http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/compatibilism
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
On 28 Nov 2010, at 23:49, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
With your definition of free will, it does not exist. I think we
agree.
Very good. So what we are really arguing about here is whether your
definition or my definition is closer to what is
Hi 1Z,
-Original Message-
From: 1Z
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:38 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Compatibilism
On Nov 28, 11:36 pm, "Stephen Paul King"
wrote:
> Hi Rex and Bruno,
>
> I think that you are both missing an important point by taking
On Nov 28, 11:36 pm, "Stephen Paul King"
wrote:
> Hi Rex and Bruno,
>
> I think that you are both missing an important point by taking an from
> infinity view. The fact that the world is not given to us in terms where
> these is one and only one option given some condition forces us to deal
On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> > Rex,
>
> > Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
> > where someone asked "Who pushes who around inside the brain?", meaning is it
> > the matter that causes thought
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 03:53:31PM -0500, Rex Allen wrote:
> The only way you can get free will from this is to redefine free will.
> And I still don't understand why your so desperate to do so.
>
> "Free will", like "square circle", refers to something that doesn't exist.
>
> "Free will" = "abi
ee that definition 2 is inconsistent, since it
seems to posit will contains an unpredictable element outside of physics or
arithmetical truth. None of the definitions above seem to explicitly
mention compatibilism, but neither definition 1 nor 4 is incompatible with
determinism in my o
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 11/27/2010 12:53 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>> "Free will" = "ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused"
>>
>
> This is a false dichotomy. If a deterministic algorithm evaluates the
> probability of success for three different a
conundrum!
We are not Omniscient, we are not Omnipresent and we most certainly are
not Omnipotent. Deal with it.
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Rex Allen
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 5:49 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Compatibilism
On Fri, Nov 26
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> With your definition of free will, it does not exist. I think we agree.
Very good. So what we are really arguing about here is whether your
definition or my definition is closer to what is generally meant when
people use the term “free wi
On Nov 27, 8:53 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:44 AM, 1Z wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 6:31 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> >> Any defense of "free will" must allow for ultimate responsibility for
> >> actions.
>
> > Mine does
>
> Random events don't qualify as free will.
So you say. I thin
On Nov 27, 8:17 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:17 AM, 1Z wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 6:01 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> >> So Agrippa's Trilemma revolves around the question of how we can
> >> justify our beliefs.
>
> >> It seems to me that an entirely acceptable solution is just to accep
On 11/27/2010 12:53 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:44 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:31 am, Rex Allen wrote:
Any defense of "free will" must allow for ultimate responsibility for actions.
Mine does
Random events don't qualify as free will.
A deterministi
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:44 AM, 1Z wrote:
> On Nov 26, 6:31 am, Rex Allen wrote:
>> Any defense of "free will" must allow for ultimate responsibility for
>> actions.
>
> Mine does
Random events don't qualify as free will.
A deterministic process doesn't qualify as free will.
Random events fe
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:17 AM, 1Z wrote:
> On Nov 26, 6:01 am, Rex Allen wrote:
>> So Agrippa's Trilemma revolves around the question of how we can
>> justify our beliefs.
>>
>> It seems to me that an entirely acceptable solution is just to accept
>> that we can't justify our beliefs.
>
> ..in
On 26 Nov 2010, at 22:55, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/26/2010 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Nov 2010, at 22:38, Rex Allen wrote:
How does ignorance of what choice you will make lead to ultimate
responsibility for that choice?
Because I can have a pretty good pictures of the alterna
On 11/26/2010 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Nov 2010, at 22:38, Rex Allen wrote:
How does ignorance of what choice you will make lead to ultimate
responsibility for that choice?
Because I can have a pretty good pictures of the alternatives. Usually
the conflict will be in instantaneo
On 25 Nov 2010, at 22:38, Rex Allen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 19:47, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
But your reasoning does not apply to free will in the sense I
gave: the
ability to choose
On Nov 26, 6:31 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:20 PM, 1Z wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z wrote:
> >>> On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> If there is a reason, then the reason determined the choice. No free
On Nov 26, 6:01 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:12 PM, 1Z wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 6:43 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
> >>> No-one is. They are just valid descriptions. There is no argument
> >>> to the effect that logic is causal or it i
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:20 PM, 1Z wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen wrote:
If there is a reason, then the reason determined the choice. No free will.
>>>
>>> Unless you determined the reason.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:12 PM, 1Z wrote:
> On Nov 21, 6:43 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z wrote:
>>>
>>> No-one is. They are just valid descriptions. There is no argument
>>> to the effect that logic is causal or it is nothing. It is not
>>> the case that causal ex
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> But I also deny that mechanism can account for consciousness (except
> by fiat declaration that it does).
