date:20120602

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-02 Thread meekerdb

I don't think any of us qualify since you have to believe and be aware of your belief of
every tautology which means all possible mathematical proofs.

Actually it seems to me that so much self awareness is contrary to the common notion of
'free will'. The feeling of 'free will' comes about because not only or our decisions
unpredictable, they are unpredictable even by us. If you had really complete
self-awareness you could trace your every decision back to various external inputs or
random events and you would be disabused of the feeling that "I could have done otherwise".

Brent

On 6/2/2012 5:59 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:

How about define agent to be a type 4 agent as explained here:
http://cs.wallawalla.edu/~aabyan/Colloquia/Aware/aware2.html

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

The hard one to define with falling into circularity is "agent" which is
often
defined as an entity with free will. To test something you need an
operational
definition. "Agent" might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably
but
purposefully. But both of those are a little fuzzy.

Brent

On 6/2/2012 10:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:

The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to
be able
(which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) when (which can be
defined) presented (which can be defined) with a choice (which can be
defined).

Certainly not meaningless.

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson mailto:tenn...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion
that
"Free will" is not meaningless. "Free will" has to mean something
before
it can be attacked.

But I'm not saying "free will" does not exist, and I'm not attacking it
because
there is nothing to attack, it would be like attacking a duck's
"quack". I'm
saying I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you type
the ASCII
characters "free will" and neither do you. I'm not saying the idea is
wrong,
I'm saying there is no idea there. How do I know this? Because whenever
anybody
talks about "free will" the resulting verbiage is ALWAYS a blizzard of
contradictory statements, circular definitions, vague illusions, pious
speeches, and just plain old idiocy; there is never any substance
there. Never.

John K Clark

--
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.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

--
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.

--
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.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-02 Thread Brian Tenneson

How about define agent to be a type 4 agent as explained here:
http://cs.wallawalla.edu/~aabyan/Colloquia/Aware/aware2.html

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  The hard one to define with falling into circularity is "agent" which is
> often defined as an entity with free will.  To test something you need an
> operational definition.  "Agent" might be defined as an entity with acts
> unpredictably but purposefully.  But both of those are a little fuzzy.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 6/2/2012 10:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
>
> The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to
> be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) when (which
> can be defined)  presented (which can be defined) with a choice (which can
> be defined).
>
> Certainly not meaningless.
>
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012  Brian Tenneson  wrote:
>>
>>  > The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that
>>> "Free will" is not meaningless.  "Free will" has to mean something before
>>> it can be attacked.
>>
>>
>> But I'm not saying "free will" does not exist, and I'm not attacking it
>> because there is nothing to attack, it would be like attacking a duck's
>> "quack". I'm saying I don't know what the hell you're talking about when
>> you type the ASCII characters "free will" and neither do you. I'm not
>> saying the idea is wrong, I'm saying there is no idea there. How do I know
>> this? Because whenever anybody talks about "free will" the resulting
>> verbiage  is ALWAYS a blizzard of contradictory statements, circular
>> definitions, vague illusions, pious speeches, and just plain old idiocy;
>> there is never any substance there. Never.
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>>
>>   --
>> 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.
>>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>  --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-02 Thread meekerdb


On 6/1/2012 11:25 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

The fuss is because the concept is thought to be fundamental to
jurisprudence and social policy (it's even cited in some Supreme
Court decisions). The concept of free will has been carried over from
past theological and philosophical ideas. But now the concept is
attacked by scientists and some philosophers as incoherent or
empirically false. If they are right it would seem to imply revision
of the social/legal concepts and laws derived from it. Can existing
practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis?


What about that if you see something working (like a human society) and you do not 
understand how it is working, then it might be a good idea not to try to change it. 


I agree with that.  An oddly after spending 60 pages attacking free will as an illusion of 
an illusion, Sam Harris seems to that we may need retributive punishment anyway.



The drive for change usually comes from people who are not satisfied with their position 
in the current society. Why the drive for change should come from some metaphysical 
discussions?


