Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 19, 3:59 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 1Z wrote: > >> how would the world be different if causes WERE reasons? > > > > if someone gets struck  by lightning, God really does hate them. > > I pray to God you're joking. Causes=reasons i

Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 18, 6:44 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/18/2012 10:34 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 6:03 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >> On 6/18/2012 9:36 AM, 1Z wrote: > > >>>>> About nc-free-will, I hav

Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 18, 6:46 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:31 PM, 1Z wrote: > > causes are not reasons > > I see. Well, how would the world be different if causes WERE reasons? It means that if someone gets struck by lightning, God really does hate them. Reaso

Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 18, 6:22 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/18/2012 9:50 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Jun 17, 7:28 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > > >> No, not that I know to be such; but believers in contra causal free will > >> think that at > >> least some of their actio

Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 18, 6:03 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/18/2012 9:36 AM, 1Z wrote: > > >>> About nc-free-will, I have not any idea (yet?) about what it could mean. > >>> I tend to agree > >>> >  >  with John on this. > > >> >  It see

Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 18, 6:02 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:38 PM, 1Z wrote: > > Thins happen for: > > a reason and a cause > > or > > a reason but not cause > > or > > no reason but a cause > > or > > no reason and no cause. > &

Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 17, 7:28 pm, meekerdb wrote: > No, not that I know to be such; but believers in contra causal free will > think that at > least some of their actions are. Does anyone describe themselves as a believer in Contra Causal Free Will? People do describe themselves as incompatibilist liberta

Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 16, 6:49 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012  meekerdb wrote: > > > It seems pretty clear.  It's an ability to make decisions in a spirit > > realm and have them implemented in the physical realm. > > Physical realm mental realm spirit realm or idiot realm (sorry, that last > wa

Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 15, 5:17 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/15/2012 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 14 Jun 2012, at 18:21, John Clark wrote: > > >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012  Craig Weinberg >> > wrote: > > >>     > I don't understand how we can change the judic

Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 14, 5:21 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012  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 o

Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 5, 3:48 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > 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. How did anything acquire causal efficacy before humans evolved? -- You rec

Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 5, 3:14 am, 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 i

Re: Autonomy?

On Jun 5, 3:27 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > If top level properties were determined by low level properties, then > there would only be one level of description. Doens't follow. Forest-level descriptions may be convenient. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 30, 2:53 am, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/29/2012 6:37 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2:30 am, meekerdb  wrote: > >> On 4/29/2012 5:26 PM, 1Z wrote: > > >>> On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdb    wrote: > >&

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 30, 2:30 am, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/29/2012 5:26 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >> On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote: > > >>> On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdb   wrote: > >>&

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > >>>> That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical > >>>>

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 9:29 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 27, 11:38 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What do you say the efficient cause of feeling is? > > > > > > > > > Some priori brain state. > > > > > > > >

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 9:29 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 27, 11:38 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What do you say the efficient cause of feeling is? > > > > > > > > > Some priori brain state. > > > > > > > >

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 9:16 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/27/2012 12:00 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >    We never explained where the elan vital was or where it came > >> from.  We just came up with a different kind of 'explanation'

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdb wrote: > >> That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical zombies. > > >> Brent > > A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie is physically identical to > > a human. An AI will be > > made out of silicon or something, which could naturalsitica

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 10:27 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 27, 5:02 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > On Apr 27, 9:51 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > >  To say that nothing is no-thing > > > (the thing that is the absence of things) is completely valid, > > > No, it is no

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 9:51 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > To say that nothing is no-thing > (the thing that is the absence of things) is completely valid, No, it is nonsense. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 9:14 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/27/2012 11:57 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >> On 4/27/2012 11:07 AM, 1Z wrote: > > >>> On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdb    wrote: > >&

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 9:16 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/27/2012 12:00 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >    We never explained where the elan vital was or where it came > >> from.  We just came up with a different kind of 'explanation'

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 8:41 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 27, 11:49 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > Only if there is free will. Without free will, of course compulsion is > > > the same as causation. > > > Nope. We can define compulsion in terms of conscious choice by

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb wrote:  We never explained where the elan vital was or where it came > from.  We just came up with a different kind of 'explanation'. And the EV is supposed to be analgous to qualia? But that paralell doens;t work. The EV is dismissable because there was never prim

