On 8/13/2022 4:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
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".
Daniel Dennett says it is making choices based on who you are: your
education, experience, genetics, perspective,... And that's all the
"free will" worth having.
Brent
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
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3tjgdgN5tmHsZxmsVHNctt1rneKMhtGUF-q53Lqu0cTg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/c8a76f6d-253d-96aa-022f-0f9524d61b43%40gmail.com.