Every successful revolution has its ideology and philosophy though.

Brent
"Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in 
vain."
--- John Adams

--
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.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-02 Thread meekerdb


On 6/2/2012 11:45 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Did ANYBODY so far - among those ~100(+?) posts (so far  erased in this discussion) *I D 
E N T I F Y* */_free will_/*?


I've tried to identify two meanings: One, which I consider unproblematic, is the social 
and legal attribute of decisions which are not coerced.  The other is the folk meaning 
attributing decisions to a spirit or soul which can initiate physical events but which is 
independent of all prior physical events.


Brent


I red about a /_'relatively'_/ free will, (= among (given) choices)  as well as 'totally 
freely chosen' decisions etc. etc. - none of them too impressive.
I tried to substantiate several time that we live in a steadily  evolving state of 
cognition and consider (observe?) as of yesterday more than earlier, consequently (by 
induction) there is more to the "world" than our today-s position. Whatever we know - 
either consciously, or not knowingly: subconsciously adds to our decision making and by 
tomorrow we may be able to draw different conclusions.

(When I wrote my reply up to this point, my mailbox induced Brian's post:)
---
/_"*The capacity*_ (which can be defined) *_of an agent_* (which can be defined) *_to be 
able_* (which can be defined) *_to choose_* (which can be defined) *_when_* (which can 
be defined) *_presented_* (which can be defined) *_with a choice_* (which can be 
defined).//Certainly not meaningless. - Brian Tenneson"/

/---/
(emphasis of the ID words by me) - and I reflect:
It certainly IS not meaningless and IS an identification, however not of a *_FREE_* 
will. It is a decision between "given" choices. "Tomorrow" more info may be given to us 
and our today's choice may be overridden.
What I consider a *_"free will"_*  is independent of the 'choices' we *_G E T_* and is 
solely formatted by our (pesonal? inside?) mindset (call it will?). We, however, are 
part of a more extended (expanded?) world, I like to call it 'Everything' (an infinite 
complexity of so far(?) unknowable content) and all of its influences (may) contribute 
to our 'decisionmaking' although we may not know about either the nature of most of 
those influences, nor that we ARE responding to them.

Brent Meeker (if it really came from YOUR post ):
*/" Can existing practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis?" /*
Of course it can, in the 'purely utilitarian sense'. Just do not mix such into a 
theoretical aspect and don't call it (rational?) truth.
(Let me stay out of discussing Max Velman's position. I appreciate his scientific base - 
however different from my agnostic views).

John M
*//*
*

//*
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi > wrote:


On 01.06.2012 20:48 meekerdb said the following:

On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote:


Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not,
that

my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any
determinative physical antecedent.


A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led
to a thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising
really, confusion is inevitable if you insist on trying to make
sense out of gibberish.


So you think the existence of soul or spirit is not just false but
incomprehensible. I disagree since there are experiments (e.g.
healing prayer, NDE tests) that could have provided evidence for
these extra-physical phenomena. By their null result they provide
evidence against them. But on your view there cannot be evidence for
or against because the concept cannot be given any meaning, much less
an operational meaning that can be tested.


From Understanding Consciousness by Max Velmans:

p. 300 "To make matters worse, there are four distinct ways in which 
body/brain and
mind/consciousness might in principle, enter into casual relationship. 
There might
be physical causes of physical states, physical causes of mental states, 
mental
causes of mental states, and mental causes of physical states. Establishing 
which
forms of causation are effective in practice has clear implication for 
understanding
the aetiology and proper treatment of illness and disease.

Within conventional medicine, physical -> physical is taken for granted.
Consequently, the proper treatment for physical disorders is assumed to be 
some from
of physical intervention. Psychiatry takes the efficacy of physical -> 
mental
causation for granted, along with the assumption that the proper treatment 
for
psychological disorders may involve psychoactive drugs, neurosurgery and so 
on. Many
forms of psychotherapy take mental -> mental causation for granted, and 
assume that
psychological disorders can be alleviated by means

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-02 Thread meekerdb

The hard one to define with falling into circularity is "agent" which is often defined as
an entity with free will. To test something you need an operational definition. "Agent"
might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably but purposefully. But both of those
are a little fuzzy.

