On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/15/2012 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jun 2012, at 18:21, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand how we can change the judicial system if we
don't have free will. All we can do is exist and watch to see
whether we end up being compelled to change it or not by forces
outside of our control.
And so it goes, one group screams cries and jumps up and down
insisting that we do have free will and another group is just as
insistent that we do not. But neither group can stop yelling for
one second to ask what "free will" is supposed to mean. I humbly
suggest that we first decide what "free will" is, and only then
would it be fruitful to debate the question of whether people have
this interesting property or not; until then it's just a tale told
by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
OK. Perhaps we should always make at least precise if we talk about
compatibilist free will (c-free-will) or non comptatibilist free
will (nc-free-will). People defending nc-free-will should say so.
In comp, c-free-will is rather easy to define, and even a variety
of ways, and computer science theorem justifies a role, and
plausibly a "darwinian selectable role" for some of the possible
definitions.
About nc-free-will, I have not any idea (yet?) about what it could
mean. I tend to agree with John on this.
It seems pretty clear. It's an ability to make decisions in a
spirit realm and have them implemented in the physical realm.
OK. In the spirit realm I get an headache, and decide to take an
aspirin.
That entails that physics is not closed, i.e. some physical events
happen for a purpose but without an antecedent physical cause.
How can you know that. It is like invoking the spirit each time we
were wrong on a level of complexity.
I think I see what you try to conceive, though. Nice try.
This not meaningless because with sufficient experimental resolution
it could be tested.
How? Machines cannot know their level of substitution. Spirits might
be arithmetical cyber pirates.
If we could follow in detail the workings of a subject's brain and
we found that there were physically uncaused events that led to
actions and decisions and these events almost always contributed to
the realization of express plans, values, and desires of the subject
then we would have say that was evidence for nc-free-will.
I see your point, so you are right, in some sense. It is a bit far
stretched in the comp setting, but it makes sense. But at the meta-
level you need now to provide a theory of those spirits, and how they
manage to influence the physical happening, etc. For a c-
compatibilist, you will will have to explain how the spirit itself is
a c or not c free will entity, unless you use "spirit" as a gap
explanation meaning that we can't ask about that by definition.
Machines cannot distinguish 'spirit' for 'more complex than me'.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
