date:20120604

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>> An automatic pilot has pseudo-free will according to you but it is
>> still causally efficacious.
>
> An automatic pilot has no will. It's just a program implemented
> technologically. Its causal efficacy is second hand by way of being
> designed by people who have free will.

If it looks like it has a will but doesn't then it has pseudo-will. If
it has pseudo-will and is causally efficacious then the fact that it
is causally efficacious does not necessarily mean that its will is
pseudo-free. So we could all have pseudo-free will.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Autonomy?

On 6/4/2012 7:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:37 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

If it doesn't make sense to you then you can append "pseudo-" whenever
you talk about deciding something or having free will. We make
pseudo-decisions and have pseudo-free will. People who make bad
pseudo-decisions get into trouble; I did it against my pseudo-will
because he held a gun to my head; and so on.

If it's causally efficacious (gets real people into real trouble) the
it can't be pseudo.

An automatic pilot has pseudo-free will according to you but it is
still causally efficacious.

An automatic pilot has no will. It's just a program implemented
technologically. Its causal efficacy is second hand by way of being
designed by people who have free will.

And you're just a program implemented biologically, designed by random variation and
natural selection.

However, if your argument is now that if
it's causally efficacious it is real then not pseudo, then that's fine
too - and compatible with determinism.

The name describes what it is - automatic pilot: A prosthetic
extension of consensus skills derived from the senses and motives of
human pilots.

Actually it can sense things humans can't (e.g. GPS signals, barometric pressure, magnetic
North,...) and it can react faster and more reliably - which is why it gets to fly the
plane. And it's not distracted by those 'free' motives the stewardess would elicit from you.

Brent

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: Autonomy?


On 6/4/2012 7:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
thinking is fallacious.

There's nothing upsetting about it, I just don't understand how we can
talk about deciding that we are powerless to make decisions. I'm
trying to figure out how that makes sense to anyone.

If it doesn't make sense to you then you can append "pseudo-" whenever
you talk about deciding something or having free will. We make
pseudo-decisions and have pseudo-free will. People who make bad
pseudo-decisions get into trouble; I did it against my pseudo-will
because he held a gun to my head; and so on.

If it's causally efficacious (gets real people into real trouble) the
it can't be pseudo.

Craig


Then call it autonomy.

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: Autonomy?


On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:14 pm, meekerdb  wrote:

On 6/4/2012 6:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannouwrote:

If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
thinking is fallacious.

There's nothing upsetting about it, I just don't understand how we can
talk about deciding that we are powerless to make decisions. I'm
trying to figure out how that makes sense to anyone.

Brains are made of the same stuff as everything else (up and down quarks, 
electrons,
photons). We have no reason to believe that this stuff obeys different laws 
when it's in a
brain, from which we conclude that whatever brains do it's determined by these 
same laws.
I'm happy to call that 'free will' so long as your not coerced (however you 
want to draw
the coerced/not-coerced line).  In which case, since we're not coerced, we are 
not
powerless, we're just deterministic (mostly).

If top level properties were determined by low level properties, then
there would only be one level of description. It would be like saying
that since the Taj Mahal is made of bricks, the shape of it must be
determined by the laws of masonry alone. The bottom line is that we
know for a fact that we are conscious, so that consciousness'
association with the brain and it's molecules can only mean that
molecules, or large enough groups of molecules are able to feel and
think.


Sure. Doesn't mean they have to obey different laws to do so.


It is our understanding of quarks and electrons that is
primitive, not matter.


???

Brent
"What is mind? No matter.
What is matter? Never mind."
--- Lady Russell (Bertrand's grandmother)

--
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: Autonomy?

On Jun 4, 10:37 pm, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> >> If it doesn't make sense to you then you can append "pseudo-" whenever
> >> you talk about deciding something or having free will. We make
> >> pseudo-decisions and have pseudo-free will. People who make bad
> >> pseudo-decisions get into trouble; I did it against my pseudo-will
> >> because he held a gun to my head; and so on.
>
> > If it's causally efficacious (gets real people into real trouble) the
> > it can't be pseudo.
>
> An automatic pilot has pseudo-free will according to you but it is
> still causally efficacious.

