Hi Brent,
We have discussed this a long time ago. Ah, perhaps it was on the FOR
list.
Free-will can only diminish when indeterminacy is added.
It is a product of awareness of ignorance on oneself, that an high
level construct. I appreciate infinitely both Kochen and Conway, but
on free
On 11 Mar 2010, at 23:14, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/11/2010 1:56 PM, m.a. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Free will: Wrong entry.
On 3/11/2010 1:26 PM, m.a. wrote:
Bruno and
On 11 Mar 2010, at 20:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/11/2010 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2010, at 17:57, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/11/2010 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't see how we could use Tononi's paper to provide a physical
or a computational role to inactive
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: Free will: Wrong entry.
Hi Brent,
We have discussed this a long time ago. Ah, perhaps it was on the FOR list.
Free-will can only
Marty,
I think the question, Do you believe in free will? could as easily
be, Do you believe in Santa Claus or God or Fate and on and on. We
loudly assert: I do what I want!! But without considering the
factors that influence (determine?) our wants and desires. No.I
don't suppose I
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: Free will: Wrong entry.
Marty,
I think the question, Do you believe in free will? could as easily be,
Do you believe in Santa Claus or
On 3/12/2010 4:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Brent,
We have discussed this a long time ago. Ah, perhaps it was on the FOR list.
Free-will can only diminish when indeterminacy is added.
It is a product of awareness of ignorance on oneself, that an high level
construct. I appreciate infinitely
On 3/12/2010 6:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2010, at 20:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/11/2010 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2010, at 17:57, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/11/2010 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't see how we could use Tononi's paper to provide a
On 12 Mar 2010, at 18:34, m.a. wrote:
What sort of short cut are you talking about? I don't see any
short cuts here. I can see where people will find reasons afterwards
to justify their decisions by consulting conscience and notions of
good and bad, but that's all
a posterior.
On 12 Mar 2010, at 18:57, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/12/2010 4:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Brent,
We have discussed this a long time ago. Ah, perhaps it was on the
FOR list.
Free-will can only diminish when indeterminacy is added.
It is a product of awareness of ignorance on oneself,
On 3/12/2010 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2010, at 18:57, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/12/2010 4:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Brent,
We have discussed this a long time ago. Ah, perhaps it was on the
FOR list.
Free-will can only diminish when indeterminacy is added.
It is a
On 12 Mar 2010, at 19:31, Brent Meeker wrote:
Why? The QM many worlds entails that he is old in the normal
worlds, and
he will keep going less than 60mi/h there too.
In some worlds his car is a Toyota.
But he is old. He will not go faster than 60mi/h in the normal worlds.
Tp
Brent:
why should I accept opinions of (even respected!) scientists? I asked YOUR
opinion.
Old (ancient) savants based their conclusions on a much smaller cognitive
inventory of the world than what epistemy provided up-to-date. Furthermore
the
basic worldview they think 'in' is mostly different
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: Free will: Wrong entry.
On 12 Mar 2010, at 18:34, m.a. wrote:
What sort of short cut are you talking about? I don't see any short cuts
Doesn't free will imply that we live in a macroscopically acausal
universe, where our neural networks can produce outputs with no
physical input? Arguments about QM/randomness in the network seem to
produce just that - randomness.
William
On Mar 12, 2010, at 12:53 PM, m.a. wrote:
That depends on what you think free will means. If it means a neural
network can produce non-random outputs with no input - the answer is
yes. If it means you can't know the totality of the causes of your
thoughts and actions the answer is no. If it means you actions arise
from your biology
16 matches
Mail list logo
