Joel Dobrzelewski wrote:

>Good idea.  Let me just say that I believe the world is deterministic.
>
>But in my mind, this is not incompatible with freewill.


I agree.


>Though technically, I can
>only WANT one thing at a time.


Y're lucky!


>But I realize most people do not feel this way, and they see determinism as
>incompatible with freewill.  So that's why I call it an illusion.  It seems
>like we are making decisions, 

OK, but be carefull with the terme. You are talking about the illusion of
a link between free will and undeterminacy. I agree with you 
(essentially).

>but in reality, there is no alternatives.

I would say that in reality there is all alternatives ! And you have a 
real,
although fuzzy and necessarily partial, control on your surroundings by 
some
aptitude to chose among alternatives. But ok, perhaps we share not 
exactly the
vocabulary. We will see.


>> I should have you ask this before, if your TOE is a cellular
>> automata, what does execute it?
>
>Nothing.  Cellular automata simply exist - in the abstract sense - just like
>the number 3, or the concept of the circle.  These objects are merely "out
>there" for all to discover, and reason about.


OK.


>As I've said, I think this world is just a game.  New games await us when
>this one is over.  But this idea should not be too tightly connected to
>cellular automata.  It is only my own personal philosophy and not part of
>the science, per se.


Why stopping doing science when you are confronted with fundamental
question? Strange behavior, imo, especially for someone searching a TOE.


>>>Qualia are internal states.
>>
>> Right! (imo). But "internal" in which sense? Would you agree that it
>> is related with the first person viewpoint.
>
>I'm not sure.


OK.

>>> Ok, thank you Bruno. I think I understand the terminology now
>>> (first and third person viewpoints), but I fail to see the
>>> importance of it all.
>>
>> If you want I open a new thread. I send you a post with one
>> question. Normally if you are computationalist you will answer yes.
>> The same for the second post, etc. At the end you will understand (or
>> at least to have an idea) the importance of it all. OK?
>
>Ok, sounds fun!  (I didn't quite understand the UDA - universal dovetailer
>argument).  What is the question?  (yes, start a new thread if you prefer)


I will.


>> Let us take your cellular automata which generates everything. You
>> will be generated at some "moment" (where the moment can be defined
>> in the universal cellular automata terms). The problem is that you
>> will be generated infinitely often, and your average "next" first
>> person point of view depends on all the consistent computational
>> continuations generated by your universal automata.
>
>Hmmm...
>
>Yes, you are generated infinitely often, but those copies are not (usually)
>in communication with one another.  In general, each one has its own history
>and own future.  I don't see how there is any synthesis of these
>experiences.  They are (again, usually) independent.


They are (usually) independent from a 3 person pov, but from the possible
first person point of view it is much less obvious. One of the goal
of the UDA is to show exactly this.
So, ok, I will start a UDA thread one step at a time. 

See you.

Bruno 

Reply via email to