On 07 Mar 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:53:13PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Mar 2013, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2013 4:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Mar 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
Some randomness can be useful, if only to solve the problem of
Buridan's ass.
I see what you mean, but some could argue that when you use a random
device (like a coin) to make a decision, you abandon free will.
Indeed you let a coin decide for you, when free will meant more that
you are the one making the free decision.
That hinges on the self-other distinction. A random coin toss is not
considered free will, as you are subsuming your will to an external
agent (the coin). But when you make a decision due to a random firing
of a neuron (random because the synaptic junctions are
thermodynamically noisy), then that is _you_ making the decision, it
is _your_ free will.
I don't see what difference would this make. especially that for such
kind of choice a pseudo-random number can be used.
But effective randomness is easy to come in the complex
environment of life.
On the contrary, deterministic free will make sense, because
free will comes from a lack of self-determinacy, implying
hesitation in front of different path, and self-indeterminacy
follows logically from determinism and self-reference.
First person indeterminacy can be used easily to convince
oneself that indeterminacy cannot help for free will. Iterating
a self-duplication can't provide free-will.
Why? That particular thought experiment proves that indeterminancy is
a fundamental feature of subjective life. Why shouldn't that be the
source of the indeterminism for solving Buridan ass type problems?
In the case of the Buridan problem, both choice will be done. How
could anyone account for freeness in that case?
It can be helpful to accelerate the decision, but not in making
someone free.
Usually free will is vindicated when we are really self-determined.
As Dennett says deterministic free will is the only free will
worth having.
I agree with him on that. My pint above illustrate that. Random
choice are not really "free" choice.
Whereas, I don't really know what "deterministic free will" even
means. Probably a definitional thing.
It is the awareness of eventualities, often with partial informations,
and the conscious choice of deciding, in such case, according to the
will.
Why would anyone want to make decisions that were not determined
by their learning and memories and values.
Of course, but that has nothing to do with free will :) Free will is
the ability to do something stupid, the ability to make decisions that
are not determined learning, memories and values
I have no problem with that. Stupid is not random.
Bruno
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