Brent

On 6/2/2012 10:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to be able (which
can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) when (which can be defined) presented
(which can be defined) with a choice (which can be defined).

Certainly not meaningless.

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM, John Clark > wrote:

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson mailto:tenn...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

> The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that
"Free
will" is not meaningless. "Free will" has to mean something before it
can be
attacked.

But I'm not saying "free will" does not exist, and I'm not attacking it
because
there is nothing to attack, it would be like attacking a duck's "quack".
I'm saying
I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you type the ASCII
characters
"free will" and neither do you. I'm not saying the idea is wrong, I'm
saying there
is no idea there. How do I know this? Because whenever anybody talks about
"free
will" the resulting verbiage is ALWAYS a blizzard of contradictory
statements,
circular definitions, vague illusions, pious speeches, and just plain old
idiocy;
there is never any substance there. Never.

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-02 Thread Brian Tenneson

FREE means being *able *to choose *any *among a number of choices.  You
want freedom of will to mean an agent can choose something beyond what the
given choices are?  That would imply free will does not exist yet, in that
event, free will is still NOT meaningless.

Right now I am unconcerned with whether free will exists or not.  I am
concerned with the statement ""free will" is meaningless."  I have given a
definition, borrowed from the SEP, that is as good a definition as for any
concept (outside mathematical ones).


> It certainly IS not meaningless and IS an identification, however not of a
> *FREE* will. It is a decision between "given" choices. "Tomorrow" more
> info may be given to us and our today's choice may be overridden.
> What I consider a *"free will"*  is independent of the 'choices' we  *G E
> T* and is solely formatted by our (pesonal? inside?) mindset (call it
> will?). We, however, are part of a more extended (expanded?) world, I like
> to call it 'Everything' (an infinite complexity of so far(?) unknowable
> content) and all of its influences (may) contribute to our 'decisionmaking'
> although we may not know about either the nature of most of those
> influences, nor that we ARE responding to them.
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Church Turing be dammed. (Probability Question)

2012-06-02 Thread meekerdb


On 6/2/2012 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Jun 2012, at 20:18, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/1/2012 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might be disturbed by the fact that in experience 2, the "original" remains the 
same person, so we don't count him as a new person, each time he steps in the box. 
This, in my opinion, illustrates again that we have to use RSSA instead of ASSA.


Suppose the original goes to Mars and the copy stays behind.  Then the probability 
the original went to Mars is 1.


The question is asked before the guy enter in the box. This is a "step 5" case. The 
probability to feel to stay the original is 1/2.


Everybody feels they are the original.


"original" refer to the third person body. By definition it is the one being 
copied.


It doesn't really solve the identity problem to assume it is physical continuity.  The 
"copy" also  has physical continuity; and in any even slightly realistic case the 
'original' will be destroyed in the process of extracting information, so there will 
really be two copies and no 'original'.





The question before he enters the box is, "Will you find yourself on Mars?"  To which 
he could reply, "What does 'you' refer to?"


The question is about your future subjective feeling as seen from your future first 
person perspective.If you assume comp, you know in advance that you will feel entire and 
unique,


No, I expect that two someones will feel entire and unique.

either on Earth or on Mars, and you know that you cannot that in advance (or give me the 
algorithm).


But all that assumes that 'you' and 'your' have meaningful referents.  According to comp 
they are no more meaningful than referring to this number 2 and that number 2 and asking 
which number 2 counts the moons of Mars.


Brent



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-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.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-02 Thread Brian Tenneson

The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to
be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) when (which
can be defined)  presented (which can be defined) with a choice (which can
be defined).

Certainly not meaningless.

