Re: free will and mathematics
On 19 Jun 2012, at 19:02, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Jun 2012, at 10:44, R AM wrote: I know that you and Bruno are compatibilists. I'm not attacking your notion of free will. I agree that free will is a social construct. I'm going even further: free will doesn't even deserve a name. Deep down, free will is not something people have, but just a social definition of under what conditions or situations we will be considered responsible (and punishable). You can do that. But would *that* not be a reductionist view of reality? No, because I'm just exposing a false belief. You are saying that free-will does not exist because it is a higher level description of complex aggregations of simple processes. Not really, all I'm saying is that belief in free will is like belief in flat earth: false. And this is not based on physical reality being deterministic or random but on subjective experience: - Introspection shows that most of our thoughts and decisions are unconscious (try not to think on anything for 30 minutes and see what happens) - The idea of I could have done otherwise is silly. If you try to imagine yourself in exactly the same conscious situation, you will have to conclude that you would not have done otherwise (at least, not consciously). Otherwise, you would already have done it. Dan Dennett says most of these things much better than I could, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E I don't understand. You are using a false premise. We just cannot imagine ourself in exactly the same conscious situation, nor is free will based on the idea that I could have done otherwise. That would be nc-free-will, which is nonsense. But c-free-will remains sensical and a useful high level notion. If not you are on the slope of eliminativism, of free will, person if not consciousness. Dennett is on that slope, because he ignores that the physical reality is also a high level construct, and if we follow the eliminativism of high level notions, we can eliminate everything but the numbers. It would be like saying that energy does not exist. Such eliminativism seems to me a deny of facts to save at all price the aristotelian theology, which is refuted in the computationalist theories no matter what. c-free-will is not a social convention. It is real. It is based on a real intrinsic ignorance when the machine look at herself, and which can make it hesitating with respect to conscious decisions. It is a real epistemological construct, having a role in our life and in the evolution of life, even if entirely deterministic. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Jun 2012, at 10:44, R AM wrote: I know that you and Bruno are compatibilists. I'm not attacking your notion of free will. I agree that free will is a social construct. I'm going even further: free will doesn't even deserve a name. Deep down, free will is not something people have, but just a social definition of under what conditions or situations we will be considered responsible (and punishable). You can do that. But would *that* not be a reductionist view of reality? No, because I'm just exposing a false belief. You are saying that free-will does not exist because it is a higher level description of complex aggregations of simple processes. Not really, all I'm saying is that belief in free will is like belief in flat earth: false. And this is not based on physical reality being deterministic or random but on subjective experience: - Introspection shows that most of our thoughts and decisions are unconscious (try not to think on anything for 30 minutes and see what happens) - The idea of I could have done otherwise is silly. If you try to imagine yourself in exactly the same conscious situation, you will have to conclude that you would not have done otherwise (at least, not consciously). Otherwise, you would already have done it. Dan Dennett says most of these things much better than I could, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 12 Jun 2012, at 21:21, R AM wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: No. But the gangster does not know this determination. So although at that level he could not do otherwise, from his perspective, it still can make genuine sense that he could have done otherwise, from our embedded pov perspective. Only for God, it does not make sense, but locally we are not God. More specifically. You are in a situation where you crave for spaghetti, you haven't had spaghetti in the last month, you know spaghetti is good for er ... whatever. You therefore make the decision to eat spaghetti. Now, you are put again in exactly the same situation and ... do you really think you could choose strawberries instead? would you choose strawberries? If I am craving spaghetti I could not do otherwise. Well, parents routinely punish their children for eating too much candy. Why do they do that, if their children could not do otherwise? But then I would not have said it. The situation is when I remember having hesitate, and the day after, despite the determination, I can think that I could have done otherwise, because I cannot be aware of the complete determination. And, indeed, after that hesitation, I might well have taken the strawberry. Yes, but for the sake of the argument, I wanted you to consider the case where you are pretty certain about eating spaghetti. Defenders of free will would say that free will is active whenever you make a decision, hesitating or not hesitating. What do you mean by free will? Determinism is just not incompatible with genuine free will or will, for the will is not playing at the same level than the determination. If they were on the same level, you could trivially justify all your act by I am just obeying the physical laws, which is just false, because you are an abstract person, not a body. I am not really talking about physical determination. But in any case, I think the justification is correct. This is not important, though, because we do not actually punish people because they could have done otherwise. We punish people so that they will not repeat their bad behaviour in the future (among other reasons). He will convince nobody because we all believe that he (and all of us) could have done otherwise. And we all believe that because, for some reason, we believe it is unfair to punish someone if he cannot do otherwise. What I'm saying is that belief in free-will is just a justification for punishing people. OK. And rightly so, unless unfair trial of course. What i'm saying is that we believe in free will (although it