Jason Resch wrote:
> 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
instantiate consciousness, given the environment as input, may be fairly small.
> 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.
> 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
> 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
> 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
> work and my experiments and theory will give us some answers
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