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012  Brian Tenneson  wrote:
>
> > The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that
>> "Free will" is not meaningless.  "Free will" has to mean something before
>> it can be attacked.
>
>
> But I'm not saying "free will" does not exist, and I'm not attacking it
> because there is nothing to attack, it would be like attacking a duck's
> "quack". I'm saying I don't know what the hell you're talking about when
> you type the ASCII characters "free will" and neither do you. I'm not
> saying the idea is wrong, I'm saying there is no idea there. How do I know
> this? Because whenever anybody talks about "free will" the resulting
> verbiage  is ALWAYS a blizzard of contradictory statements, circular
> definitions, vague illusions, pious speeches, and just plain old idiocy;
> there is never any substance there. Never.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-02 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012  meekerdb  wrote:

 > Can existing practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis?
>

Yes.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-02 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012  Brian Tenneson  wrote:

> The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that
> "Free will" is not meaningless.  "Free will" has to mean something before
> it can be attacked.

But I'm not saying "free will" does not exist, and I'm not attacking it
because there is nothing to attack, it would be like attacking a duck's
"quack". I'm saying I don't know what the hell you're talking about when
you type the ASCII characters "free will" and neither do you. I'm not
saying the idea is wrong, I'm saying there is no idea there. How do I know
this? Because whenever anybody talks about "free will" the resulting
verbiage  is ALWAYS a blizzard of contradictory statements, circular
definitions, vague illusions, pious speeches, and just plain old idiocy;
there is never any substance there. Never.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-02 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:48 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> >> A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a
> thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising really, confusion
> is inevitable if you insist on trying to make sense out of gibberish.
>
>  > So you think the existence of soul or spirit is not just false but
> incomprehensible.
>

There are aspects of the soul theory that are comprehensible, in fact there
are aspects about it that I think are true, but a much better name for it
would be "information". What I think is gibberish is "free will", it is
incomprehensible because their is nothing to comprehend, it isn't saying
anything, there is no there there.

> there are experiments (e.g. healing prayer, NDE tests) that could have
> provided evidence for these extra-physical phenomena.  By their null result
> they provide evidence against them.
>

The God theory is not gibberish, it's just wrong. Free will is not even
wrong. And they got null results only when the sick people didn't know they
were being prayed over, when they did know they actually got worse.

  John K Clark

>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012-06-02 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Jun 2, 2:39 am, Jason Resch  wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > I think that Matter-Energy and Sense-Motive are dual aspects of the
> > same thing. If you are talking about the brain only, then you are
> > talking about matter and energy, but no person exists if you limit the
> > discussion to that. The matter and energy side of what we are is just
> > organs. There is no person there. The brain is not responsible for
> > consciousness anymore than your computer is responsible for the
> > internet. It is the necessary vehicle through which human level
> > awareness is accessed.
>
> Would you say, at least, that the brain is responsible for behavior?

In the sense that buildings, streets, highways, and real estate are
responsible for a city's behavior.

>
> This conversation was originally on the topic of artificial intelligence,
> so whatever it is in us that leads to physical changes which manifest as
> third-person observable behavior, do you believe that to be entirely
> influenced by physical and (in theory) detectable matter/energy/fields?

I'm not saying that though. We *are* the physical changes. Third
person and first person seem to us to be separate because the first
person end is the 'head' end. You are saying that I think 'whatever it
that is our head leads to physical changes which manifest as our tail'
and you are trying to get me to see that it makes more sense to say
that it is our tail which is responsible for the existence of the head
- that the head is what the tail needs to lead it to food and
reproduction. That's not my position though. I'm saying head-tail mind-
body are a function of the symmetry of sense.

As far as fields being detectable - detectable by what? I have no
problem detecting humor, irony, style, beauty...to a human being these
are detectable energy fields, only higher up on the monochord/chakra-
like escalator of qualitative interiority/significance. The universe
for us is much more readily detectable by us as a combination of
fiction and fact than it is in terms of matter/energy/fields. Those
things are a posteriori ideas about the universe of our body, as
verified by consensus of inanimate objects interacting. That is only
half of the universe - the tail half which is the polar opposite of
awareness. It is the perspective from which no life, order, meaning or
significance can be detected.

