Re: free will and mathematics
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com 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) If it can be done then do so! Explain choose in a way that shows it is not deterministic and also not random, find a way to say that a choice did not happen for a reason and did not happen for no reason, and do so in a way that is not embarrassingly self contradictory. Do that and you have won the argument. when (which can be defined) presented (which can be defined) By the way, defined can't be defined unless you already know what defined means, that's why examples are more important than definitions; so if a definition is too hard for you just give me examples of things that can make choices and things that can't, but be prepared to defend your reasoning (a deterministic process) why they are in one category and not the other. with a choice (which can be defined). Certainly not meaningless. The word choice is perfectly respectable, I use it myself, but you are a fan of the free will noise so I would bet money that any definition you give of it will be self-contradictory or circular or both. 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
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Agent might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably Without a reason. but purposefully. With a reason. But both of those are a little fuzzy. That's not fuzzy, it's idiotic. You can arrange the words free, decide, choose, purpose, reason, pick, voluntary and unpredictable in any order you like but it won't change the fact that at the end of the day things happen for a reason or things don't happen for a reason. 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
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: 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. I don't understand what's odd about that, certainly we need retributive punishment if we don't want to be murdered in our beds. And I disagree about free will being a illusion, a illusion is a real subjective phenomenon, free will is just a noise. 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
On Jun 3, 12:38 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com 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) If it can be done then do so! Explain choose in a way that shows it is not deterministic and also not random, find a way to say that a choice did not happen for a reason and did not happen for no reason, How about this. You try moving your arm with an explanation or a reason or with no reason. Did it move? Now just move your arm. Was it a lack of explanation or reason or randomness that was preventing you from FREEly excercising your WILL over your own arm? Please explain how your arm moved in a way that shows it is purely deterministic or purely random, find a way to say that a reason or non- reason alone caused it without the assistance of your choice, and do so in away that is not embarrassingly self contradictory. Do that and you have not lost the argument. Craig -- 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
On Jun 3, 1:00 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: 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. I don't understand what's odd about that, certainly we need retributive punishment if we don't want to be murdered in our beds. I don't understand why anyone could not see that as a glaring violation of common sense, except that I think it must be like handedness or gender orientation. Why would punishment work in any way if people are determined to commit crimes regardless? How could punishment act on anything except the will? What law of physics supports the effectiveness of punishment? Can you punish phosphorus until phosphorus changes? Why not? And I disagree about free will being a illusion, a illusion is a real subjective phenomenon, free will is just a noise. I have never seen anyone with such a personal axe to grind about this subject. You hate free will. It is unworthy of even a hallucinatory status. It is intolerable to you. It's as if you were trying to...deny something that is undeniable. Craig -- 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
On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Look up 'teleology'. Why? I already know it means things happen for a purpose, although it is never made clear who's purpose were talking about or what his purpose is supposed to be. One thing is clear, they had a purpose for a reason or they had a purpose for no reason, there is no third alternative. But is you have a purpose, even for no reason, it doesn't follow that your actions are random. Almost any reason a person will give If he has a reason then he is deterministic. You keep equating 'having a purpose', 'having a reason' and 'being determined', but I don't think they are the same thing. If your purpose is to win money at poker your optimum strategy includes some random actions. for their actions will be a reference to some future state. I did it because I desire to be in state X and I believe my present action will bring that about; and my desire and my belief have a cause or they do not have a cause, there is no third alternative. People who believe in 'free will' also agree that their decisions and beliefs and actions have causes or not. The difference is they believe that the causes are immaterial. In a deterministic world all physics is time reversible Not necessarily, in a deterministic world X and Y will always produce Z, but Q and T could also always produce Z, so if you detect the existence of Z you can't reverse things and figure out what the world was like in the past, you don't know if it was a world of X and Y or a world of Q and T. In a universe like that you could predict the future but you wouldn't know what happened in the past. Of course this is really moot, we probably don't live in a deterministic world, some things happen for no reason, some things are random. the question is whether this reason in terms of future purpose had a *physical* cause. I don't understand your emphasis, even information is physical, it determines entropy and takes energy to manipulate. I don't know what on earth would a non physical cause be like but I do know that the non physical cause would itself have a cause or it would not have a cause, there is no third alternative. 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. It was, and is, enormously popular. It's not gibberish since it can be empirically tested. The idea that all events are either physically determined or random is relatively recent. Before it was recognized how complex the activity of physical systems can be and how physically complex biota are it was reasonable to suppose there was something extra-physical about people and animals that made them unpredictable but purposeful. they think some events are physically uncaused So they think it had no cause No they think the cause is an immaterial spirit. but not-random So they think it happened for no cause and didn't happen for no cause and once again we enter into the merry world of gibberish. because they are purposeful. Then the purpose is the cause, and the purpose exists for a reason or the purpose exists for no reason, there is no third alternative. it is hard to eliminate the possibility that a 'spirit' might influence the distribution of these random events Then of course they would not be random but determined by the spirit, and the spirit influenced those things for a reason or for no reason, there is no third alternative. I think the apparent markers of 'free will', unpredictability and purposefulness, are easily explained without invoking 'spirits'. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither do you. John K Clark There's no point explaining something to someone determined not to understand. 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.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/3/2012 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Agent might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably Without a reason. but purposefully. With a reason. But both of those are a little fuzzy. That's not fuzzy, it's idiotic. You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be predictable. Apparently you never studied game theory. You can arrange the words free, decide, choose, purpose, reason, pick, voluntary and unpredictable in any order you like but it won't change the fact that at the end of the day things happen for a reason or things don't happen for a reason. John K Clark Brent I've given you an argument. I'm not obliged to give you an understanding. --- Oliver Heaviside -- 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
On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 1, 7:07 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Free will is one of the laws of the universe. We are made of the universe, therefore whatever we do or can do is inherently a potential of the universe. Free will is not a basic law or building block of the universe. The sense of free will is a result of the process of the universe. I used to think that too, but why should a 'sense of free' will be the result of any process in any universe? What would it accomplish? What process would produce it? Anything that is in the present universe is here because it is either stable enough to last a long time or capable enough to survive a long time, basically the process of evolution. A sense of free will or consciousness developed as minds became intelligent enough to make decisions that would increase their chances of survival. I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself to avoid the end of my existence. While I'm here I cannot break any of the laws of the Universe. You don't break the laws, you make new laws. The law of the universe was once 'human beings cannot fly'. Laws of the universe I'm referring to are the real laws, not human's attempt at defining them. Human beings cannot fly is a human thought, not a law. All laws that we understand are necessarily defined by humans. They are our interpretations of observations using our senses, our body, and instruments which we have designed with our senses to extend our human body and human mind. If there is any truly real law, it is that our understanding of what they are gets rewritten frequently. There is an underlying order to the universe that we have not defined yet, and may never be able to define. It does not mean that underlying order does not exist, or that the only order or law that exists is what we define. We are all molecular machines. Then molecular machines are also us and molecules are telepathic. Systems of molecules and energy can transmit information across distances, so? Not information. Feelings. Thoughts. Images. Comedy. Irony. Human life. A bar graph is information. Getting your molars ripped out with a pair of pliers is more different. Sorry but feelings, thoughts, images, comedy, irony, are all the result of information processing. These things do not exist without the programming of our molecular computer. Those molecules operate within the laws of the Universe. We wouldn't know. We only experience molecules indirectly through our instrument-extended perception. What we see of molecules is even less than what an alien astronomer would see looking at the grey patches of human mold growing on the land surfaces of the Earth. 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. If I move my arm, I directly move it. I don't even need to cognitively 'decide' to move it, I just move the whole arm all at once from my point of view on my native scale of perception. That there are molecules, cells and tissues which make up my brain and body is a fact of a different layer, a different perceptual inertial frame where I don't exist at all. The fact remains though, that I can move my arm at will, and whatever molecular processes need to happen to fulfill my intention will be compelled to happen. That's why there is a difference between voluntary muscles and involuntary muscles. Some I control, some I don't, some control me. There is the molecular process that occurs when you command movement, but there is also the molecular and electrical process that occurs to develop that command. It doesn't happen out of thin air. It happens out of my active participation in the semantic context of myself and my world. It happens out of desire, purpose, whim, intuition. I command my brain directly. It is top-down as well as bottom up. You are assuming bottom up only which would posit the tortured reasoning of neurons moving my arm for some evolutionary or biochemical reason...which is not true. If it were true, it would be easy to tell because we would have no division of voluntary and involuntary muscle tissue in our body. It would all be automatic. Why should evolution not create both voluntary and involuntary muscle tissue? Animals are mobile for a reason, need to command voluntary tissue to find food or flee from predators. Need to make decisions. Develop the will to do so. All in response to outside
Re: Free will in MWI
On Jun 3, 4:48 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 1, 7:07 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Free will is one of the laws of the universe. We are made of the universe, therefore whatever we do or can do is inherently a potential of the universe. Free will is not a basic law or building block of the universe. The sense of free will is a result of the process of the universe. I used to think that too, but why should a 'sense of free' will be the result of any process in any universe? What would it accomplish? What process would produce it? Anything that is in the present universe is here because it is either stable enough to last a long time or capable enough to survive a long time, basically the process of evolution. A sense of free will or consciousness developed as minds became intelligent enough to make decisions that would increase their chances of survival. Why would it develop though? It's like saying that vanilla palm trees developed as minds became intelligent enough to make decisions that would increase their chances of survival. My immune system makes decisions all