An automatic pilot has no will. It's just a program implemented
technologically. Its causal efficacy is second hand by way of being
designed by people who have free will.

> However, if your argument is now that if
> it's causally efficacious it is real then not pseudo, then that's fine
> too - and compatible with determinism.

The name describes what it is - automatic pilot: A prosthetic
extension of consensus skills derived from the senses and motives of
human pilots.

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: Autonomy?

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>> If it doesn't make sense to you then you can append "pseudo-" whenever
>> you talk about deciding something or having free will. We make
>> pseudo-decisions and have pseudo-free will. People who make bad
>> pseudo-decisions get into trouble; I did it against my pseudo-will
>> because he held a gun to my head; and so on.
>
> If it's causally efficacious (gets real people into real trouble) the
> it can't be pseudo.

An automatic pilot has pseudo-free will according to you but it is
still causally efficacious. However, if your argument is now that if
it's causally efficacious it is real then not pseudo, then that's fine
too - and compatible with determinism.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Autonomy?

On Jun 4, 10:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
>
> >> If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
> >> upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
> >> thinking is fallacious.
>
> > There's nothing upsetting about it, I just don't understand how we can
> > talk about deciding that we are powerless to make decisions. I'm
> > trying to figure out how that makes sense to anyone.
>
> If it doesn't make sense to you then you can append "pseudo-" whenever
> you talk about deciding something or having free will. We make
> pseudo-decisions and have pseudo-free will. People who make bad
> pseudo-decisions get into trouble; I did it against my pseudo-will
> because he held a gun to my head; and so on.

If it's causally efficacious (gets real people into real trouble) the
it can't be pseudo.

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: Autonomy?

On Jun 4, 10:14 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 6/4/2012 6:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
>
> >> If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
> >> upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
> >> thinking is fallacious.
> > There's nothing upsetting about it, I just don't understand how we can
> > talk about deciding that we are powerless to make decisions. I'm
> > trying to figure out how that makes sense to anyone.
>
> Brains are made of the same stuff as everything else (up and down quarks, 
> electrons,
> photons). We have no reason to believe that this stuff obeys different laws 
> when it's in a
> brain, from which we conclude that whatever brains do it's determined by 
> these same laws.
> I'm happy to call that 'free will' so long as your not coerced (however you 
> want to draw
> the coerced/not-coerced line).  In which case, since we're not coerced, we 
> are not
> powerless, we're just deterministic (mostly).

If top level properties were determined by low level properties, then
there would only be one level of description. It would be like saying
that since the Taj Mahal is made of bricks, the shape of it must be
determined by the laws of masonry alone. The bottom line is that we
know for a fact that we are conscious, so that consciousness'
association with the brain and it's molecules can only mean that
molecules, or large enough groups of molecules are able to feel and
think. It is our understanding of quarks and electrons that is
primitive, not matter.

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: Autonomy?

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
>
>>
>> If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
>> upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
>> thinking is fallacious.
>
> There's nothing upsetting about it, I just don't understand how we can
> talk about deciding that we are powerless to make decisions. I'm
> trying to figure out how that makes sense to anyone.

If it doesn't make sense to you then you can append "pseudo-" whenever
you talk about deciding something or having free will. We make
pseudo-decisions and have pseudo-free will. People who make bad
pseudo-decisions get into trouble; I did it against my pseudo-will
because he held a gun to my head; and so on.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Autonomy?


On 6/4/2012 6:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:


If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
thinking is fallacious.

There's nothing upsetting about it, I just don't understand how we can
talk about deciding that we are powerless to make decisions. I'm
trying to figure out how that makes sense to anyone.