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/27/2012 11:07 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >> On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote: > > >>> On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb    wrote: > >&

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >> On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote: > > >>> On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb    wrote: > >&

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >> On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > > >>> On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said t

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 25, 3:49 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Determined means it's not random and random means it's not > > determined. > > Why? Random is determined randomly. Nothing is not a thing and randomness is not a kind of determinism. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 4:08 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 27, 10:00 am, 1Z wrote: > > > That's a rather shallow dismissal of compatibiism. We absolve > > people of guilt if they are compelled by an agency, > > but causaiton > > is not the same as compulsion. >

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 27, 4:02 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 27, 9:11 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 7:54 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 4:21 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Apr 21, 8:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 26, 8:31 pm, John Clark wrote: > I never said there is no choosing, we choose things all the time. Unlike > the noise "free will" the word "choose" actually means something; if at a > particular time I can see that there are 2 actions (X or Y)  I can take and > I don't know which one to

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following: > > > ... > > >> As I've posted before, when we know how look at a brain and infer what > >> it's thinking and we know how to build a brain

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 25, 10:21 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > I'm not saying that consciousness is not mysterious and certainly not > non-existent (I think people who say that do it just do it to be > provocative). But it is a problem when a mysterious thing is explained > in terms of another mysterious th

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 24, 8:07 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: context was a "War of the Worldviews" presentation, where she was > s She likes to be provocative anyhow. I still > don't see how calling it a mirage or illusion gets around the hard > problem at all. A mirage to whom? More to the point, in order to see

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 23, 3:49 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 22, 10:57 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > If you're bloody-minded enough you can claim here isn't really an > > obvious connection between clouds and rain either. > > Sure, it's a matter of degree. If I squeeze an orange, it follows very >

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 24, 6:19 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > It is a standard use of language to say that people are responsible in > varying degrees for their actions. I don't understand why you claim > that your binary determinism is 'standard language' in some way. When > we talk about someone being guilty o

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 24, 7:54 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 24, 4:21 am, 1Z wrote: > > > On Apr 21, 8:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 8:36 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > &

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 21, 8:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 20, 8:36 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > What do you say the efficient cause of feeling is? > > > Some priori brain state. > > What could make a b

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 17, 6:54 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 7, 3:43 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > Stathis and Brent, > > > > I'll respond to both at once since they are the sam

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Stathis and Brent, > > I'll respond to both at once since they are the same core objection: > > "Why does feeling have to have "purpose"? " > > "I can't even conceive of what it would mean for them > to be justified. " > > They have to be justified and

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 3, 5:20 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 3, 5:27 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > But the experiment didn't show there was more or less free will.  It > > > > didn't even show > > > > there was any free will.  It just s

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 3, 4:58 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 3, 5:07 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > Why not?  If the brain is deterministic then beliefs are deterministic > > > > and changing them > > > > by external inputs can change performance. > &g

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 3, 4:54 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 3, 5:04 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 2, 9:39 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Apr 2, 2:12 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: >

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 3, 3:12 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 2, 5:05 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > > > > But the experiment didn't show there was more or less free will.  It didn't > > even show > > there was any free will.  It just showed that inducing a belief in free > > will changed > > performance. > > P

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 2, 9:41 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 2, 1:33 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/2/2012 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Apr 2, 12:03 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > > >> On 4/2/2012 7:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > If all movement was involuntary in the > > >

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 2, 9:39 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 2, 2:12 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Apr 2, 12:03 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > > > > On 4/2/2012 7:14 AM, Craig Weinb

Re: Primitive Awareness and Symmetry

On Apr 3, 3:20 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 2, 8:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > From blindsight, synesthesia, and anosognosia we know that particular > > > qualia are not inevitably associated with

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 2, 6:33 pm, meekerdb wrote: > Most decisions do not have an experience associated with them, we make them > 'subconsciously' (e.g. the movement of my fingers in typing this).  So the > experience of > free will is just the failure to be able to trace all the causes of a > conscious dec

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 2, 12:03 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/2/2012 7:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > >>> If all movement was involuntary in the > > >>> >  >  first place then there would be no significant difference between > > >>> >  >  passivel

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 2, 5:28 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 2, 10:38 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > > Craig, > > > What is the definition of free will you are applying here?  Please be as > > specific as possible. > > > Thanks, > > > Jason > > Since free will is primitive, it is not possible to define it in