is a false belief) so that we can punish people without feeling guilty. Usually, the opposite is claimed: we punish people because they have free will (but I'm claiming that's wrong). We can punish them with the hope that they can learn to do otherwise. Actually this is not proved, and some argue that going in jail can augment the probability of recurrence of certain type of crime. But that's not relevant. So OK. I agree, but if that's the case, we should change the punishment. Sure. But there is a difference between different level of responsibility. Not all criminal are only sick people. He learned to do otherwise. Agreed. But that's what I'm saying. Making people responsible has nothing to do with their free will, but with reinforcement and learning. Belief in free will is just a excuse to discipline people. We have to agree on a definition of free will first. I defend the compatibilist notion, and free will is just what makes responsibility sensical. I can identify it with will, responsibility, etc. I agree that a lot of definition of free will makes it non sensical. Let's suppose that a person forgets everything every morning. Would it make any sense to punish someone like that, because he just could have done otherwise? Someone like that must go to an hospital, be cured, and then can be judged responsible or not. It can depend on many factors. There are no general rules, nor any scientific criteria for judging with any certainty the responsibility. Agreed. However, If we punish people because they have free will (i.e. they could have done otherwise), then this person should also be punished. Again and again. It's not his free will that is failing, it's his memory. However, it makes no sense to punish such a person, because having no memory, the punishment will not change his future behavior. OK. But exactly the same subjective experience is ambiguous. Our doing depends also on unconscious processing, of the luminosity of the sky, of possible subliminal messages from peers, of hormone concentration, and all those factors might be unknown. But that's basically randomness! you cannot be sent to Hell because of the luminosity of the sky! I
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:08 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2012 1:06 PM, R AM wrote: Isn't that randomness? No, it's unpredictablity - something we may fruitfully model by a mathematical theory of randomness even though the dynamics are perfectly deterministic, when we don't know enough to use the dynamics to predict results. Except in quantum mechanics, where events may be inherently random, 'randomness' is just modeling uncertainty due to ignorance and so it is relative to what is known. OK, then it is random from the point of view of consciousness. Agreed, but then the reason is unconscious. To me, that's not free will. That's a problem with 'free will'. Some people, like Sam Harris, insist that it means the same thing it did in the middle ages, a supernatural ability to do the nomologically impossible by conscious thought. Some people, like Daniel Dennett, look at how the concept functions in society and redefine it so it doesn't require the supernatural but has the same extension in social and legal discourse. It's not only the Middle Ages. Most people believe that free will is supernatural or metaphisical (without using those words). OK, but I think a defender of free will would say that you could have also kissed that person instead of attacking him. But would he be wrong? Yes, he would be wrong. But many people believe that he could have not attacked that person. That's what free will feels like. But you know that's not the case. You have a certain character, a certain consistency of behavior so that your friends can trust you NOT to do anything at random. And having this consistency is essentially part of defining you and defining who it is who has compatibilist free will. The fact that almost all this character is subconscious is irrelevant to the social meaning of 'free will'. Yes, but then he could say, it's not my fault, my violent character made me attack that person. And the judge would say but you could have done otherwise, which is false. The judge should say instead: you will be punished anyway, so that next time your piriorities will change or you will be punished so that others know that this behavior is punishable. However, most people believe that it is unfair to punish someone if he couldn't have done otherwise (in some metaphysical sense). That is why this folk-psychology metaphysical meaning of free will is believed by all members of society, and transmited from parents to offspring. But it is a false belief. I know that you and Bruno are compatibilists. I'm not attacking your notion of free will. I agree that free will is a social construct. I'm going even further: free will doesn't even deserve a name. Deep down, free will is not something people have, but just a social definition of under what conditions or situations we will be considered responsible (and punishable). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Yes, but for the sake of the argument, I wanted you to consider the case where you are pretty certain about eating spaghetti. Defenders of free will would say that free will is active whenever you make a decision, hesitating or not hesitating. What do you mean by free will? The metaphysical kind of free will. The idea that a person can decide anything whatsoever, uncaused. We can punish them with the hope that they can learn to do otherwise. Yes. In fact, if there is no such hope at all, it doesn't make any sense punishing people. Some would say that there is still revenge. But revenge is just ano emotion for changing other people ways. We have to agree on a definition of free will first. I defend the compatibilist notion, and free will is just what makes responsibility sensical. I can identify it with will, responsibility, etc. I agree that a lot of definition of free will makes it non sensical. I'm not really attacking your views but folk-psychology ideas of free will. Someone like that must go to an hospital, be cured, and then can be judged responsible or not. It can depend on many factors. There are no general rules, nor any scientific criteria for judging with any certainty the responsibility. Agreed. However, If we punish people because they have free will (i.e. they could have done otherwise), then this person should also be punished. Again and again. It's not his free will that is failing, it's his memory. However, it makes no sense to punish such a person, because having no memory, the punishment will not change his future behavior. OK. Then, that's all I wanted to say. We punish people to change their ways, not because they posess free will (in whatever form). we have to conclude that we are random and inconsistent. Hardly the conclusion free will defenders would like to have. Sure. Free will is self-determination in presence of incomplete information, notably. That's fine. However, I don't think the idea of free will needs to be rescued, not even in its compatibilist form. People make decisions, that's all. Some of those decisions are not socially acceptable and have to be changed for the future. Punishing people is a way of achieving that (maybe not the only one, maybe not even the best one). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 13 Jun 2012, at 10:44, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:08 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2012 1:06 PM, R AM wrote: Isn't that randomness? No, it's unpredictablity - something we may fruitfully model by a mathematical theory of randomness even though the dynamics are perfectly deterministic, when we don't know enough to use the dynamics to predict results. Except in quantum mechanics, where events may be inherently random, 'randomness' is just modeling uncertainty due to ignorance and so it is relative to what is known. OK, then it is random from the point of view of consciousness. Agreed, but then the reason is unconscious. To me, that's not free will. That's a problem with 'free will'. Some people, like Sam Harris, insist that it means the same thing it did in the middle ages, a supernatural ability to do the nomologically impossible by conscious thought. Some people, like Daniel Dennett, look at how the concept functions in society and redefine it so it doesn't require the supernatural but has the same extension in social and legal discourse. It's not only the Middle Ages. Most people believe that free will is supernatural or metaphisical (without using those words). OK, but I think a defender of free will would say that you could have also kissed that person instead of attacking him. But would he be wrong? Yes, he would be wrong. But many people believe that he could have not attacked that person. That's what free will feels like. But you know that's not the case. You have a certain character, a certain consistency of behavior so that your friends can trust you NOT to do anything at random. And having this consistency is essentially part of defining you and defining who it is who has compatibilist free will. The fact that almost all this character is subconscious is irrelevant to the social meaning of 'free will'. Yes, but then he could say, it's not my fault, my violent character made me attack that person. And the judge would say but you could have done otherwise, which is false. The judge should say instead: you will be punished anyway, so that next time your piriorities will change or you will be punished so that others know that this behavior is punishable. However, most people believe that it is unfair to punish someone if he couldn't have done otherwise (in some metaphysical sense). That is why this folk-psychology metaphysical meaning of free will is believed by all members of society, and transmited from parents to offspring. But it is a false belief. I know that you and Bruno are compatibilists. I'm not attacking your notion of free will. I agree that free will is a social construct. I'm going even further: free will doesn't even deserve a name. Deep down, free will is not something people have, but just a social definition of under what conditions or situations we will be considered responsible (and punishable). You can do that. But would *that* not be a reductionist view of reality? You are saying that free-will does not exist because it is a higher level description of complex aggregations of simple processes. OK, but then with comp, even the physical laws are no more real, as they become first person limiting views of infinity of computations/ arithmetical relations. Only natural numbers with they additive and multiplicative structure would be real, with comp. Better not to lessen the reality of the higher levels. In comp the higher level from inside are as much real than the outside, and obeys laws, just of a different type (mathematical). Life and consciousness operates in that higher level sphere. The simple process below is usually not directly relevant, except for the arithmetical bugs of course, and other arithmetical loops. And with comp it is just an extrapolation, and below our substitution level, it is an infinite sum (as QM seems to confirm). I believe more in person and will than in *primitive* bosons and fermions, the day I wake up in the comp mood. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 13 Jun 2012, at 15:14, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Yes, but for the sake of the argument, I wanted you to consider the case where you are pretty certain about eating spaghetti. Defenders of free will would say that free will is active whenever you make a decision, hesitating or not hesitating. What do you mean by free will? The metaphysical kind of free will. The idea that a person can decide anything whatsoever, uncaused. OK. But as far as I think comp is plausible, I think the notion of cause is an higher level notion. If I was a strict computationalist, I would just ask you to provide an arithmetical definition of cause, or perhaps to ask you to tell me which one you are using among (with [] representing Gödel's provability predicate), and = ~[]~ (~ = not). [](p - q) [](p-q) []([]p - []q) This provides notion of causality for different angle of viewing arithmetic from inside. In a sense, there is a notion of causality for each notion of person view. We can punish them with the hope that they can learn to do otherwise. Yes. In fact, if there is no such hope at all, it doesn't make any sense punishing people. Some would say that there is still revenge. But revenge is just ano emotion for changing other people ways. Revenge is bad but justice is good. Emotion can be wonderful too like in deep drama and music, contemplation is the best :) We have to agree on a definition of free will first. I defend the compatibilist notion, and free will is just what makes responsibility sensical. I can identify it with will, responsibility, etc. I agree that a lot of definition of free will makes it non sensical. I'm not really attacking your views but folk-psychology ideas of free will. Yeah I think we agree on this. Someone like that