On Jun 3, 4:38 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:48 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 1,
7:07 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg
On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 1, 7:07 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
They seem to think this free will has some
On Jun 3, 4:48 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 1,
7:07 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com
On 6/3/2012 1:48 PM, RMahoney wrote:
I used to think that too, but why should a 'sense of free' will be the
result of any process in any universe? What would it accomplish? What
process would produce it?
Anything that is in the present universe is here because it is either
stable enough to
On 01 Jun 2012, at 23:42, RMahoney wrote:
Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in
this Universe?
Some can believe that. Open question in comp. Actually this
universe
is a quite vague concept with comp.
Don't know comp.
comp is the idea that we are (a priori
On 2 June 2012 10:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
or read my recent conversation with Charles and LizR)
On the FOAR list, that is!
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
On 31 May 2012, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/31/2012 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 31, 3:49 pm, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he
wrote was
nonsense not gibberish; I do six impossible things before
breakfast
On 01 Jun 2012, at 00:14, RMahoney wrote:
Following the last couple of weeks of exchange between Craig and John
Clark...
Interesting.
I would say John has the edge.
And I have some comments...
Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in
this Universe?
Some can
On 6/1/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/31/2012 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 31, 3:49 pm, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he wrote was
nonsense not gibberish; I
On 01.06.2012 19:19 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/1/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
...
Sam Harris just wrote a short book titled Free Will and from
the comments it has elicited it's apparent that there is very
little agreement as to what it
On 6/1/2012 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
Universe in ways that avoid it's laws.
Not the compatibilist one. I think free will is not prevented at all by determinism.
It just boils down to how you want to define 'free
On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
Following the last couple of weeks of exchange between Craig and John
Clark...
Interesting.
I would say John has the edge.
And I have some comments...
Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in
this
Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in
this Universe?
Some can believe that. Open question in comp. Actually this universe
is a quite vague concept with comp.
Don't know comp. As far as I'm concerned, universe can be everything,
all permutations.
I don't
On Jun 1, 12:27 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/1/2012 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
Universe in ways that avoid it's laws.
Not the compatibilist one. I think free will is not prevented at all by
On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
Universe in ways that avoid it's laws.
Free will is one of the laws of the universe. We are made of
On Jun 1, 7:07 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
Universe in ways that avoid it's laws.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You are the source. You cause it to be written
And if nothing caused me to write it, if there was no reason for it, then
somebody would have to be a fool to waste their time in reading it. Writing
without a reason is gibberish
On May 31, 3:49 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he wrote was
nonsense not gibberish; I do six impossible things before breakfast is
nonsense, sdfgsaiywjevry66baq is gibberish, as is free will.
Except that
On 5/31/2012 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 31, 3:49 pm, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he wrote was
nonsense not gibberish; I do six impossible things before breakfast is
nonsense, sdfgsaiywjevry66baq is gibberish,
On May 31, 5:12 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/31/2012 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 31, 3:49 pm, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he wrote was
nonsense not gibberish; I do six impossible things
Following the last couple of weeks of exchange between Craig and John
Clark...
Interesting.
I would say John has the edge.
And I have some comments...
Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in
this Universe?
They seem to think this free will has some ability to
On May 28, 1:40 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Did I ever once say that free will means acting for no reason?
That is a very hard question to answer, you said that people don't do
things for a reason
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Did I ever once say that free will means acting for no reason?
That is a very hard question to answer, you said that people don't do
things for a reason but you also said people don't don't do things for a
reason, so
On May 26, 1:42 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I nominate does not 'happen for a reason'
Then what you nominate is as random as it is idiotic. Idiots do things for
no reason, smart people do things for reasons.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Now you claim not to understand either words will or free? How could you
know whether it's circular or not when you claim not to understand either
term? When that power to decide is taken away by a cage, what has been
lost? How
On May 27, 1:44 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Now you claim not to understand either words will or free? How could you
know whether it's circular or not when you claim not to understand either
term? When that
On May 25, 4:59 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
My doing the nomination is the reason for the reasons.
And the reason for the reasons that you nominated in the way you did had a
reason or it did not.
No, what I
On Sat, May 26, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I nominate does not 'happen for a reason'
Then what you nominate is as random as it is idiotic. Idiots do things for
no reason, smart people do things for reasons.
the reason happens for my nomination.
Read that again and
On 24 May 2012, at 22:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Reason is not nominating anyone by itself. I am doing the nominating
Are you doing the nominations for a reason? There are only two
possible answers.
Reasons don't care what I
On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
My doing the nomination is the reason for the reasons.
And the reason for the reasons that you nominated in the way you did had a
reason or it did not.
That doesn't necessarily mean that I wouldn't continue to enjoy free
On May 23, 1:54 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Nominated for a reason or nominated for no reason.
Wrong. I am doing the nominating.
You are doing the nominating for a reason or you are doing the nominating
On May 23, 10:05 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
There is obviously at least a small probability that you will decide
to sleep under a bush tonight.
