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 
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 

Reply via email to