must go to an hospital, be cured, and then can be judged responsible or not. It can depend on many factors. There are no general rules, nor any scientific criteria for judging with any certainty the responsibility. Agreed. However, If we punish people because they have free will (i.e. they could have done otherwise), then this person should also be punished. Again and again. It's not his free will that is failing, it's his memory. However, it makes no sense to punish such a person, because having no memory, the punishment will not change his future behavior. OK. Then, that's all I wanted to say. We punish people to change their ways, not because they posess free will (in whatever form). we have to conclude that we are random and inconsistent. Hardly the conclusion free will defenders would like to have. Sure. Free will is self-determination in presence of incomplete information, notably. That's fine. However, I don't think the idea of free will needs to be rescued, not even in its compatibilist form. People make decisions, that's all. Yes, but with artificial intelligence you will have to judge if the responsibility of hundred of death in a hospital is due to a human decision or to a machine decision. That is not for tomorrow, but might be for after tomorrow. Some of those decisions are not socially acceptable and have to be changed for the future. Punishing people is a way of achieving that (maybe not the only one, maybe not even the best one). Anyone accomplices of repeating the lies on cannabis should be condemned to smoke a joint (without tobacco) every day for some period (depending on the responsibility). The punishment must be adapted, and should be profitable for the most parties concerned, and although nobody can judge-for-sure, anyone deserve an amount of respect. There is no category of people for which the human right should not apply, by definition of human rights. Serial killers, genociders, terrorists, murderers, stealers, all deserve a fair trial and the possible jail or asylum question. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2012 8:45 AM, R AM wrote: But what I'm saying here is not ontological determinism but in fact, about the subjective experience. I'm defending that we cannot imagine ourselves in exactly the same subjective situation and still think that we could have done otherwise. I can certainly imagine that. But I wonder if your use of subjective situation is ambiguous. Do you mean exactly the same state, including memory, conscious and unconscious thoughts..., or do you just mean satisfying the same subjective description? I would say exactly the same conscious state. If we are put again in the same conscious state, I don't think that we can consistently imagine ourselves doing otherwise. If at subjective situation t we decided x, why would we decide otherwise if *exactly* the same subjective situation was again the case? Of course, unconscious processes might make the difference (in fact, they do), but this is no help for a defender of free will, because he cannot maintain that decisions have, at bottom, an unconscious origin. Brent Or something equivalent, if we were put again in exactly the same subjective situation, would we do otherwise? I don't think so, but If yes, why? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:18 AM, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: I'm assuming you mean by exactly the same situation, every atom in it's exact same physical state. Not really. I mean the same conscious or subjective situation. From the free will point of view, decisions are conscious and can only be based on what is available to consciousness at the moment of decision. Defenders of free will are commited to say that, no matter how long and deep we ponder a question before making a decision, if we were put again in exactly the same subjective situation (after all the pondering, etc) we could still do otherwise. Now the question that came up, is this person not responsible for his/her actions if only at the mercy of the physical laws of the universe (no free will). The answers I've been hearing that suggest she/he may not be responsible miss the point. The measure of wrongness was defined by society. I agree. People is not responsible in some ontological way. But society considers us responsible (i.e. punishable). And we take that into account. The important fact is not whether we have free will or not, but to know that we are considered responsible. It's interesting to notice that discussions about free will almost always go hand in hand with discussions about responsability and punishment. If history and experience yields a member of society that does a horrendous wrong, he/she is a defect of society and needs to be removed, rehabilitated, or whatever society dictates. Here's where I don't agree with aquitting someone due to mental defect. If the defect is there, the result is the same. Fix it if it's fixable or if it's not fixable remove them from society. I agree, but we have to be careful here, lest we consider people to be machines (something that has to be fixed or removed, like in the Clockwork Orange movie). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 11 Jun 2012, at 17:45, R AM wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: OK, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that you ate spaghetti because that's what you liked at that moment. Do you think you could have done otherwise? Now, let's suppose a gangster decides to rob a bank after considering all his options. Later he might be judged and told that he could have done otherwise? Could he really have done otherwise? At the level of the arithmetical laws, or physical laws, the answer is no. But we don't live at that level, so at the level of its first person impression the answer is yes. OK. So that means that if you (or the ganster) were put again in exactly the same subjective situation (same beliefs, likings, emotions, intentions, memories, same everything) you could do otherwise? No. But the gangster does not know this determination. So although at that level he could not do otherwise, from his perspective, it still can make genuine sense that he could have done otherwise, from our embedded pov perspective. Only for God, it does not make sense, but locally we are not God. More specifically. You are in a situation where you crave for spaghetti, you haven't had spaghetti in the last month, you know spaghetti is good for er ... whatever. You therefore make the decision to eat spaghetti. Now, you are put again in exactly the same situation and ... do