Brains are made of the same stuff as everything else (up and down quarks, electrons, 
photons). We have no reason to believe that this stuff obeys different laws when it's in a 
brain, from which we conclude that whatever brains do it's determined by these same laws.  
I'm happy to call that 'free will' so long as your not coerced (however you want to draw 
the coerced/not-coerced line).  In which case, since we're not coerced, we are not 
powerless, we're just deterministic (mostly).


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: Autonomy?

On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

>
> If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
> upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
> thinking is fallacious.

There's nothing upsetting about it, I just don't understand how we can
talk about deciding that we are powerless to make decisions. I'm
trying to figure out how that makes sense to anyone.

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 in MWI

2012-06-04 Thread RMahoney



On Jun 3, 4:38 pm, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> On Jun 3, 4:48 pm, RMahoney  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg  wrote:> On Jun 1, 
> > 7:07 pm, RMahoney  wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney  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 know what you are proposing - that the sense of will always
existed and created the universe? Where did the sense of will come
from if not through a process of evolution? Are you a creationist? Yes
a non-biological evolution could explain electromagnetism, mass,
velocity, energy, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > 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.
>
I never said there was anything separate from the universe. The
universe is everything. Everything possible. There never was nothing,
there was/is always everything.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > 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 manipula

Re: Autonomy?

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Craig Weinberg  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.

If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
thinking is fallacious.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Autonomy?


On 6/4/2012 5:21 PM, Craig Weinberg 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.

Craig


If we don't have 'free will' we will each react to events and perceptions 
deterministically or randomly and thereby change the judicial system or not (just like we 
will if we do have 'free will').


What seems strictly deterministic is that Craig will not understand how we can do without 
'free will' and John K. Clark will refuse to understand what anybody means by it.


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: Autonomy?

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.

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: Autonomy?

I suppose that the idea is reform the system to reflect a purely consequentialist or
utilitarian ethic. It's partly there already, but it gets distorted a lot by ideas of
purity and sacredness (to use Jonathan Haidt's terminology); like "It's just WRONG to get
pleasure from drugs."

Brent

On 6/4/2012 10:55 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
While I agree about the judicial system, any system worth having should not hinge upon
metaphysical conclusions regarding free will. It's bizarre (and somewhat
anti-democratic) to say that we can or should argue for/against some political issue on
this basis.

The underlying assumption seems to be that the judicial system is somehow "just" in the
event that we really do have free will, which is hilariously naive.

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb > wrote:

My friend Vic Stenger has written a blog on free will, mostly in response
to Sam Harris

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/free-will-is-an-illusion_b_1562533.html?ref=science
(don't bother to read the comments)

Vic suggests dropping the term 'free will' and using the term 'autonomy' to
refer to
the social/legal concept of acting free of coercion.

And Jerry Coyne has also commented.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/victor-stenger-and-janna-levin-on-our-lack-of-free-will/
(do read the comments)

He is strictly a determinist and denies the implication of compatibilism
that there
some 'free will' (or autonomy) worth having. But interestingly both he and
Vic
conclude that this implies we need to overhaul our judicial system, while
Harris is
not so sure.

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.

--
Joseph Knight
--
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 6/4/2012 10:07 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

> You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be predictable.
Apparently
you never studied game theory.

I'm no world class expert but I've taken several college courses on game theory and I
know enough to understand that there has been no difficulty in incorporating the ideas
of that discipline into computer programs, indeed many recent advances in game theory
have come from the results of computer experiments.

And so you know that pursuant to the purpose of winning a game it may be useful to make a
random choice.

So are computers purposeful?

It depends on their program. Deep Blue purposefully acted to win chess games. Spirit and
Opportunity purposely explored parts of Mars.

Do computers have this thing you call "free will"? If not why not.

Depends on what you mean by "free will". I think that with certain AI programming a
computer could have the so called "feeling of free will", i.e. it could infer that it made
a choice that was purposeful but not determined (even in cases where it was determined).
If it were equipped to act it could act free of coercion.

Brent

John K Clark

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

Re: Autonomy?

