I did not think of this perfect formulation of yours:
"free will" is a subjective experience
A big (nonreligious) amen.
Contempt for science? maybe a realistic valuation of the model-based
observations and the boundary-enclosed explanations we call science.
Every age abides within the level of its epistemic inventory of cognitive
enrichment (in other words: thinking that 'we just know it all') and
the world(view) accordingly. Then comes new information and science
tries to comply with it (mostly just complicating things).
(Think of 'entropy', the 200+year old sweaty explanation for (now) obsolete
observational ideas - since then at least a dozen times reformulated,
redefined, and still one of the favorite cop-out of most (not only)
physicists. Informational entropy, hah?)
An advanced thinker must keep his eyes open for the obsolescence of the
habitual knowledge-base. It took me 50 years in a successful reductionistic
(polymer) science practice to start thinking in interconnections beyond the
models. I found the 'reductionistic' science practically very effective,
useful and in the line of progress, don't misunderstand me.
Thanks for your insight
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: "Free Will Theorem"
> John Mikes wrote:
> >Dear Stathis,
> >isn't this getting out of control?
> >I am not talking about your ingenious octopus question (ask the octopus!)
> >I am talking of the simplistic anthropomodelled and today-level-related
> >of thinking: something (anything) is black or white, in other words:
> > it is either this (one) way we can think about now, or it is THE other
> >way we can think of now, as an alternative.
> >This list produced more advanced ways of thinking over the 5-6 years (?)
> >have the pleasure of reading in.
> Sorry if I got carried away on this thread, John. I have been trying to
> that "free will" is a subjective experience, first and foremost, and to
> debate whether it is philosophically or scientifically sound is a category
> error. You could take the 8-freedom I described for my octopus and
> that it it is nonsensical or contradictory, but it would be foolish to
> say the octopus is wrong about what it feels; i.e., "ask the octopus" is
> correct answer. I thought you might agree with me here if nowhere else,
> since you can take it as showing a mild contempt for science.
> --Stathis Papaioannou
> $60,000 prize pool to be won. Three winners. Apply now!