On 15 Aug 2012, at 10:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:01:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Aug 2012, at 12:30, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming the coin is operating inside the agent's body? Why would
that
be considered non-free?
In what sense would the choice be mine if it is random?
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine if
the generator is outside of me (eg flipping the coin).
I don't see this. Why would the generator being part of you make it
your choice? You might define "me" and "part of me" before. It is not
clear if you are using the usual computer science notion of me, or
not, but I would say that if the root of the choice is a random
oracle, then the random oracle makes the choice for me. It does not
matter if the coin is in or outside my brain, which is a local non
absolute notion.
It is like
letting someone else take the decision for you. I really don't see
how randomness is related to with free will (the compatibilist one).
Compatibilism, ISTM, is the solution to a non-problem: How to
reconcile
free will with a deterministic universe.
The very idea that we have to reconcile free-will with determinism
seems to be a red herring to me.
It is a non-problem, because
the universe is not deterministic. (The multiverse is deterministic,
of course, but that's another story).
But then you have to reconcile free-will with indeterminacy, and that
makes not much sense.
I don't think free-will (as I defined it of course) has anything to do
with determinacy or indeterminacy. The fact that someone else can
predict my behavior does not make it less "free".
You did not reply my question: take the iterated WM-self-duplication.
All the resulting people lives the experience of an random oracle. Why
would they be more free than someone outside the duplication boxes?
How could they use that random oracle for being more free than someone
not using them, as they cannot select the outcome?
It looks like you do defend the "old" notion of free will, which
basically assume non-comp. Using first person indeterminacy can't
help, imo, but if you have an idea you can elaborate.
Bruno
Bruno
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-
l...@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
.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