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 2, 3:14 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 2, 9:52 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 14, 6:08 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Mar 14, 12:32 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > > > > On 3/14/2012 7:21 AM, Craig W

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Apr 2, 3:03 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Apr 2, 9:49 am, 1Z wrote: > > > On Mar 14, 10:11 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Mar 14, 2:52 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > > > Compare: "If you had no immortal soul that would be judged after your &

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Mar 14, 4:49 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Mar 14, 10:44 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/5/613.abstract > > > > Abstract > > > >        The feeling of being in control of

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Mar 14, 6:08 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Mar 14, 12:32 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/14/2012 7:21 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 11:15 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > > >> On 3/13/2012 3:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > >>>http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/5/613.ab

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On Mar 14, 10:11 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Mar 14, 2:52 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > Compare: "If you had no immortal soul that would be judged after your death > > your belief > > about it should have no effect on your religious behavior."  Beliefs can > > have effects > > whether they have

Re: The free will function

On Feb 27, 10:11 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > &

Re: The free will function

On Feb 27, 6:40 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > On 27.02.2012 17:47 John Clark said the following: > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Craig > > Weinbergwrote: > > >> There is no simulation of red. Red is only red. > > > But red itself is a simulation. Electromagnetic waves a length of > > 700 na

Re: Support for Panexperientialism

On Feb 24, 11:13 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Of course. They are the particular sense of epistemology which 'seems > like' the opposite of 'seems like'. Phenomena are reduced to their > wireframe invariance - a skeleton which seems as if it 'simply is' > because it represents the most common ov

Re: Yes Doctor circularity

On Feb 24, 11:02 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 24, 7:40 am, 1Z wrote: > > > Which only underscores how different consciousness is from > computation. We can't share the exact same software, but computers > can. We can't re-run our experiences, but comput

Re: The free will function

On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > You are > > > > > thinking that because you know it's a simulation

Re: COMP theology

On Feb 22, 2:14 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Contrarily to what Peter Jones (1Z) asserts frequently, we don't > suppose Platonism, nor immateriality, we just suppose that we can use > the excluded middle principle for the Sigma_1 arithmetical sentences. If you want to say I am b

Re: The free will function

on and you could not so easily say that you aren't > Throngar. Especially if you played him for a living...and changed your > name legally...and got plastic surgery. At what point do you become > Throngar? If there is any meaning to the word "simulation", then it is never actual.

Re: Support for Panexperientialism

On Feb 23, 9:28 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 23, 4:00 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > He isn't saying it's special, he is asking why should we think that > > > consciousness arises as some exceptional phenomenon in the universe. > > > Every phe

Re: Yes Doctor circularity

On Feb 23, 9:14 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 23, 3:25 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 22, 7:42 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > Has someone already mentioned this? > > > > I woke up in the middle of the night with this, so it might not make > > >

Re: Support for Panexperientialism

On Feb 23, 8:27 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 23, 2:45 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >     Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it made > > > > > of? Specifically, the disconnect that m

Re: The free will function

On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > >    > > > > > Why would Gods be supernatural? > > > > > >    > > > > Why would bachelors be married? > > > > > > This i

Re: The free will function

On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > You are conflating the levels (as Bruno always tells me). The > > > > > simulation has no access to extra-simulatory informatio

Re: Yes Doctor circularity

On Feb 22, 7:42 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Has someone already mentioned this? > > I woke up in the middle of the night with this, so it might not make > sense...or... > > The idea of saying yes to the doctor presumes that we, in the thought > experiment, bring to the thought experiment univers

Re: Support for Panexperientialism

On Feb 23, 3:50 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 23, 9:34 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > >     Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it made > > > of? Specifically, the disconnect that must occur if some parts of > > > real

Re: The free will function

On Feb 21, 10:41 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z wrote: > > > You are conflating the levels (as Bruno always tells me). The > > > simulation has no access to extra-simulatory information, it is a > > > complete sub-universe. It's

Re: Support for Panexperientialism

On Feb 22, 1:10 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Could a rock have consciousness? Good answer from someone on > Quora:http://www.quora.com/Could-a-rock-have-consciousness > > "    Yes, obviously. > >     Why obviously? > >     Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it made > of? S