>
> If not, what mechanism do you theorize mediates between mental and physical
> events?  Is it one way or two way?  If two way (or if as you often say it
> is just the other side of the coin) then why not say it is physical?

I do say it's physical. Physical feelings, physical stories, physical
personalities and identities - all physical, but not as objects in
space, as experiences through time. There is no mechanism that
mediates spacetime-matter-energy with timespace-sense-motive, they are
the same thing except the more something is you or is like you, the
more it seems to you like the latter instead of the former.

>
> If such a mechanism exists, it must conform to some set of laws, some rhyme
> or reason, as otherwise how could the mental world (or side) so reliably
> control our physical actions, and how do the sensations picked up from
> physical sensors (retinas, nerve endings) so reliably make their way into
> our mind?

The 'mechanism' is sense. It doesn't conform to laws but it develops
habits which become as laws to those who arise out of them. It's only
a mechanism when the insider looks outside. What we are doing now is
looking outside as the insider's exterior and finding it lacking any
trace of the insider, concluding that the insider is an illusion. When
the insider looks inside however, there is more animism than
mechanism. Sense experience and meaning. On the outside, the nerves
are literal fibers and cells. On the inside 'nerve' is strength,
courage, self-legitimizing ontology. They are part of the same thing
but don't correlate one-to-one, they correlate as the whole history
and potential future of the universe twisting orthogonally into an
event horizon of a whole universe of 'here and now'

  If there is a separation between the mental and physical worlds,
> there must be reliable rules that govern any interaction between the mind
> and the physical world, and the interaction must be two way.  How then, can
> they rightly be called two separate worlds?

Exactly, they are not separate except to the participant. We are the
head looking at our tail, but objectively, if we were not a head, we
would see both head and tail are the body with two ends, each being
everything that the other is not. If there were rules, then the rules
would need rules. What makes the rules? Where to they come from and
what mechanism do they use to rule?

As you say, and we agree, the interaction must be two way, but no
external rules are required to govern the interaction, because both
mind and body are, on one level, the same thing (essentially)

Re: Free will in MWI

2012-06-02 Thread David Nyman

On 2 June 2012 10:29, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> or read my recent conversation with Charles and LizR)

On the FOAR list, that is!

David

-- 
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.

Re: Free will in MWI

2012-06-02 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Jun 2012, at 23:42, RMahoney wrote:


Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in
this Universe?


Some can believe that. Open question in comp. Actually "this  
universe"

is a quite vague concept with comp.


Don't know comp.


comp is the idea that we are (a priori material or natural) machine.  
It the old mechanism of Descartes, without the dualism.


But it leads to the fact that matter and nature exists only in  
number's dream (that computation in arithmetic seen from the first  
person point of view). See my papers for the argument, or read my  
recent conversation with Charles and LizR).




As far as I'm concerned, universe can be everything,
all permutations.
I don't believe there is a mind separate from body. You don't have a
mind (or a soul,
or whatever metaphysical description of consciousness one might
subscribe to) until
you have the matter and energy arranged to form the mind.


That's locally true for the human mind, but globally false. Matter  
emerges from the interference of the many computations/dream occuring  
in arithmetic.




I know
matter is a mental
concept but yeah, whatever makes up the calculation of that stuff we
perceive as
matter and energy.


Computer is a mathematical notion, even arithmetical. Once you accept  
elementary arithmetic, all computations are there, and it makes  
arithmetic a realm of everything (even a tiny part of arithmetic  
actually).


Advantage: it explains where the laws of physics come from, and it  
gives the mean to distinguish quanta and qulaia, and explain the  
difference of their nature.





When that comes together, you have a mind, and at
some point
that mind develops a will, but not the other way around.