Only because of how we have defined
On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Reason is not nominating anyone by itself. I am doing the nominating
Are you doing the nominations for a reason? There are only two possible
answers.
Reasons don't care what I nominate, but I do.
And if you were constructed
' but Free will in MWI.
In the first place illusion is a perfectly real subjective phenomena and
in the second place it's true, we really do want to do some things and not
do other things.
So then we agree, the feeling is real.
Certainly.
Do you imagine that meaning and intelligence
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is absolutely certain that you won't sleep under a bush tonight
then it is impossible that you will do so and the probability is zero.
My understanding is that you don't approve of this sort of certain as
you
On 5/24/2012 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is absolutely certain that you won't sleep under a bush tonight
then it is impossible that you will do so and the probability is zero.
My understanding is that
On May 24, 7:55 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is absolutely certain that you won't sleep under a bush tonight
then it is impossible that you will do so and the probability is zero.
My
On May 24, 9:54 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Now we (except for Craig) recognize that these properties can be found in
machines, like chess players or AI with learning. They can be either
probabilistic (in
the inherent sense by having QM random number generators) or deterministic
On 5/24/2012 9:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 24, 9:54 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Now we (except for Craig) recognize that these properties can be found in
machines, like chess players or AI with learning. They can be either
probabilistic (in
the inherent sense by having QM
On 5/25/12, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
However, the brain must be either probabilistic or
deterministic.
It doesn't matter what the brain's limitations are. It seems to me
that the psyche uses the brain like a tool. The brain is a 3-D shadow
of an 8-D temporal phenomena.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Nominated for a reason or nominated for no reason.
Wrong. I am doing the nominating.
You are doing the nominating for a reason or you are doing the nominating
for no reason.
I have many reasons
Then you are
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
There is obviously at least a small probability that you will decide
to sleep under a bush tonight.
Only because of how we have defined probability and our assumptions
about what it possible. There is nothing to say
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
In addition to approving of one presented option and disapproving of
another,
Approved for a reason or approved for no reason.
free will allows us to nominate our own option for approval.
Nominated for a reason or
On May 21, 7:44 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
In a branching multiverse where all possibilities happen at a decision
point, some versions of you decide to type the sentence and others do
not.
On May 22, 12:49 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
In addition to approving of one presented option and disapproving of
another,
Approved for a reason or approved for no reason.
right
free will allows
On Sun, May 20, 2012 PM Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Free means it is not imposed onto you. It is free because the choice was
made by you.
I have no problem with that and I have no problem with the word will; its
meaning is clear, people want to do some things and they don't
On May 21, 10:47 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 PM Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Free means it is not imposed onto you. It is free because the choice was
made by you.
I have no problem with that and I have no problem with the word will; its
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
In a branching multiverse where all possibilities happen at a decision
point, some versions of you decide to type the sentence and others do
not. This could be completely deterministic for the multiverse as a
whole:
On 19 May 2012, at 19:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 18, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 23:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 17, 2:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Sense and matter is what I search an explanation for. You start at
the
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
All free will means is any change made because you wanted to.
That would be fine except I know that is NOT all you believe free will
means because I know you would not be happy about a calculator having free
will, but
On May 20, 1:49 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
All free will means is any change made because you wanted to.
That would be fine except I know that is NOT all you believe free will
means because I know
On May 18, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 23:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 17, 2:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Sense and matter is what I search an explanation for. You start at
the
finishing line.
That's why you are looking at
On May 18, 8:02 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You haven't understood a basic point, which is important independently
of the current discussion. This point is that if we live in a
perfectly
On May 18, 4:12 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
They [computers] won't EVER discover a printer that is sitting right next
to them without having drivers loaded and configured
And you won't EVER discover
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you understand what I understand. Of course the
limitation of the 1p view excludes information relative to a 3p view,
but the reverse is true as well. Indeterminism emerges as a third
person phenomenon
On May 18, 10:44 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't think you understand what I understand. Of course the
limitation of the 1p view excludes information relative to a 3p view,
but the
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
They [computers] won't EVER discover a printer that is sitting right next
to them without having drivers loaded and configured
And you won't EVER discover a printer sitting right next to you if you had
no eyes or
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You haven't understood a basic point, which is important independently
of the current discussion. This point is that if we live in a
perfectly deterministic multiverse, our subjective experience will be
On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply,
On May 17, 12:01 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote
I don't say that [the free will noise] means you're not deterministic,
I would be glad to hear you say that except that according to illogical
Weinbergian
2012/5/17 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On May 17, 12:01 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote
I don't say that [the free will noise] means you're not
deterministic,
I would be glad to hear you
On May 17, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But
On May 17, 7:57 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
That's true, but they don't care whether they output or not. It's not
driven by their own intention. They won't EVER discover a printer that
is sitting right next to them without having drivers loaded and
configured to even
On 17 May 2012, at 14:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 17, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 15, 1:03
On 5/17/2012 9:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 14:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 17, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 May 2012, at 19:44,
On May 17, 9:50 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 14:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 17, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 May
On May 17, 10:57 am, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Nice! I read your reply after I posted, it's cool that we seem to be
independently thinking along the same lines.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
On 17 May 2012, at 18:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 17, 9:50 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 14:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 17, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 16, 10:41 am,
On May 17, 2:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Sense and matter is what I search an explanation for. You start at the
finishing line.
