On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
>  On 14 Mar 2012, at 21:34, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  >>Craig and Brent:
> "Free Will" is not a matter of faith. One does not "believe "IN" it, or
> not".
> (Of course this is a position in my (agnostic) worldview - my 'belief' ha
> ha).<<
>
>
> >So I think I agree with you.<
>

Thank you.


>  > Unlike consciousness, which we all know very well, despite we cannot
> define it, (free wil: Many definitions of it are contradictory.)<
>

As far as I follow the hubbub on consciousness in the various
sciences-related inernational discussions, every author applies a
desciption that fits his theoretical position. We "know very well" a
functional outcome on human thinking, which is not too impressive. I
generalized the *process* (sic!) and ended up (so far) with *response to
relations*, very close to what I find for "life". Of course those
'relations' are humanly (and today) identified.


>
>
>  >>We are part of an infinite complexity with limited capabilities to
> accept influence from the infinite factors (if those ARE factors indeed,
> not just 'relations') <<
>
>
> >I am not sure what you mean by "to accept". What you say make sense with
> "perceive" or "realize" *all* infinite influences, but some can be, at
> least if by "we" you mean us the Löbian entities (machines or non-machine).<
>

I meant a more 'pyhysical' acceptance: when the arriving influence
exercises a responding activity (activates a response?) IOW we (already)
developed a capability to be affected by some of the infinite influences.
And I do not restrict ourselves (we, us) to Loebian definitions: there may
be more and wider domains than those we may think about now.


>       >>Our mental activity (assigned in our limited conventional
> sciences to the brain) ...<<
>


>  > I would say, assigned by theory or hypothesis. The idea that the
> mental activity results from the brain activity is an hypothesis or a
> theory, not a convention. If it was a convention, I would go to the dentist
> for my headache, and perhaps to the neuropsychiatrist or psychologist for
> my teeth holes.<
>

*Convention*(al) refers *ONLY* to the sciences we (officially) have
nowadays.
I agree - even state that mental phenpomena are more (complex) than
tissue-work ever could produce, even when billions cooperate into it.

>
>
>  >>...is pondering consciously and unconsciously, including arguments we
> know of and arguments (not yet?) known. The result may not be deterministic
> because we are not a simpleton machine (sorry Bruno, emphasis here is on
> simpleton) ...<<
>
>
> >We are not simpleton is a big generalization, and humans have often been
> known to be gullible and foolish (as I see "simpleton" means in the
> dictionary).<
>

My definition of 'simple' is like: the (reduced?) part of the totality
(complexity) we include into our pondering. Not the "contrary" rather "part
of" complexity.

>
>
>
>  >>...so we may have 'options' - choices, but not 'freely at all. We have
> the power to choose disadvantegously, even knowingly so. <<
>
>
> >OK.<
>
>
>
>
> >>We know only a portion of the factors (aspects, I almost wrote:
> components)  in the infinite complexity (call it God, or nature, totality,
> wholeness, or even everything)  and surely misunderstand even those. We
> "humanize" knowledge into terms and qualia we can understand and use. Such
> is our 'model' of the world. Our mental work is influenced by the
> 'model-content' AND also by facts (?) beyond our knowable circle.<<
>
>
> >OK. Thats the motor of science. Theories just put light, and shadows on
> what we explore.<
>
>
>
>  >>Decisionmaking is a complex procedure using the known and unknown
> influences into a result within the givens. <<
>
>
> >OK.<
>
>
>
> I repeat my original position: "FREE WILL" is the reins to keep human
> slaves in line by fear of violating the 'rules of power' (religious, or
> political/economic) WILLFULLY and undergoing to a punishment later on. The
> concept of SIN.
>
>
> >Interesting suggestion, it might be related. The concept seems to me to
> be a generalization of responsibility, which might be useful to decide if
> someone need some medical treatment, or need to be just isolated (for the
> protection of the neighborhood), or need some punishment (?). The frontier
> is fuzzy, but there are clear in and out case, a bit like the mandelbrot
> set).
>
> Eventually it relies on the difference between the error and the lie. The
> first should be encouraged, because it needs to be done to progress, the
> second should be discouraged in most situations, I think.
>
> We have partial control.<
>
OK and thanks - JohnM


>
> >Bruno<
>
>
>
>
>  On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/5/613.abstract
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>        The feeling of being in control of one’s own actions is a
>> strong subjective experience. However, discoveries in psychology and
>> neuroscience challenge the validity of this experience and suggest
>> that free will is just an illusion. This raises a question: What would
>> happen if people started to disbelieve in free will? Previous research
>> has shown that low control beliefs affect performance and motivation.
>> Recently, it has been shown that undermining free-will beliefs
>> influences social behavior. In the study reported here, we
>> investigated whether undermining beliefs in free will affects brain
>> correlates of voluntary motor preparation. Our results showed that the
>> readiness potential was reduced in individuals induced to disbelieve
>> in free will. This effect was evident more than 1 s before
>> participants consciously decided to move, a finding that suggests that
>> the manipulation influenced intentional actions at preconscious
>> stages. Our findings indicate that abstract belief systems might have
>> a much more fundamental effect than previously thought.
>>
>>
>> Has anyone posted this yet? Hard to explain what brain correlates are
>> doing responding to an illusion...
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to