you really think you could choose strawberries instead? would you choose strawberries? If I am craving spaghetti I could not do otherwise. But then I would not have said it. The situation is when I remember having hesitate, and the day after, despite the determination, I can think that I could have done otherwise, because I cannot be aware of the complete determination. And, indeed, after that hesitation, I might well have taken the strawberry. Determinism is just not incompatible with genuine free will or will, for the will is not playing at the same level than the determination. If they were on the same level, you could trivially justify all your act by I am just obeying the physical laws, which is just false, because you are an abstract person, not a body. A guy rapes and tortures 10 children, could he have done otherwise? Well, there is a sense for some medical expert to say that he could have done otherwise, for the guy is judged responsible and not under some mental disease (for example). Now, if the guy defends himself in saying that he was just obeying to the physical laws, he will convince nobody, and rightly so. He will convince nobody because we all believe that he (and all of us) could have done otherwise. And we all believe that because, for some reason, we believe it is unfair to punish someone if he cannot do otherwise. What I'm saying is that belief in free-will is just a justification for punishing people. OK. And rightly so, unless unfair trial of course. But in fact, we punish people, not because he could have done otherwise but because next time, he will think twice. Actually this is not proved, and some argue that going in jail can augment the probability of recurrence of certain type of crime. But that's not relevant. So OK. Next time, he will not be in the same subjective situation: he will have the memories of his punishment and he will take that into account. He learned to do otherwise. If next time he is in exactly the same subjective situation, he will do exactly the same. Why would he do otherwise? Why didn't he already? The point is not that he is determinate, but that he is aware of his non knowledge of determination, making him capable to think correctly that he might have done otherwise; perhaps having a slight change of state of mind, or awaken in different mood, or any detail he knows that he did not know. Sometimes, we might become aware of the reason which might have invite us to do otherwise, so we prepare ourselves better for the future hesitation. Let's suppose that a person forgets everything every morning. Would it make any sense to punish someone like that, because he just could have done otherwise? Someone like that must go to an hospital, be cured, and then can be judged responsible or not. It can depend on many factors. There are no general rules, nor any scientific criteria for judging with any certainty the responsibility. We are determinate, but we cannot known completely our determination, so from our point of view there is a genuine spectrum of different possibilities and we can choose freely among them. It does not matter that a God, or a Laplacean daemon can predict our actions, for *we* can't, and have no other choice than choosing without complete information, and in some case it makes sense that we could have
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/12/2012 1:31 AM, R AM wrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2012 8:45 AM, R AM wrote: But what I'm saying here is not ontological determinism but in fact, about the subjective experience. I'm defending that we cannot imagine ourselves in exactly the same subjective situation and still think that we could have done otherwise. I can certainly imagine that. But I wonder if your use of subjective situation is ambiguous. Do you mean exactly the same state, including memory, conscious and unconscious thoughts..., or do you just mean satisfying the same subjective description? I would say exactly the same conscious state. If we are put again in the same conscious state, I don't think that we can consistently imagine ourselves doing otherwise. Well then it seems to come down to a question of timing. If this 'same conscious state' is before the action, then I can certainly imagine changing my mind. And this holds all the way up to the action, which is why you are even unpredictable by yourself. You don't know (for sure) what you'll do until you do it. If the 'same conscious state' is at the moment of action, then it's not so clear. It's not the usual case, but sometimes we are surprised by our own action. If at subjective situation t we decided x, why would we decide otherwise if *exactly* the same subjective situation was again the case? Of course, unconscious processes might make the difference (in fact, they do), but this is no help for a defender of free will, because he cannot maintain that decisions have, at bottom, an unconscious origin. Why not. That's the compatibilist view of 'free will' and that's apparently why Sam Harris disagrees with compatibilism: he defines 'free will' to be *conscious* authorship of decisions. In the course of a day almost all my decisions are made without conscious thought, like which keys to strike in typing the previous line. Earlier today I had to enter a computer generated random security code; I had to think about each character. So was the latter an exercise of free will and the former wasn't?? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Well then it seems to come down to a question of timing. If this 'same conscious state' is before the action, then I can certainly imagine changing my mind. Yes, but why would you do that? You didn't change your mind in the first situation. Why would you change your mind if exactly the same conscious state is repeated? And this holds all the way up to the action, which is why you are even unpredictable by yourself. You don't know (for sure) what you'll do until you do it. I agree, but that's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm trying to make sense of the I could have done otherwise. What does it mean? Or in other words, if the same situation is repeated I would do otherwise. But it's difficult to explain (I might be wrong too). OK, let's suppose that exactly the same conscious state is repeated N times. If each time we do a different action, even opposite ones (such as killing or not killing someone), then our decision making is basically random. I don't think that is what is meant by free will. Let's go to an extreme case. We have to make an important decision. We spend one year pondering our alternatives, and a decision is reached (we will kill someone). We are pretty certain about it. Do you think that if we repeat the same conscious state of just before making the decision, we would conclude not to kill? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: No. But the gangster does not know this determination. So although at that level he could not do otherwise, from his perspective, it still can make genuine sense that he could have done otherwise, from our embedded pov perspective. Only for God, it does not make sense, but locally we are not God. More specifically. You are in a situation where you crave for spaghetti, you haven't had spaghetti in the last month, you know spaghetti is good for er ... whatever. You therefore make the decision to eat spaghetti. Now, you are put again in exactly the same situation and ... do you really think you could choose strawberries instead? would you choose strawberries? If I am craving spaghetti I could not do otherwise. Well, parents routinely punish their children for eating too much candy. Why do they do that, if their children could not do otherwise? But then I would not have said it. The situation is when I remember having hesitate, and the day after, despite the determination, I can think that I could have done otherwise, because I cannot be aware of the complete determination. And, indeed, after that hesitation, I might well have taken the strawberry. Yes, but for the sake of the argument, I wanted you to consider the case where you are pretty certain about eating spaghetti. Defenders of free will would say that free will is active whenever you make a decision, hesitating or not hesitating. Determinism is just not incompatible with genuine free will or will, for the will is not playing at the same level than the determination. If they were on the same level, you could trivially justify all your act by I am just obeying the physical laws, which is just false, because you are an abstract person, not a body. I am not really talking about physical determination. But in any case, I think the justification is correct. This is not important, though, because we do not actually punish people because they could have done otherwise. We punish people so that they will not repeat their bad behaviour in the future (among other reasons). He will convince nobody because we all believe that he (and all of us) could have done otherwise. And we all believe that because, for some reason, we believe it is unfair to punish someone if he cannot do otherwise. What I'm saying is that belief in free-will is just a justification for punishing people. OK. And rightly so, unless unfair trial of course. What i'm saying is that we believe in free will (although it is a false belief) so that we can punish people without feeling guilty. Usually, the opposite is claimed: we punish people because they have free will (but I'm claiming that's wrong). Actually this is not proved, and some argue that going in jail can augment the probability of recurrence of certain type of crime. But that's not relevant. So OK. I agree, but if that's the case, we should change the punishment. He learned to do otherwise. Agreed. But that's what I'm saying. Making people responsible has nothing to do with their free will, but with reinforcement and learning. Belief in free will is just a excuse to discipline people. Let's suppose that a person forgets everything every morning. Would it make any sense to punish someone like that, because he just could have done otherwise? Someone like that must go to an hospital, be cured, and then can be judged responsible or not. It can depend on many factors. There are no general rules, nor any scientific criteria for judging with any certainty the responsibility. Agreed. However, If we punish people because they have free will (i.e. they could have done otherwise), then this person should also be punished. Again and again. It's not his free will that is failing, it's his memory. However, it makes no sense to punish such a person, because having no memory, the punishment will not change his future behavior. But exactly the same subjective experience is ambiguous. Our doing depends also on unconscious processing, of the luminosity of the sky, of possible subliminal messages from peers, of hormone concentration, and all those factors might be unknown. But that's basically randomness! you cannot be sent to Hell because of the luminosity of the sky! I don't think that would be considered free will. Free will should be the result of deliberation, even if at the end you decide to do something random. Or something equivalent, if we were put again in exactly the same subjective situation, would we do otherwise? I don't think so, but If yes, why? We can't. Given your condition. But the determination being unknown, we can correctly conceive of having done otherwise, for a little unknown reason which would have influence the choice made after some hesitation. Even without hesitation, there is still, even more, free will. If we make up our mind, and we are
Re: free will and mathematics
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Why not. That's the compatibilist view of 'free will' and that's apparently why Sam Harris disagrees with compatibilism: he defines 'free will' to be *conscious* authorship of decisions. I think that is what is meant by typical defenders of free will too. In the course of a day almost all my decisions are made without conscious thought, like which keys to strike in typing the previous line. Earlier today I had to enter a computer generated random security code; I had to think about each character. So was the latter an exercise of free will and the former wasn't?? That's a good question for defenders of free will to answer. I think they would say that you can always stop consciously your unconscious will (that's one of the defences against Libet's experiments). However, Most of the day we are not even conscious that we could exercise that kind of free will, so ... I gues 99% of the time our decisions are not free willed. And it makes no difference, of course. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/12/2012 11:42 AM, R AM wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Well then it seems to come down to a question of timing. If this 'same conscious state' is before the action, then I can certainly imagine changing my mind. Yes, but why would you do that? You didn't change your mind in the first situation. Why would you change your mind if exactly the same conscious state is repeated? And this holds all the way up to the action, which is why you are even unpredictable by yourself. You don't know (for sure) what you'll do until you do it. I agree, but that's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm trying to make sense of the I could have done otherwise. What does it mean? I means that, in retrospect, I can't trace back to external (to me) causes, a deterministic sequence that inevitably led me to do that. Conceivably we could make an intelligent machine that could keep a record of all its internal states so that when did something it could then cite the sequence of internal states and say, See I had to do it. It was just physics. Or in other words, if the same situation is repeated I would do otherwise. But it's difficult to explain (I might be wrong too). OK, let's suppose that exactly the same conscious state is repeated N times. If each time we do a different action, even opposite ones (such as killing or not killing someone), then our decision making is basically random. I don't think that is what is meant by free will. I think that's wrong. You are equating unpredictable with random. Suppose the same conscious state is repeated and one second later you either shoot someone or you punch him. In that second different unconscious processes may determine what you do; so that which you do is unpredictable. But it is only 'random' within a range which is determined by who you are - and in this case you are very angry with the someone - so it is still an exercise of your will. And it's not constrained or coerced, so it's 'free will'. Let's go to an extreme case. We have to make an important decision. We spend one year pondering our alternatives, and a decision is reached (we will kill someone). We are pretty certain about it. Do you think that if we repeat the same conscious state of just before making the decision, we would conclude not to kill? Yes, it's possible. Of course there are feelings of resolve or hesitancy that make it more or less likely we will carry out a plan. But in that moment some different unconscious process could change our mind, or an external event, such as seeing child might remind us our intended victim was once an innocent child, might change our mind. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I means that, in retrospect, I can't trace back to external (to me) causes, a deterministic sequence that inevitably led me to do that. Isn't that randomness? Conceivably we could make an intelligent machine that could keep a record of all its internal states so that when did something it could then cite the sequence of internal states and say, See I had to do it. It was just physics. And the machine would be right ... Or in other words, if the same situation is repeated I would do otherwise. But it's difficult to explain (I might be wrong too). OK, let's suppose that exactly the same conscious state is repeated N times. If each time we do a different action, even opposite ones (such as killing or not killing someone), then our decision making is basically random. I don't think that is what is meant by free will. I think that's wrong. You are equating unpredictable with random. Suppose the same conscious state is repeated and one second later you either shoot someone or you punch him. In that second different unconscious processes may determine what you do; so that which you do is unpredictable. Agreed, but then the reason is unconscious. To me, that's not free will. But it is only 'random' within a range which is determined by who you are - and in this case you are very angry with the someone - OK, but I think a defender of free will would say that you could have also kissed that person instead of attacking him. so it is still an exercise of your will. And it's not constrained or coerced, so it's 'free will'. But you are removing all possible decisions except different ways of attaking the victim, so it is not free will, at least not that feeling that I could have done anything no matter what. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/12/2012 1:06 PM, R AM wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I means that, in retrospect, I can't trace back to external (to me) causes, a deterministic sequence that inevitably led me to do that. Isn't that randomness? No, it's unpredictablity - something we may fruitfully model by a mathematical theory of randomness even though the dynamics are perfectly deterministic, when we don't know enough to use the dynamics to predict results. Except in quantum mechanics, where events may be inherently random, 'randomness' is just modeling uncertainty due to ignorance and so it is relative to what is known. Conceivably we could make an intelligent machine that could keep a record of all its internal states so that when did something it could then cite the sequence of internal states and say, See I had to do it. It was just physics. And the machine would be right ... Or in other words, if the same situation is repeated I would do otherwise. But it's difficult to explain (I might be wrong too). OK, let's suppose that exactly the same conscious state is repeated N times. If each time we do a different action, even opposite ones (such as killing or not killing someone), then our decision making is basically random. I don't think that is what is meant by free will. I think that's wrong. You are equating unpredictable with random. Suppose the same conscious state is repeated and one second later you either shoot someone or you punch him. In that second different unconscious processes may determine what you do; so that which you do is unpredictable. Agreed, but then the reason is unconscious. To me, that's not free will. That's a problem with 'free will'. Some people, like Sam Harris, insist that it means the same thing it did in the middle ages, a supernatural ability to do the nomologically impossible by conscious thought. Some people, like Daniel Dennett, look at how the concept functions in society and redefine it so it doesn't require the supernatural but has the same extension in social and legal discourse. But it is only 'random' within a range which is determined by who you are - and in this case you are very angry with the someone - OK, but I think a defender of free will would say that you could have also kissed that person instead of attacking him. But would he be wrong? We, as external observers, might say that if his brain had been in exactly that state a second earlier it's extremely unlikely that he could have done differently (he might have been hit by a gamma ray, but...). Or suppose we, as external observer, knew