OK.






They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
Universe in ways that avoid it's laws.


Not the compatibilist one. I think free will is not prevented at all
by determinism.


I agree, will (free has no meaning to me) is enabled by determinism.
If there were no
process of cause/effect then there could be no calculation of will.




I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself
to avoid the end of my existence.


If that exists. Again "my existence" is quite a vague notion.


Basically I'm saying existence is needed before a will can exist, not
the other way around.


Yes. But with comp we need only the existence in the same sense as  
"prime numbers exist". We don't need and actually cannot use the  
hypothesis of existence of primary matter (Aristotle).




You have to build the computer before you can execute a program, not
the other way around.


Computer are just relative universal number (I am explaining this  
currently in other thread).







While I'm here I cannot break any of
the laws of the Universe. We are all molecular machines.


Locally, that is very plausible, but near death, this is no more
assured unless you introduce actual infinities in bith matter and
mind, and some link between. We are not bodies, we own bodies.
Molecules are clothes, and actually they are map of our most probable
computations in arithmetic. This is a consequence of the idea that  
"we
are machines". It makes materialism wrong eventually. Matter is a  
mind

construction.


We are the program which does not exist without the machine
(computer).


OK.







Those
molecules operate within the laws of the Universe.


If that exists. Locally, it is true, but not globally.


Locally and currently, yes, I understand.




The result of their
action allows me to think and reason and decide on a course of  
action,

execute a will so to speak, but that will is determined by the
sequence of events of the molecules that make up my self. To say  
"free

will" implies that I somehow avoided the laws of the Universe and
resulting cause and effect. "Free" from the laws of the Universe. In
that sense, there is no such thing as "free will", only "will", that
is determined by your physical being and sequence of molecular  
action.


OK. Locally.




Now I myself believe that probably the laws of the Universe allow it
to be non-deterministic. My logic might be simple on this, but if
there were no randomness at all, there could be no evolution of the
Universe (and probably the laws of the Universe) to become the
Universe we observe today. I think if we started (over and over  
again)

with the same initial condition of this moment, that the next moment
could be any number of potential outcomes, all within the same  
laws of
the same Universe. The Universe is built upon the laws of  
probability,

and at the short term macro level things can be fairly predictable,
but at the micro level and over long periods of time, things are not
so predictable, due to random events at the quantum level. I also
subscribe to the idea that all possible outcomes exist  
simultaneously

and forever, as do all possible histories.


OK. But with different probabilities, and we can manage them from
ins

Re: Church Turing be dammed. (Probability Question)

2012-06-02 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Jun 2012, at 20:18, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/1/2012 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might be disturbed by the fact that in experience 2, the  
"original" remains the same person, so we don't count him as a  
new person, each time he steps in the box. This, in my opinion,  
illustrates again that we have to use RSSA instead of ASSA.


Suppose the original goes to Mars and the copy stays behind.  Then  
the probability the original went to Mars is 1.


The question is asked before the guy enter in the box. This is a  
"step 5" case. The probability to feel to stay the original is 1/2.


Everybody feels they are the original.


"original" refer to the third person body. By definition it is the one  
being copied.



The question before he enters the box is, "Will you find yourself on  
Mars?"  To which he could reply, "What does 'you' refer to?"


The question is about your future subjective feeling as seen from your  
future first person perspective. If you assume comp, you know in  
advance that you will feel entire and unique, either on Earth or on  
Mars, and you know that you cannot that in advance (or give me the  
algorithm).


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-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.

Re: free will and mathematics

Re: free will and mathematics

Re: free will and mathematics

Re: free will and mathematics

Re: free will and mathematics

Re: free will and mathematics

Re: Church Turing be dammed. (Probability Question)

Re: free will and mathematics

Re: free will and mathematics

Re: free will and mathematics

Re: free will and mathematics

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

Re: Free will in MWI

Re: Free will in MWI

Re: Church Turing be dammed. (Probability Question)

15 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information