On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen
> wrote:
> >> "Information" is just a catch-all term for "what is being
> >> represented". But, as you say, the same information can be
> >>
On 11/28/2010 8:15 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
...
Things might be that way. But this requires an explanation of the
existence of the information and the interpreter. And then an
explanation of the explanation. And then an explanation of the
explanation of the explanation. And so on.
Down the rabbi
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>> "Information" is just a catch-all term for "what is being
>> represented". But, as you say, the same information can be
>> represented in *many* different ways, and by many different
>> bi
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 03:53:31PM -0500, Rex Allen wrote:
> The only way you can get free will from this is to redefine free will.
> And I still don't understand why your so desperate to do so.
>
> "Free will", like "square circle", refers to something that doesn't exist.
>
> "Free will" = "abi
Rex,
You're mention of whose definition was closer to that of the common person
intrigued me. I decided to look up what some dictionaries said on the
matter:
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will
dictionary.com
–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 11/27/2010 12:53 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>> "Free will" = "ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused"
>>
>
> This is a false dichotomy. If a deterministic algorithm evaluates the
> probability of success for three different a
Hi Rex and Bruno,
I think that you are both missing an important point by taking an from
infinity view. The fact that the world is not given to us in terms where
these is one and only one option given some condition forces us to deal with
alternatives. We can go on and on about causation an
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> With your definition of free will, it does not exist. I think we agree.
Very good. So what we are really arguing about here is whether your
definition or my definition is closer to what is generally meant when
people use the term “free wi
On Nov 28, 9:02 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> on 28.11.2010 20:46 1Z said the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 7:21 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> >> on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following:
>
> >>> On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> Given that there are an infinite number of ways
on 28.11.2010 20:46 1Z said the following:
On Nov 27, 7:21 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following:
On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allenwrote:
Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your
information could be represented, how likely is it that your
On Nov 27, 10:49 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> The same goes for more abstract substrates, like bits of information.
> Rex
Assuming that by using the term ‘abstract’ it means ‘non-physical’,
On Nov 27, 8:53 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:44 AM, 1Z wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 6:31 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> >> Any defense of "free will" must allow for ultimate responsibility for
> >> actions.
>
> > Mine does
>
> Random events don't qualify as free will.
So you say. I thin
On Nov 27, 8:17 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:17 AM, 1Z wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 6:01 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> >> So Agrippa's Trilemma revolves around the question of how we can
> >> justify our beliefs.
>
> >> It seems to me that an entirely acceptable solution is just to accep
On Nov 27, 7:21 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> >> Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your
> >> information could be represented, how likely is it that your
> >> experience really is caus
On Nov 27, 7:40 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:08 PM, 1Z wrote:
>
> > On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> >> Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your information
> >> could be represented, how likely is it that your experience really is
> >> caused by a
On 11/28/2010 12:37 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 27.11.2010 22:19 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 11/27/2010 11:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following:
On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your
informa
Hi,
The word "planned" would seem to signify that there exists a mechanism
(used the the most generic way) that selects that the object of the plan was
chosen from a collection of possible alternatives with a bias that is not
necessarily on that is "natural" and thus implies the existence o
On 27 Nov 2010, at 20:08, 1Z wrote:
On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your information
could be represented, how likely is it that your experience really is
caused by a biological brain? Or even by a representation of a
biological br
On 27 Nov 2010, at 19:05, ronaldheld wrote:
Jason(and any others)
Both. Level IV Universe is hard to explain even if real. Bruno's
reality is equally hard to convincing present.
Ronald
Do you agree/understand that if we are machine then we are in
principle d
on 27.11.2010 22:19 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 11/27/2010 11:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following:
On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your
information could be represented, how likely is it tha
20 matches
Mail list logo
