Le 27-juil.-12, à 17:02, John Clark a écrit :

On Fri, Jul 27, 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,

Yet again you talk about this marvelous strictly logical definition of Free Will that you had provided at some unspecified time in the past! The last time you made reference to this mythical definition (July 19) I said this:   

" The following is not deep but it is true: You are aware that sometimes you are not aware of the cause of your action and you are also aware that you don't know what the result of a calculation is until you have finished the calculation. Is this pap the marvelous new definition of the free will noise that you claimed you had yesterday, the one you said that "many of us have given new precise, and compatibilist, definition of" ?"

And you responded to my comment (on July 21) by admitting:

"It is close. It has been defended by Popper, I.J. Good and some others, and it suits well mechanism."

So until you have something new and much much much better stop saying I'm ignoring your marvelous new definition of the "Free Will" noise. 

Well, if that is not new, it is a reason more to admit the context makes sense. You goal does not seem in discussing ideas, but in mocking people. The onoly question is in solving problem. To say "free will" is noise just hides problems. You really talk like a pseudo-priest having answers to all questions.

 > and actually it is the same as the usual "gibberish"


> exc ept that I substitute the absolute indeterminacy with the relative one.
So it's random.

It is not random at all in the third person perspective. It is relatively random in the first person perspective, like the first person indeterminacy, but for quite different reason.

 > Compatibilist don't oppose reason

I don't know if I'm a "Compatibilist" but I certainly don't oppose reason.

 > and (free) will.

Other than issues concerning noise pollution I don't oppose people making sounds with their mouth either.

 > it is debatable if 0 ≠ s(0) happens for a reason or not.

It is NOT debatable that  0 ≠ s(0) happens for a reason OR 0 ≠ s(0) happens for NO reason! If it is not gibberish (and it is not) then one of those two things is true even if we don't know which one.

> I take thing like consciousness and free will as first person data that we have to explain,

Consciousness is first person data but it may not have a explanation that would satisfy you;

But it has.

it could be a fundamental primitive,

Not with computationalism. But perhaps in a theory you might propose.

and after saying consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed there may not be anything more to say on the subject.

This betrays you ignorance and lack of interest of the mind-body problem.

As to "free will" I have no opinion, first you're going to have to explain what those ASCII characters mean.

You just recall my definition, and you accept it makes sense. Like with the 1-indeterminacy, you keep acting irrationally.

> I don't see how you can accept will and not free-will.

I accept "will" because I know for a fact

You seem to know a lo of things ....

that somethings I want to do and other things I do not. I neither accept nor reject "free will" because I don't know what those ASCII characters mean and despite your protests to the contrary it's now pretty clear to me that you don't either.

The ability to act in the state of being aware lacking complete information. The awareness of the spectrum of possibilities and the ability to decide despite incomplete information.

  >> 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.

So let's see, you think that the belief " if X is not gibberish then either X is true or ~X is true" is religious

Sure. Cantor continuum is not gibberish, but I don't see why this wopuld imply that we can use the excluded middle on such hard set theoretical proposition. In my work I allow only the excluded middle principle on sigma_1 arithmetical proposition. Set theoretical platonism is way stronger than arithmetical realism.

and you also think the belief  " The integer 1 is not equal to zero" is religious.

I don't see why.
1 ≠ 0 is not religious.
You are perhaps confusing "I will never prove that 1≠ 0", which needs faith and is religious, with "1≠0", which is a simple theorem in the usual little Robinson theory.

As I've said before for something to be meaningful you need contrast, so please provide me with an example of something that is NOT religious.

0 ≠ 1.



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