Russ wrote: < A probabilistic version of LaPlacian causality may be more or less correct, but the number of levels at which one has to apply it in any complex situation makes it virtually impossible to use. An approximate approach like Glen suggests may be the best we can do--at least for now. >
Use for what? Understanding what it might mean to be alive or designing a system for regulating the behavior of each other? Or predicting behavior? Or what? The impulse that I object to is inventing an unrealistic fantasy like free will just for the sake of reducing cognitive dissonance. I can’t be necessary to adopt what amounts to a religion in order to function with one another. Marcus
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/
