On 7/13/2012 11:14 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.07.2012 19:52 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/13/2012 10:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.07.2012 22:08 meekerdb said the following:


In Dennett's conception 'free will' is just a marker for
responsibility; hence his aphorism, "You can avoid responsibility
for everything if you just make yourself small enough." So where
one person might say, "Yes, it was me. I did it." another might
say, "I didn't do it of my own free will. I was coerced by
threats of being fired." and yet another might say, "I didn't do
it. It was just the result of deterministic or random physical
processes in my brain and body."

The question then would be what determines what a person say.

You mistake the point. Dennet's aphorism is a reductio ad absurdum -
 illustrating how ridiculous is is try to avoid responsibility by
blaming physical processes.

Does unpredictability that you have mentioned in another message
will help in this respect? If yes, how?

If you're asking whether unpredictability eliminates responsibility,
the answer is no.

My question would be not about responsibility, I am not that far. Let us take a chess game (the example from John). We have two people playing chess and then for example the M-theory.

How would you characterize the relationship between the M-theory and players.

I would characterize them as being at separate levels of description.

In what sense it is possible to say that the players play their own game?

In the sense that there are no significant outside sources influencing the players (like a grandmaster whispering in their ear).

How unpredictability would help here?

I don't understand "help".  Are you striving to reach some conclusion you have 
not revealed?

You have mentioned the chaos theory when you have written about predictability. Frankly speaking I do not understand the point, the chaos theory claims. If I understand correctly, it basically says that the uncertainty in the initial condition brings unpredictability. Yet, I do not understand where the uncertainty in initial conditions come from. If we discuss things in principle, then we should consider the case when the initial conditions are known exactly.

But that's the point. In chaos theory things are only predictable if initial conditions (and the evolutionary calculations) are carried to infinite precision - which is impossible. You want to consider a case where we start with infinite information to predict an outcome which is defined only by finite information?



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to