the time which increase my chance of survival. Even if it could benefit by having some sort of experience of 'free will' in making those decisions (which it wouldn't), how could such an 'experience' appear in a purely mechanistic context. It's a just-so story. You assume the primacy of evolution and work backwards from there. Did electromagnetic charge evolve? Did velocity evolve? Mass? Not everything is explained by evolution - only the differentiation of biological species. I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself to avoid the end of my existence. While I'm here I cannot break any of the laws of the Universe. You don't break the laws, you make new laws. The law of the universe was once 'human beings cannot fly'. Laws of the universe I'm referring to are the real laws, not human's attempt at defining them. Human beings cannot fly is a human thought, not a law. All laws that we understand are necessarily defined by humans. They are our interpretations of observations using our senses, our body, and instruments which we have designed with our senses to extend our human body and human mind. If there is any truly real law, it is that our understanding of what they are gets rewritten frequently. There is an underlying order to the universe that we have not defined yet, and may never be able to define. It does not mean that underlying order does not exist, or that the only order or law that exists is what we define. The whole idea that there is an order to the universe that is separate from the actual universe is metaphysics. If such a thing existed, why go through the formality of creating a universe? Why not just have the laws existing in perfection in their never-never land? There is no order without sense. We are all molecular machines. Then molecular machines are also us and molecules are telepathic. Systems of molecules and energy can transmit information across distances, so? Not information. Feelings. Thoughts. Images. Comedy. Irony. Human life. A bar graph is information. Getting your molars ripped out with a pair of pliers is more different. Sorry but feelings, thoughts, images, comedy, irony, are all the result of information processing. These things do not exist without the programming of our molecular computer. Why would information processing produce anything at all other than more information processing? There is no reason for feeling to arise out of information. If a system has data then it can execute a function without needing to conjure up some kind of 'feeling' or experience. Informaiton, on the other hand, is obviously a reduction of complex qualities into simplistic abstractions. I count five apples and then I can manipulate the quantitative concept of five rather than deal with the full reality of the apples. Feeling and sense are concretely real, information is an a posteriori analysis - detached, lifeless, inauthentic - just like CGI and AI. Forever sterile and empty in spite of increasing sophistication and complexity. Those molecules operate within the laws of the Universe. We wouldn't know. We only experience molecules indirectly through our instrument-extended perception. What we see of molecules is even less than what an alien astronomer would see looking at the grey patches of human mold growing on the land surfaces of the Earth. The result of their action allows me to think and reason and
Re: Free will in MWI
On 6/3/2012 1:48 PM, RMahoney wrote: I used to think that too, but why should a 'sense of free' will be the result of any process in any universe? What would it accomplish? What process would produce it? Anything that is in the present universe is here because it is either stable enough to last a long time or capable enough to survive a long time, basically the process of evolution. A sense of free will or consciousness developed as minds became intelligent enough to make decisions that would increase their chances of survival. I think that is looking at the problem the wrong way around. The feeling of free will is just the realization that, even after the fact, I don't know all the things that determined my action so I have the feeling that I could have done differently. The ability to reflect on why you chose to do something and give reasons is useful for learning and for teaching and persuading others. But that doesn't imply that a detailed knowledge, say at the level of neurons, would be useful and certainly not worth the cost in terms of memory. So consciousness only includes a small part of the information processing our brain does. 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.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/3/2012 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com 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) If it can be done then do so! Explain choose in a way that shows it is not deterministic and also not random, find a way to say that a choice did not happen for a reason and did not happen for no reason, and do so in a way that is not embarrassingly self contradictory. Do that and you have won the argument. when (which can be defined) presented (which can be defined) By the way, defined can't be defined unless you already know what defined means, that's why examples are more important than definitions; so if a definition is too hard for you just give me examples of things that can make choices and things that can't, but be prepared to defend your reasoning (a deterministic process) why they are in one category and not the other. with a choice (which can be defined). Certainly not meaningless. The word choice is perfectly respectable, I use it myself, but you are a fan of the free will noise so I would bet money that any definition you give of it will be self-contradictory or circular or both. 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
OOPS. I hit send instead of delete. Brent On 6/3/2012 4:25 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 6/3/2012 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com 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) If it can be done then do so! Explain choose in a way that shows it is not deterministic and also not random, find a way to say that a choice did not happen for a reason and did not happen for no reason, and do so in a way that is not embarrassingly self contradictory. Do that and you have won the argument. when (which can be defined) presented (which can be defined) By the way, defined can't be defined unless you already know what defined means, that's why examples are more important than definitions; so if a definition is too hard for you just give me examples of things that can make choices and things that can't, but be prepared to defend your reasoning (a deterministic process) why they are in one category and not the other. with a choice (which can be defined). Certainly not meaningless. The word choice is perfectly respectable, I use it myself, but you are a fan of the free will noise so I would bet money that any definition you give of it will be self-contradictory or circular or both. 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.
