On 12 Oct 2012, at 22:36, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Keep in mind that I use the compatibilist definition of free will,
which is the (machine) ability to exploits its self-indetermination
(with indetermination in the Turing sense, (not in the comp first
person sense, nor the quantum one). It is basically the ability to
do conscious choice.
I can't keep it in mind because the above sounds very much like
What exactly sounds like gibberish?
> Intelligence implies free will, and free will implies consciousness.
And even if it wasn't gibberish it would be circular because your
"definition" of free will involves consciousness.
I did gave the semi-axiomatic: consciousness is something which we
know to be true yet cannot prove or justify, and define, and which is
invariant for a digital transformation à -la "yes doctor". I refer you
to explanation already given or to the papers.
You did not quote the whole paragraph which contained that definition.
You seem to believe in an mind/brain identity thesis which has been
shown incompatible with the thesis that the brain is Turing emulable.
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