2012-06-04 Thread Joseph Knight

While I agree about the judicial system, any system worth having should not
hinge upon metaphysical conclusions regarding free will. It's bizarre (and
somewhat anti-democratic) to say that we can or should argue for/against
some political issue on this basis.

The underlying assumption seems to be that the judicial system is somehow
"just" in the event that we really do have free will, which is hilariously
naive.

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  My friend Vic Stenger has written a blog on free will, mostly in
> response to Sam Harris
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/free-will-is-an-illusion_b_1562533.html?ref=science
> (don't bother to read the comments)
>
> Vic suggests dropping the term 'free will' and using the term 'autonomy'
> to refer to the social/legal concept of acting free of coercion.
>
> And Jerry Coyne has also commented.
>
>
> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/victor-stenger-and-janna-levin-on-our-lack-of-free-will/
> (do read the comments)
>
> He is strictly a determinist and denies the implication of compatibilism
> that there some 'free will' (or autonomy) worth having.  But interestingly
> both he and Vic conclude that this implies we need to overhaul our judicial
> system, while Harris is not so sure.
>
> 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.
>



-- 
Joseph Knight

-- 
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

2012-06-04 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012  Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> > 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?

If people are determined then if we change them ( fine them, confine them,
kill them, perform surgery on them) or change the environment (make the
possibility of severe punishment more likely) then they're behavior will
change. That's the nature of determinism, change the input and the output
changes, otherwise it wouldn't be deterministic.

> How could punishment act on anything except the will?

As I've said I have no problem with the word "will" and it does act on the
will, if I change things their will will change and either they will no
longer want to commit crimes (fear of punishment) or no longer able to
fulfill the desire of their will because they are in jail or dead.

> Can you punish phosphorus until phosphorus changes?

Yes, I can put it into a fireproof box or combine the phosphorous with
other chemicals and turn it into fertilizer, something that is actually
useful.

> I have never seen anyone with such a personal axe to grind about this
> subject.

Thank you.

>You hate free will.

Well, a lot of quacking ducks can become annoying.

> > It is unworthy of even a hallucinatory status.

Correct.

  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

2012-06-04 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012  meekerdb  wrote:

>   > You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be
> predictable.  Apparently you never studied game theory.
>

I'm no world class expert but I've taken several college courses on game
theory and I know enough to understand that there has been no difficulty in
incorporating the ideas of that discipline into computer programs, indeed
many recent advances in game theory have come from the results of computer
experiments. So are computers purposeful? Do computers have this thing you
call "free will"? If not why not.

  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

2012-06-04 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> You try moving your arm with an explanation or a reason or with no
> reason. Did it move?

That's like asking how long is a piece of string. It depends on if I wanted
to move my arm or not.

> Now just move your arm.

This time I wanted to move my arm and so, unless it was tied down it moved.
If it was tied down then a desire of my will remained unfulfilled and I
will be unhappy and that will cause me to look for a way to untie my arm.
And my will was in the state it was in, the state of wanting to move my
arm, for a reason or for no reason, there is no third alternative.

> Was it a lack of explanation or reason or randomness that was preventing
> you from FREEly excercising your WILL over your own arm?
>

I didn't move my arm because I didn't want to move my arm, and I don't know
if I didn't want to because of determinism or randomness, but I do know it
was one or the other, I do know there was a reason I didn't want to move it
(although I might not know what it is) or there was no reason I didn't want
to move it .

> Please explain how your arm moved in a way that shows it is purely
> deterministic or purely random

You seem to believe that if you combine determinism and randomness you can
make the "free will" noise more meaningful than a duck's "quack", but you
refuse to answer a question I have asked several times before; if I combine
a calculator with a roulette wheel so that on average one time in 39 it
gives the wrong answer to a calculation does that hybrid device have free
will?  If not why not.

> find a way to say that a reason or non- reason alone caused it

Well that's not very difficult and I don't even need to know what the word
"reason" means!  I can also say without fear of contradiction that klogknee
caused it or non klognee  caused it.

  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.

Autonomy?