>
>
Rex,
I am interested in your reasoning against mechanism. Assume there is were
an] mechanical brain composed of mechanical neurons,
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2010, at 19:47, Rex Allen wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> But your reasoning does not apply to free will in the sense I gave: the
>>> ability to choose among alternatives that *I* cannot pre
On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> >> My position is:
>
> >> So either there is a reason for what I choose to do, or there isn't.
>
> >> If there is a reason, then the reason determined the choice. No
On Nov 21, 6:43 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> >> > Rex,
>
> >> > Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
> >> > where someon
On 22 Nov 2010, at 20:47, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/22/2010 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 19:47, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 18 Nov 2010, at 07:31, Rex Allen wrote:
As for my definition of free will:
"The ability to mak
On 11/22/2010 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 19:47, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 18 Nov 2010, at 07:31, Rex Allen wrote:
As for my definition of free will:
"The ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused."
Obv
On 21 Nov 2010, at 19:47, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 18 Nov 2010, at 07:31, Rex Allen wrote:
As for my definition of free will:
"The ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused."
Obviously there is no such ability, since "rand
Well it would seem to me that ignorance is not free will. Ignorance
is ignorance.
"Belief in free will" is not free will. "Belief in free will" is
*belief* in free will.
Why do you want to define it in terms of ignorance? What motivates this?
And how does that fit with how the term is used wi
The problem you're making is that, we can't choose (freely) under
deterministics rules and we can't choose (freely) under random rules...
Because the world is ruled (random or not). I think free will is compatible
to both views. As long as you defined it to be ignorance of the knowing
entities, th
This is exactly the model of free will I argue in favour for in my
book Theory of Nothing. Thanks 1Z - this is well put. Not that it will
convince the others who argue that free will is excluded by being
neither deterministic nor random. That debate will rage for
centuries...
Cheers
On Fri, Nov
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 11/21/2010 10:43 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z wrote:
>>>
>>> Therefore some other, sufficiently complex, robots have intentionality
>>>
>>
>> Not proven.
>>
>
> Proof is for mathematics.
Not proven beyond a
On 11/21/2010 10:43 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
whe
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> Have I understood you correctly, that the current discussion has been
> already predetermined by the initial conditions of the Universe?
Well...maybe. But I'm not overly concerned with the question of
whether the causal laws of the unive
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z wrote:
> On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> > Rex,
>>
>> > Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
>> > where someone asked "Who pushes who around inside the brain?",
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 18 Nov 2010, at 07:31, Rex Allen wrote:
>> As for my definition of free will:
>>
>> "The ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused."
>>
>> Obviously there is no such ability, since "random" and "caused"
>> exhaust the po
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z wrote:
> On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen wrote:
>>
>> My position is:
>>
>> So either there is a reason for what I choose to do, or there isn't.
>>
>> If there is a reason, then the reason determined the choice. No free will.
>
> Unless you determined the reason
Dear Bruno,
Could you please recommend some reading about the mechanist assumption?
Especially that
>then the observable reality cannot be a machine
Evgenii
on 21.11.2010 15:58 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 09:11, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
It seems to me that there is
On 21 Nov 2010, at 09:11, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
It seems to me that there is no that much difference between
Universes with complete determinism and inherent randomness. Rex put
it quite well here
Intelligence and Nomologicalism Optionen
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/brows
It seems to me that there is no that much difference between Universes
with complete determinism and inherent randomness. Rex put it quite well
here
Intelligence and Nomologicalism Optionen
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/5ab5303cdb696ef5
From the viewpoint of
On 11/20/2010 5:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 19.11.2010 04:11 Rex Allen said the following:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch
wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the
source) where someone asked "Who pushes who around inside the
brain?", meanin
on 19.11.2010 04:11 Rex Allen said the following:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch
wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the
source) where someone asked "Who pushes who around inside the
brain?", meaning is it the matter that causes thought to move
On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:36, 1Z wrote:
We don't invoke thought and reason to explain the abilities and
behavior of chess playing computers
Sometimes we do...see Dennett;s "intentional stance"
key point, I agree. I would say we always do that. No one will explain
why a chess playing computer
On 18 Nov 2010, at 07:31, Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 04:51, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
? Are you saying that it is obvious that compatibilism is false?
Compatibilism is false
On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> > Rex,
>
> > Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
> > where someone asked "Who pushes who around inside the brain?", meaning is it
> > the matter that causes thought
On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > On 16 Nov 2010, at 04:51, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >>> ? Are you saying that it is
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> Rex,
>
> Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
> where someone asked "Who pushes who around inside the brain?", meaning is it
> the matter that causes thought to move around a certain way, or is it the
> oppos
>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Bruno Marchal
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ? Are you saying that it is obvious that compatibilism is false?
> >>
> >> Compatibilism is false. Unless you do something sneaky like change
> >> the meaning of
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2010, at 04:51, Rex Allen wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> ? Are you saying that it is obvious that compatibilism is false?
>>
>> Compatibilism
50 matches
Mail list logo
