I know there is a ghost in the Cartesian machine because I am he. But you knew that.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 6:31 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Russ, > > > > I think he is saying the former. And I think you and I agree that it > follows from what he is saying that there is no ghost in the cartesian > machine. I predict he will assert that he is agnostic on that point. > Let’s see. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Russ Abbott > *Sent:* Thursday, June 18, 2020 6:26 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism > for free will > > > > So you are defining a mechanism that by definition is mechanistic (perhaps > with some randomness sprinkled over it) and then saying that it may look to > some people like it seems to have free will? If that's what you're doing, > what are you claiming that demonstrates? If that's not what you're doing, > I'm afraid I still don't understand. > > > > -- Russ Abbott > Professor, Computer Science > California State University, Los Angeles > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 2:44 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Exactly! That's the point of the exercise. Marcus and Jon have pointed out > that discussions of free will get bogged down in all sorts of meandering > extra stuff. This is an attempt to have a discussion about it that doesn't > go that way. The objective is to build a machine that might *look* as if it > has free will. > > The system does not *decide* to produce A or B, it simply produces A or B. > The individual branch point (and the path taken) is *not* what I'm mapping > to free will. (Yes, I've already been WRONGLY accused of redefining the > term.) I'm saying that the aggregate phenomenon we mean when we say "free > will" *might* be generated/simulated by this mechanism. I'm not mapping > free will to one small part of the mechanism. I'm mapping it to the *whole* > mechanism, multiple processes, including individual branch points, the > composer, the memory, etc. > > To answer specifically, a process can take branch A or B purely > deterministically (with a rule like "always take path A"), pseudo-randomly > (where it will always take branch A if the seed is the same), or actual > randomly. Those are all options we can play with. But I'm not proposing any > of those (by themselves) map to what we call free will. The whole mechanism > is what I'm trying to map to free will, to simulate free will with. > > On 6/18/20 2:29 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: > > Variables taking on values isn't something I normally associate with > discussions of free will. > > > > Although since you mentioned it, how does the system decide whether to > process A or B? Isn't that what you want to explain? > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