Re: The free will function

On Feb 21, 10:41 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z wrote: > > > How do you know? Comp says we can't know whether we are artificial > > > simulation or not. > > > That doens't make you supernatural. > > Why would I be? I'

Re: The free will function

On Feb 21, 8:03 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 21, 5:21 am, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > Right, but true = a true reflection of the simulation. > > > No. True = true of unsimulated reality. > > Where is there unsi

Re: COMP theology

On Feb 21, 4:16 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012  Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > it is important to conceive that comp might be false. > > Why? If it's false I don't see how there could be a way to prove it false, Huh? Hardly anything is exactly computer-emulable. Flight simulators don

Re: The free will function

On Feb 20, 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2012/2/20 1Z > He said and I quote and emphasis: " Now comp makes **almost all** (not any) > UMs' physics identical. " > Note that there will still be an infinite variety of HP/WR physics even if it is a "smal

Re: The free will function

On Feb 20, 1:45 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Z wrote: > > On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > I don;t have to agree that essentiallytechnological > > > > control means "god" or "supernaural"> &

Re: The free will function

On Feb 20, 5:38 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > There could an infinite number of the Many Worlds with all kinds of Gods. > > But then why did you say "There is something that prevents infinite > nonsense universes"? How did you find this out

Re: The free will function

On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 20, 10:32 am, acw wrote: > > > On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:> On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, > > 1Z wrote: > > >> On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > .. > > >> Believable

Re: The free will function

On Feb 20, 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 20 Feb 2012, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > How do you know? Comp says we can't know whether we are artificial > > simulation or not. > > I am sorry, but I think this is false. I would say that comp says that > we are in infinitely many simul

Re: The free will function

On Feb 20, 4:48 pm, John Mikes wrote: > Peter, > why do you think - if there are indeed many universes - that they are > identical and like ours? It isn't a question of what I think. There are different multiversal theories. Some say all the universes are bound by a set of physical laws, some s

Re: The free will function

On Feb 20, 3:32 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:59, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote: > > >>> On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinber

Re: The free will function

On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >> On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb wrote: > >> Comp says that any UM's > >> experience is indistinguishable fr

Re: The free will function

On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 19, 10:59 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Feb 20, 1:08 am, C

Re: The free will function

On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb wrote: > Comp says that any UM's > experience is indistinguishable from primitive physics, right? > Computaionalism or Bruno's comp? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everyt

Re: The free will function

On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > It is with some tr

Re: The free will function

On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > > > It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I > > > > would > > > > like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds > >

Re: The free will function

On Feb 19, 4:52 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 18, 5:36 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would > > like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds > > Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where e

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Jan 31, 8:53 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > Craig, > > > The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that > > movie's premise that seems impossible to you? > > It's possible to simulate a world for a person but it is not possib

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z wrote: > > You seem to be runnign off a theory of concept-formation > > whereby concepts are only ever recongnitions of percerived > > realities. > > Not perceived realities, but ontological possibil

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 10:01 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 14, 10:37 am, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > That's what being dumb is - not being able to figure out how to do > > > anything else than what you already do. > &g

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer > > > > of interest. > > > > That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 6:48 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012  1Z wrote: > > > Free Will is defined as "the power or ability to rationally choose > > If its rational then there is a reason for it and thus it's deterministic. False, because causes need not be reas

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 6:35 pm, John Clark wrote: > Silicon does not have the same chemical properties as the element germanium > either (although they are in the same column in the periodic table as is > carbon) and yet you can make transistors out of both and in fact the first > transistors were germaniu

Re: The free will function

On Feb 9, 4:43 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 1Z wrote: > > It [being free] means your actions are not determined by external forces > > So a external force like light that has reflected off a wall does not > effect your actions and you crash into the wall. If

Re: The free will function

On Feb 13, 5:17 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: > Digital substitution > is not a local symmetry. hence flight simulators do not fly. -- 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@google

Re: The free will function

On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2012/2/11 Craig Weinberg > > > > All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will run > > > the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do that. > > > It's not because y

Re: The free will function

On Feb 9, 2:45 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 8, 10:14 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer > > of interest. > > That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously. Why would your subjective concerns matt

Re: The free will function

On Feb 11, 8:33 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 11, 12:01 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 11, 1:24 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm brilliant, I'm explaining > > > why the popular ideas and conve

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >