, to define it precisely is quite impossible. Following Peirce we predicate it of a habit not of an individual judgment. Roughly, reasonable degree of belief = proportion of cases in which habit leads to truth. But in trying to be more exact we encounter the following difficulties :—
(1) We cannot always take the actual habit: this may be correctly derived from some previous accidentally misleading experience. We then look to wider habit of forming such a habit.
(2) We cannot take proportion of actual cases; e.g. in a card game very rarely played, so that of the particular combination in question there are very few actual instances.
(3) We sometimes really assume a theory of the world with laws and chances, and mean not the proportion of actual cases but what is chance on our theory.
(4) But it might be argued that this complication was not necessary on account of (1) by which we only consider very general habits of which there are so many instances that, if chance on our theory differed from the actual proportion, our theory would have to be wrong.
(5) Also in an ultimate case like induction, there could be no chance for it: it is not the sort of thing that has a chance.
Fortunately there is no point in fixing on a precise sense of 'reasonable'; this could only be required for one of two reasons: either because the reasonable was the subject matter of a science (which is not the case); or because it helped us to be reasonable to know what reasonableness is (which it does not, though some false notions might hinder us). To make clear that it is not needed for either of these purposes we must consider (1) the content of logic
and (2) the utility of logic.
THE CONTENT OF LOGIC
(1) Preliminary philosophico-psychological investigation into nature of thought, truth and reasonableness.
(2) Formulae for formal inference = mathematics.
(3) Hints for avoiding confusion (belongs to medical psychology).
(4) Outline of most general propositions known or used as habits of inference from an abstract point of view; either crudely inductive, as 'Mathematical method has solved all these other problems, therefore...' or else systematic, when it is called metaphysics. All this might anyhow be called metaphysics; but it is regarded as logic when adduced as bearing on an unsolved problem, not simply as information interesting for its own sake.
The only one of these which is a distinct science is evidently (2).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

THE UTILITY OF LOGIC
That of (1) above and of (3) are evident: the interesting ones are (2) and (4). (2) = mathematics is indispensable for manipulating and systematizing our knowledge. Besides this (2) and (4) help us in some way in coming to conclusions in judgment.
LOGIC AS SELF-CONTROL (Cf. Peirce)
Self-control in general means either
(1) not acting on the temporarily uppermost desire, but stopping to think it out; i.e. pay regard to all desires and see which is really stronger; its value is to eliminate inconsistency in action;
or (2) forming as a result of a decision habits of acting not in response to temporary desire or stimulus but in a definite way adjusted to permanent desire.
The difference is that in (1) we stop to think it out but in (2) we've thought it out before and only stop to do what we had previously decided to do.
So also logic enables us
(1) Not to form a judgment on the evidence immediately before us, but to stop and think of all else that we know in any way relevant. It enables us not to be inconsistent, and also to pay regard to very general facts, e.g. all crows I've seen are black, so this one will be — No; colour is in such and such other species a variable quality. Also e.g. not merely to argue from φa . φb . . . to (x).φx probable, but to consider the bearing of a, b . . are the class I've seen (and visible ones are specially likely or unlikely to be φ). This difference between biassed and random selection. (Vide infra 'Chance'.)
(2) To form certain fixed habits of procedure or interpretation only revised at intervals when we think things out. In this it is the same as any general judgment; we should only regard the process as 'logic' when it is very general, not e.g. to expect a woman to be unfaithful, but e.g. to disregard correlation coefficients with a probable error greater than themselves.
With regard to forming a judgment or a partial judgment (which is a decision to have a belief of such a degree, i.e. to act in a certain way) we must note :-
(a) What we ask is p? not 'Would it be true to think p?' nor 'Would it be reasonable to think p?' (But these might be useful first steps.)
but (b) 'Would it be true to think p? ' can never be settled without settling p to which it is equivalent.
(c) 'Would it be reasonable to think p?' means simply 'Is p what usually happens in such a case?' and is as vague as 'usually'. To put this question may help us, but it will often seem no easier to answer than p itself.
(d) Nor can the precise sense in which 'reasonable' or 'usually' can usefully be taken be laid down, nor weight assigned on any principle to different considerations of such a sort. E.g. the death-rate for men of 60 is 1/10, but all the 20 red-haired 60-year-old men I've known have lived till 70, What should I expect of a new red-haired man of 60? I can but put the evidence before me, and let it act on my mind, There is a conflict of two 'usually's' which must work itself out in my mind ; one is not the really reasonable, the other the really unreasonable.
(e) When, however, the evidence is very complicated, statistics are introduced to simplify it. They are to be chosen in such a way as to influence me as nearly as possible in the same way as would the whole facts they represent if I could apprehend them clearly. But this cannot altogether be reduced to a formula; the rest of my knowledge may affect the matter, thus p may be equivalent in influence to q, but not ph to qh.
(f) There are exceptional cases in which 'It would be reasonable to think p' absolutely settles the matter. Thus if we are told that one of these people's names begins with A and that there are 8 of them, it is reasonable to believe to degree 1/8th that any particular one's name begins with A, and this is what we should all do (unless we felt there was something else relevant).
(g) Nevertheless, to introduce the idea of 'reasonable ' is really a mistake; it is better to say 'usually', which wakes clear the vagueness of the range: what is reasonable depends on what is taken as relevant; if we take enough as relevant, whether it is reasonable to think p becomes at least as difficult a question as p. If we take everything as relevant, they are the same.
(h) What ought we to take as relevant? Those sorts of things which it is useful to take as relevant; if we could rely on being reasonable in regard to what we do take as relevant, this would mean everything. Otherwise it is impossible to say ; but the question is one asked by a spectator not by the thinker himself: if the thinker feels a thing relevant he can't dismiss it ; and if he feels it irrelevant he can't use it.
(i) Only then if we in fact feel very little to be relevant, do or can we answer the question by an appeal to what is reasonable, this being then equivalent to what we know and consider relevant.
(j) What are or are not taken as relevant are not only propositions but formal facts, e.g. a = a: we may react differently to φa than to any other φx not because of anything we know about a but e.g. for emotional reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-t8VxLPEJQ (take as comparative analysis only...)

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Tim.

I was thinking this week; since we can not, and probably never will see the FS, and thus only Subjectively speculate on it, what if there is really only Motion. All are science is based on the witnessing and experimenting on the Action of Motion, what if that was all there is, Motion? Just a thought!

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Other Shoe Drops

Determinism doesn’t sit well, at first; its flavor does not quench the thirst, for then it seems we but do as we must, but, we’ll see a way that in this we’ll trust. We wish that our thoughts reflect us today, our leanings, for it could be no other way.

To know, let us turn to the random say to see whatever could make its day. Shifting to this other, neglected foot, what could make the random take root? It would have no cause beneath to explain it events, they becoming of the insane. We could pretend, imitating air-heads, posting nonsense on purpose in the threads, but that then we meant to do this way, noting history, too, so random still holds not its sway.

There’s less problem of a determined nature than the same in our individual nature, but, sense isn’t made from random direction that relies on naught beneath its conception. Would we wish it to be any other way? Doing any old thing of chance that may?

The random foot then walks but here and there, not getting anywhere, unborn from nowhere. The unrooted tree must live magically, unfathomed. Is not then randomness but a fun phantom? The opposite of ‘determined’ is ‘undetermined’, the scarier ghost that’s never-minded.

Free will is an old Catholic notion, brewed from metaphysical potions, and not even a good one at that to learn; for, go against God’s will, and it’s burn, baby, burn!

[Lloyd Gillespie]

What Determines Determinism…? Iff Motion__What Determines/Causes Motion…? Thus the necessity of ‘background independence’__We don’t know…???

The Autonomy of The Will__Free-Will…

The Simple Moral Mechanics of The Universe__Universal A Priori Contingent Morality__Survival Necessity Contingency__The Strife of Natural Selection…

A Priori Synthetic__Independence of Experience__Inductive Rational/Logical Intellect…

The Categories of Experience__Everyone’s General Universal World-Views…

Logic lacking empiricism is crippled__Empiricism lacking logic is lame__and, both logic and empiricism lacking basic innate experience is inane…

Act only after you clearly define your goal…

The Definitional Memory…

Freedom of Choice, Defines Freedom of Action…

The Necessity of The Self-Sovereign Self-Control__Is Free-Will’s Necessity, or Nothing Human Acts Intentionally__The Necessity of Intentionality to Control Civility__Is Therefore A Requiring of Responsibility, or Necessary Moral Reasoning__A Self-Willed Rational Action__A Necessity of The Habits of Our Very Evolutional Survival…

Deductive Judgments & Inductive Judgments & Abductive Judgments...

Abduction__Unification of Deductive and Inductive Logics…

The Moral Inference Into A Logical Concept...

Beware__The Subjective Rationalisms...

Beware__The Determined Will of The Catholics...