On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
*> Identical physical states in a deterministic world would evolve > identically, as would any supervening mental states.* Yes. > *However, a supervenient relationship is such that multiple different > physical states can give rise to the same mental state.* True, and in that situation things would not be reversible; a cellular automation like Conway's LIFE is not reversible and for the same reason. Something can be 100% deterministic in the forward time dimension but not in the backward time dimension, but so far at least nobody has any experimental evidence that fundamental physics has that property, fundamental physics can't explain why you can't unscramble an egg, you need more than the laws of physics to explain that you need to invoke initial conditions. That situation could change if some of Stephen Wolfram's ideas turn out to be correct, but so far there is no evidence that they are. > *The different physical states may then evolve differently giving > different subsequent mental states. Subjectively, this would mean that your > next mental state is undetermined. * You never know for sure what you're going to do next until you actually do it because sometimes you change your mind at the last second, but there is nothing profound or mystical in that, a two dollar calculator doesn't know what it's gonna put up on its screen when you type in 2+2 until it has finish the calculation. *> This idea has been used by the philosopher Christian List to propose a > mechanism for libertarian free will in a determined world. I don’t think > that works because indeterminacy is not a good basis for free will (the > main problem with libertarian free will), but it is an interesting idea > nonetheless.* I've never heard of him but if he's like most philosophers he will have gone on and on about why we have free will without once asking himself what the term "free will" is even supposed to mean; I've never heard a philosopher give a definition of it that wasn't either circular or just pure gibberish. I feel it might be helpful if before philosophers start talking about whether human beings have a certain property they first make clear what that property is, and only after that would it be appropriate to discuss if humans happen to have that property or not. I don't demand that the definition be perfect but I don't think it's too much to ask that they give me at least a general idea of approximately what the hell they're talking about when they say "free will". John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> fws > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3tjgdgN5tmHsZxmsVHNctt1rneKMhtGUF-q53Lqu0cTg%40mail.gmail.com.