That's why you are looking at it upside down. There isn't an
explanation for explanation. It is both the start and finish line.
You could take
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and
thus to contain universal internal observers, leads already to
indeterminist first person realities (even without comp, although it
is simpler to
On May 16, 2:39 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and
thus to contain universal internal observers, leads already to
indeterminist
On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and
thus to contain universal internal observers, leads already to
indeterminist first person realities (even without
On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and
thus to contain universal internal observers,
On Tue, May 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
That's exactly what a sore looser would say after he'd been thoroughly
beaten by a opponent.
If I were beaten by a human opponent, why would I accuse them of not
making decisions? What does winning or losing a game against a
On May 16, 12:41 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
That's exactly what a sore looser would say after he'd been thoroughly
beaten by a opponent.
If I were beaten by a human opponent, why would I accuse them of not
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote
I don't say that [the free will noise] means you're not deterministic,
I would be glad to hear you say that except that according to illogical
Weinbergian logic just because something is not not deterministic does not
On 15 May 2012, at 04:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are
possible
in a deterministic world, and you are not denying it. I guess our
points of
view are orthogonal.
I am denying that
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I would say that they cannot be meaningful in any sense, but I would
allow that some may consider meaningless unconscious processes to be a
form of decision, learning, or reinforcement.
OK, let's take Kasparov vs.
On May 15, 5:29 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 May 2012, at 04:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are
possible
in a deterministic world, and you are not denying it. I
On May 15, 7:19 am, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I would say that they cannot be meaningful in any sense, but I would
allow that some may consider meaningless unconscious processes to be a
form of decision,
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On May 15, 7:19 am, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would say that they cannot be meaningful in any sense, but I would
allow
On May 15, 11:59 am, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On May 15, 7:19 am, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would say that
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On May 15, 11:59 am, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On May 15, 7:19 am, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May
On Tue, May 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think Deep Blue makes any decisions or wins chess,
That's exactly what a sore looser would say after he'd been thoroughly
beaten by a opponent. And so the last surviving member of the species Homo
Sapiens, 4 seconds
On 15 May 2012, at 17:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 15, 5:29 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 May 2012, at 04:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are
possible
in a
On May 15, 12:47 pm, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On May 15, 11:59 am, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On May 15, 7:19 am,
On May 15, 12:56 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think Deep Blue makes any decisions or wins chess,
That's exactly what a sore looser would say after he'd been thoroughly
beaten by a opponent.
If I were
On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and
thus to contain universal internal observers, leads already to
indeterminist first person realities (even without comp, although it
is simpler to use comp to
On May 15, 3:14 pm, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Deep Blue has several possible moves
and chooses one of them (just as Kasparov does). It makes a decision each
move. And given that it eventually gets to
Hi Stephen,
On 13 May 2012, at 19:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/13/2012 9:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 May 2012, at 19:50, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
although machines can be said determined, they are not entirely
I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are possible
in a deterministic world, and you are not denying it. I guess our points of
view are orthogonal.
Ricardo.
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On May 13, 4:19 pm, R AM
On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are possible
in a deterministic world, and you are not denying it. I guess our points of
view are orthogonal.
I am denying that meaningful decisions, learning, or reinforcement are
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are possible
in a deterministic world, and you are not denying it. I guess our points of
view are
On May 14, 11:03 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are possible
in a deterministic
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that. But consider that the notion of being able to change the
outcome of future society - 'prevent' or 'deter' anything at all - depends
on the possibility of variant futures. From the absolute perspective, such
On Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:17:12 PM UTC+10, RAM wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that. But consider that the notion of being able to change the
outcome of future society - 'prevent' or 'deter' anything at all - depends
on the possibility
On 12 May 2012, at 19:50, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
although machines can be said determined, they are not entirely
determined from what they can know about themselves at the time they
decide to act.
As I've said many
On May 13, 4:17 am, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that. But consider that the notion of being able to change the
outcome of future society - 'prevent' or 'deter' anything at all - depends
on the possibility of
On 13 May 2012, at 03:48, Pierz wrote:
I remember a kid back in secondary school saying to me that if
everything was determined - as seemed inevitable to him from his
understanding of physics - then you might as well give up and
despair, since that was inevitable anyway! I tried to
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
What would be the point of learning though? What would be the
difference between any one outcome and any other one if decision
making were determined? It is only because of our own experience of
free will that we can
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
