On 01.06.2012 21:30 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and
neither do you.
John K Clark
Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but
that doesn't mean free will is a
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On May 31, 2:33 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On May 29, 1:45 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So which
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
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
On 2 June 2012 10:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
On Jun 2, 2:39 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
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
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson 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
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
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,
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.
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
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 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
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
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 meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The hard one to define with falling into circularity is agent which is
often defined as an entity
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
