On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BillK wrote: >> >> Nobody has mentioned this yet..... >> >> <http://www.physorg.com/news146319784.html> > > I got a draft version of the paper earlier this year, and after a quick scan > I filed it under 'junk'. > > I just read it through again, and the filing stays the same. >
I have to agree. The paper attacks a strawman by blanket assertions. Even worse, the attack itself is flawed: in section 2 he tries to define the concept of "control", and, having trouble with free will-like issues, produces a combination of brittle and nontechnical assertions. As a result, in his own example (at the very end of section 2), a doctor is considered "in control" of treating a patient only if he can prescribe *arbitrary* treatment that doesn't depend on the patient (or his illness). -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
