Stephen,
just a brief remark to the discussion:

if the 'agent' has complete info (it never occurs) it naturally coerces its
decision (*will, choice*). We call *good-bad* according to OUR incomplete
thinking. Same goes for the *"rational - irrational"* pair.
We can NEVER have complete information - we are restricted in our mental
capabilities from exploiting the total infinite complexity.
All is condensed into: (as *R RAM wrote:*
*With incomplete information, a rational being will make the best choice
under the available information and would beat an irrational being most of
the time )*
(ambient lingo wording).

My position stands: there is NO free will, only ALMOST(!)
and maybe considered 'some freedom carrying' will, (just as I did deny
'random' and got an 'almost': "under certain (given) circumstances").
The term YOUR FREE WILL arose from the faith-based authoritarian
requirement to raise responsibility - hence a guilt feeling for a
make-believe punishment (in eternity!).

John M

**




On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:

> Dear Russell,
>
>     In our definition of the concept of "free will", it seems that we need
> to elaborate a bit on the notions of coercion, autonomy and choice. From
> what I have studied, the concept of a player used in game theory works
> well. Free will is the ability for an autonomous agent to make uncoercered
> choices from a set of simultaneously inspectable choices.
>
>
> On 7/30/2012 7:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:08:29AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/30/2012 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Free-will is an informal term use in many informal setting.
>>>> religious people defined it often by the ability to choose
>>>> consciously between doing bad things or not, and people from the
>>>> law can invoke it as a general precondition for making sense of
>>>> the responsibility idea. In cognitive science we can at least
>>>> approximate it in different ways, and basically, with
>>>> computationalism it is the ability to make choice in absence of
>>>> complete information, and knowledge of that incomplete feature.
>>>>
>>> I'm not clear on why you emphasize incomplete information?  What
>>> would constitute complete information? and why how would that
>>> obviate 'free will'.  Is it coercive?
>>>
>>> With complete information, a totally rational being makes optimal
>> choices, and has no free will, but always beats an irrational being.
>>
>> Conversely, with incomplete information, a rational being will make a
>> wrong choice, or simply fail to make a choice at all, and so is
>> usually beaten by an irrational being.
>>
>> This is where the idea that free will is the capability to act
>> irrationally (or as I put it "do something stupid") comes from. There
>> are definite evolutionary advantages to acting irrationally some of
>> the time (though not all the time :).
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
> ~ Francis Bacon
>
>
> --
> 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<everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com <everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en<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