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 firstname.lastname@example.org. >> 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 email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org. > 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 email@example.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.