The magic lies in the interoception, measuring one's self. Surely you'll admit that a recursive function is different, even if only slightly, from a non-recursive function. And if you allow that difference, then you might allow that mixed-[co]domain functions are different from single-[co]domain functions ... maybe we could call them "hyperfunctions" to follow along with EricS' recent use of hypergraphs?
While I can't claim to be able to identify exactly a class of hyperfunctions that constitute a subjective feeling of agency (or an objective coherence that warrants legal/social *blame*), I think that's where the magic lies. I suppose it's akin to (Edelman &) Tononi's IIT ... where some collections of functions are more interoceptive and mutally intertwined than others. A self-driving Tesla might be more likely to have free will than a CD player. On 4/2/21 10:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > More functions. Keep turning over the rocks and tell me when you find magic. > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp > *Sent:* Friday, April 2, 2021 10:37 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic > > > > Evolution gave us our utility function. Natural selection gave it to us -- ↙↙↙ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
