Le 24-juil.-12, à 18:10, John Clark a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> You just evade the definition of free will that I gave to you,
You're going to need to be a lot more specific than that. I'd need to
use scientific notation to count the number of definitions of the
"free will" noise I've heard over the last few months, but every
single one of them turns out to be just translations and paraphrasing
of the original gibberish.
I gave one. You need only to look at it. It is a compatibilist one, and
actually it is the same as the usual "gibberish" exc ept that I
substitute the absolute indeterminacy with the relative one.
> And I don't give a damn if its "compatibilist" or
"incompatibilist" (whatever the hell that means),
> Those are the standard terms used in the literature.
And the "literature" has all the intellectual depth of a child's
finger painting. The word "compatibilist" means everything happens for
a reason and "incompatibilist" means some things do not, and the "free
will" noise makes no sense under either worldview, no sense
Compatibilist don't oppose reason and (free) will.
> Everything happens for a reason.
And you call me religious?! There is no law of logic that demands that
must be true, and there is considerable experimental evidence that
seems to indicates it probably is not; so for you to state the above
without qualification is nothing but a act of religious devotion.
Yes. Although it is debatable if 0 ≠ s(0) happens for a reason or not.
> Again, I have to insist that I defend a notion of compatibilist free
will. The fact that someone can determine in advance what I will do
does NOT entails that I am not doing it with my own (free) will,
You did X because you wanted to, but you're a compatibilist so you
must believe that something caused you to want it and that something
were different you would not want it. Fine, that might even be true
(although it probably is not) but then what's the point of the "free
You betray that you give sense only to the definition you call
gibberish. I take thing like consciousness and free will as first
person data that we have to explain, and relate to third person
describable hypotheses, not as term introduced to explain something
You say you don't insist on the "free" in "free will" but I don't
quite believe it, if you just said "will" we wouldn't be having this
debate, but you still use it.
I don't see how you can accept will and not free-will.
As I've said many times I have absolutely no problem with the word
"will" because it's perfectly clear that we want some things and don't
want others, but from context I know that "free will" is supposed to
mean something more than that but I'll be damned if I know what.
I agree with you on this (we are really in a pure vocabulary
discussion, as often).
All I'm saying is that our will is in the state it is in for a reason
or it is not, and to claim otherwise is idiotic.
So we have the same religious devotion.
> This is called reductionist thinking
Reductionist thinking is the practical idea that we don't have to
understand everything to understand something, and without it there
would be no hope of knowing even approximately how the world works. If
we had to know everything to know anything we would live in perpetual
That's methodological reductionism, not ontological, nor
epistemological, so you don't answer.
>> Obviously we don't know what the result of a calculation will be
until we finish the calculation,
>Certainly not "for all" computations, of course.
WHAT?! If you already know what the result of a calculation is what's
the point of doing the calculation?
> From this and Good's definition, we (Me, Pooper) can show that
free will and thus consciousness
Apparently both you and Pooper think the relationship between the
"free will" noise and consciousness is obvious, but for me it is about
as far from obvious as you can get.
Free will necessitate consciousness or awareness (of our local
> has an important role: the role of speeding up the computation in
If we're willing to forgo a little certainty computation in the
environment can be sped up considerably by making use of things like
probability and rules of thumb; in the real world we don't just use if
X and Y then Z, we also use if X and Y then probably Z. And induction
is at least as important as deduction maybe more so because, although
nobody knows why, it is a fact that in the real world things usually
Comp explains this, or at least makes that problem into a math problem.
> In some paper Good will even (re)define free will
You mean he even redefines the "free will" noise so that it actually
means something? That I'd like to see.
Search I.J. Good and free will on Google, or look at the reference of
"Conscience et Mécanisme".
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
For more options, visit this group at