Evgenii, great questions
2012/7/30 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
On 30.07.2012 11:19 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
What do you mean by the world of the mind is different form the
phisico-mathematical world? Is this as by Descartes res cogitans vs. res
extensa?
As you said, it
On 30 Jul 2012, at 15:34, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Computations are not proof. There are similarities, and there are a
lot of interesting relationships between the two concepts, but we
cannot use proof theory for computation theory
What goes to Another intriging duality : The Curry-Howard
On 30 Jul 2012, at 16:20, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 July 2012 13:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If we are removing ourselves from the object of our study we must
remove all things that are implied. It is the observer that acts,
not the object alone. All of the properties,
On 30 Jul 2012, at 19:42, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
religious people defined it [free will] often by the ability to
choose consciously
And those very same religious people define consciousness as the
ability to have free will, and
On 30 Jul 2012, at 19:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/30/2012 2:19 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The Boltzman brains , according with what i have read, are
completely different beasts. Boltzman pressuposes, that , since no
random arrangement of matter is statistically impossible, and
Boltzman
On 30 Jul 2012, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/30/2012 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 28-juil.-12, à 18:46, John Clark a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You goal does not seem in discussing ideas, but in mocking people.
That is not true, my goal
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I'm not clear on why you emphasize incomplete information? What would
constitute complete information? and why how would that obviate 'free will'.
Is it coercive?
I agree with Russell's answer. If the information was
On 31 July 2012 11:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
With comp, I argue that arithmetical truth is simpler and can explain why
the numbers (or better the person associated to those numbers) construct
ideas of time and space, and why they can believe in some genuine way in
them, and be
On 31 July 2012 10:08, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Materialism is a monism but has a hidden dualism that is converted back
into monism by the process of avoiding delicate questions, for example the
nature of perceptions and the nature of the suppossedly external
phenomenons
On 31 Jul 2012, at 13:37, R AM wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I'm not clear on why you emphasize incomplete information? What
would
constitute complete information? and why how would that obviate
'free will'.
Is it coercive?
I agree
Citeren Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 30 Jul 2012, at 19:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/30/2012 2:19 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The Boltzman brains , according with what i have read, are
completely different beasts. Boltzman pressuposes, that , since no
random arrangement of matter is
Hi Alberto,
On 31 Jul 2012, at 11:08, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Evgenii, great questions
2012/7/30 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
On 30.07.2012 11:19 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
What do you mean by the world of the mind is different form the
phisico-mathematical world? Is this
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So you understand 'will'.
Yes, I want to do some things and don't want to do other things.
Do you also understand 'coercion'?
Yes, sometimes things prevent me from doing what I want to do.
John K Clark
--
You
Thnks Bruno, Specially your agreement on dualism make me feel more
confident.
2012/7/31 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
Hi Alberto,
On 31 Jul 2012, at 11:08, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Evgenii, great questions
2012/7/30 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
On 30.07.2012 11:19 Alberto G. Corona
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
With complete information, a totally rational being makes optimal choices,
There is no rational reason to pick life over death, I happen to prefer
life but others have, or rather had, a different opinion and there is
On 31.07.2012 01:05 Russell Standish said the following:
...
With complete information, a totally rational being makes optimal
choices, and has no free will, but always beats an irrational being.
To this end, one has first to define the sense of life formally.
The goal to survive is clear
The problem is to explain also why the entropy of the early universe was
so low. If you just accept that this is the case and also don't bother
about the very distant future, there is no problem. But if you assume that
time goes on from the infinite distant past and/or to the infinite distant
Dear Russell,
In our definition of the concept of free will, it seems that we
need to elaborate a bit on the notions of coercion, autonomy and choice.
From what I have studied, the concept of a player used in game theory
works well. Free will is the ability for an autonomous agent to make
On 7/30/2012 7:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
With complete information, a totally rational being makes optimal
choices, and has no free will, but always beats an irrational being.
Conversely, with incomplete information, a rational being will make a
wrong choice, or simply fail to make a
Dear Bruno,
Your statement here demonstrates that I have entirely failed to
communicate my thoughts so that you could understand them. You are
arguing against a straw man. What you write here as Stephen's idea is
as Wolfgang Pauli might say: not even wrong. I am proposing that
numbers
On 7/31/2012 8:36 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 30 Jul 2012, at 19:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/30/2012 2:19 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The Boltzman brains , according with what i have read, are completely different
beasts. Boltzman pressuposes,
On 7/31/2012 9:18 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So you understand 'will'.
Yes, I want to do some things and don't want to do other things.
Do you also understand 'coercion'?
Yes, sometimes
On 7/31/2012 10:48 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The problem is to explain also why the entropy of the early universe was so low. If you
just accept that this is the case and also don't bother about the very distant future,
there is no problem. But if you assume that time goes on from the
On 7/31/2012 11:10 AM, R AM wrote:
On 7/30/2012 7:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
With complete information, a totally rational being makes optimal
choices, and has no free will, but always beats an irrational being.
Conversely, with incomplete information, a rational being will make a
wrong
Stephen,
just a brief remark to the discussion:
if the 'agent' has complete info (it never occurs) it naturally coerces its
decision (*will, choice*). We call *good-bad* according to OUR incomplete
thinking. Same goes for the *rational - irrational* pair.
We can NEVER have complete information -
Alberto,
Thank you for your answers. I will make one comment now. I plan to read
Schneider on molecular machines (thanks for the link) and then I may
make more comments.
On 31.07.2012 11:08 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
Evgenii, great questions
2012/7/30 Evgenii
2012/7/31 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 7/31/2012 10:48 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The problem is to explain also why the entropy of the early universe was
so low. If you just accept that this is the case and also don't bother
about the very distant future, there is no problem. But if
27 matches
Mail list logo
