Jason Resch wrote: > Uv, > > One of the concerns people have with free will or the lack thereof is > that if physics is deterministic, one's future actions can predicted > beforehand, without them even having to exist. However, an interesting > consequence of computationalism is this: One's future actions cannot be > predicted without a simulation that goes into enough detail to > instantiate that person's consciousness.
I don't think this is true. First, it is often possible to predict someone's actions in a particular situation, yet this clearly is not done by duplicating their consciousness. So the amount of computation required to predict a conscious beings actions a little into future may not be that great. To actually predict their behavior far into the future would also require simulating a very large part of their environment; stuff we don't normally consider part of their consciousness. So conversely the computation required to instantiate consciousness, given the environment as input, may be fairly small. Brent Meeker > As conscious creatures, our > wills cannot be calculated without our consciousness being invoked by > the calculations, just as the physics of this universe is doing now. > > Jason > > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:28 AM, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > "uv"(??) wrote a well crafted post on concepts well endowed in our > physical (reductionist, figmentous) science-terminology. > I try to point to some other aspect. > Free will is a figment of the religious etc. mindset to help people > get into remorse and guilt feelings according to the tenets of the > particular religion > (patriotic, ethnic, racial, loyalty etc. domains). > It comes with the negation of entailment in total interconnectedness > - a sort of 1-way determinism in lieu of causality-framing from > WITHIN the model of the actual considerations - > akin to 'random' (the 'absolut' one, not the 'little random', > mentioned earlier by Russell in defence of the 'random generating > machines') which would inevitably lead to parallel "natures" and > make the 'physical laws' meaningless. > (I appologize for swinging between views, 'uv' seems to speak about > concepts handled in the 'physical world' science-view). > * > Time I consider a coordinative help for us in THIS universe (I don't > know about the others) but to make 'a' universe-startup more > palatable for our human common sense than the Q-related Big Bang > tale, I ended up in my "narrative" with a not knowable origin (I > called it 'Plenitude' -plagierizing Plato's word) in a timeless - > spaceless setup. So OUR poorly educated (historically spread) > observations and their reductionist explanations (similarly upon the > actual levels of thinking) i.e. sciences as we know them even today, > work in time and space, while the projection into the Plenitude are > - both - > a-temporal and a-spatial. > * > Paradoxes and logically hard-to-follow complimentarity I consider as > results from poorly observed and explained phenomena and their > fitting into a system based on such. "uv" quotes some of these. > > John M > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:58 PM, uv <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > You may have noted the increasing overlap between physics, > mathematics, philosophy and neuroscience. Many people are still > primarily focussed on quantum and gravitational matters which may be > less relevant to some aspects of fundamental physics than > experimental > philosophy and logic. Bayesian reasoning is also becoming more and > more the norm. > > I have tried to update matters as far as possible in a paper > available > at Yates J., (2008)."Category theory applied to a radically new but > logically essential description of time and space", Philica.com, > Article number 135, and in PDF format in the Cogprints archive at > http://cogprints.org/6176/ and finally also in my blog at > http://ttjohn.blogspot.com/ . I would be happy also to download > a copy > of this paper to the group. on request. > > Later work will be likely to include experiments on the reverse > Stickgold effect and the potential use of Global Workspace Theory in > the MBI and such work effectively follows up my original UK > patent now > allowed to expire and publically available. > > Very briefly my present theory allows most of quantum theory and > gravity but introduces The Many Bubble Interpretation, which derives > from McTaggart's ideas, and various examples of its use and > effectiveness are referred to. The Schrodinger Cat paradox is > essentially resolved in principle, the quantum Zeno effect > interpretable, Kwiat's recent result referred to, and the newly > discovered reverse Stickgold effect described. The reverse Stickgold > effect may require the results of experimental philosophy to further > it. Despite the name, the MBI ("Many bubble Interpretation") is > mostly good in neutral monism, despite having derived to some extent > partly originated from the work of Kohler and Wertheimer. > > Freewill is certainly an important topic nowadays as fMRI > results have > sometimes been said to suggest that freewill does not exist. Haynes' > work perhaps suggests that mental decisions may be made much earlier > they are knowingly decided. Haynes does go a lot further than > Libet's > work and my experiments and theory will give us some answers > finally. > > uv > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