exactly that part of state of his brain that determined his *conscious* purpose, but not the other part, the unconscious. Then we would assign a probability measure over the unconscious part and some part of it would result him doing the same and some in doing differently and we could assign probabilities to the various outcomes. We're modeling our ignorance of the unconscious part by a random model. And so we'd conclude he could (in light of our imperfect knowledge) have done xi with probability pi for i=0,1,... And that's exactly the same position he is in. He has access to the conscious part of his brain, but not the unconscious. so it is still an exercise of your will. And it's not constrained or coerced, so it's 'free will'. But you are removing all possible decisions except different ways of attaking the victim, so it is not free will, at least not that feeling that I could have done anything no matter what. But you know that's not the case. You have a certain character, a certain consistency of behavior so that your friends can trust you NOT to do anything at random. And having this consistency is essentially part of defining you and defining who it is who has compatibilist free will. The fact that almost all this character is subconscious is irrelevant to the social meaning of 'free will'. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: OK, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that you ate spaghetti because that's what you liked at that moment. Do you think you could have done otherwise? Now, let's suppose a gangster decides to rob a bank after considering all his options. Later he might be judged and told that he could have done otherwise? Could he really have done otherwise? At the level of the arithmetical laws, or physical laws, the answer is no. But we don't live at that level, so at the level of its first person impression the answer is yes. OK. So that means that if you (or the ganster) were put again in exactly the same subjective situation (same beliefs, likings, emotions, intentions, memories, same everything) you could do otherwise? More specifically. You are in a situation where you crave for spaghetti, you haven't had spaghetti in the last month, you know spaghetti is good for er ... whatever. You therefore make the decision to eat spaghetti. Now, you are put again in exactly the same situation and ... do you really think you could choose strawberries instead? would you choose strawberries? A guy rapes and tortures 10 children, could he have done otherwise? Well, there is a sense for some medical expert to say that he could have done otherwise, for the guy is judged responsible and not under some mental disease (for example). Now, if the guy defends himself in saying that he was just obeying to the physical laws, he will convince nobody, and rightly so. He will convince nobody because we all believe that he (and all of us) could have done otherwise. And we all believe that because, for some reason, we believe it is unfair to punish someone if he cannot do otherwise. What I'm saying is that belief in free-will is just a justification for punishing people. But in fact, we punish people, not because he could have done otherwise but because next time, he will think twice. Next time, he will not be in the same subjective situation: he will have the memories of his punishment and he will take that into account. If next time he is in exactly the same subjective situation, he will do exactly the same. Why would he do otherwise? Why didn't he already? Let's suppose that a person forgets everything every morning. Would it make any sense to punish someone like that, because he just could have done otherwise? We are determinate, but we cannot known completely our determination, so from our point of view there is a genuine spectrum of different possibilities and we can choose freely among them. It does not matter that a God, or a Laplacean daemon can predict our actions, for *we* can't, and have no other choice than choosing without complete information, and in some case it makes sense that we could have made a different choice (even if that is senseless at the basic ontological level, for the choice is made at another level, from an internal first person perspectives. But what I'm saying here is not ontological determinism but in fact, about the subjective experience. I'm defending that we cannot imagine ourselves in exactly the same subjective situation and still think that we could have done otherwise. Or something equivalent, if we were put again in exactly the same subjective situation, would we do otherwise? I don't think so, but If yes, why? To justify our acts by God Will or by Physical Laws (or Arithmetical laws) is the same type of level confusion, or perspective confusion, mistake. I would say. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The answer must be relative to our (imperfect) knowledge. Since that knowledge is not sufficient to predict what he would do, we say Yes, he could have done otherwise. In the same way we may say, I know him well and he's not a person to rob a bank. We may believe the world is deterministic and yet still unpredictable, so when you ask could we need to think in what sense it is meant. I completely agree. It's not clear what we mean by could in this case (in the same sense that it's not clear what is meant by free-will). That is why I'm trying to reformulate the question as if you were put again in exactly the same subjective situation, do you think you would do otherwise? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Monday, June 11, 2012 10:45:16 AM UTC-5, RAM wrote: But what I'm saying here is not ontological determinism but in fact, about the subjective experience. I'm defending that we cannot imagine ourselves in exactly the same subjective situation and still think that we could have done otherwise. Or something equivalent, if we were put again in exactly the same subjective situation, would we do otherwise? I don't think so, but If yes, why? I'm assuming you mean by exactly the same situation, every atom in it's exact same physical state. You might think the next moment in time would be exactly the same, but at the quantum level the next physical state in time could be different at the quantum level, and if one was truly on the fence in making a decision, the decision could possibly fall to the other side of the fence. The two different futures both exist but do not interact. Any moment in time has multiple futures and multiple histories. Now the question that came up, is this person not responsible for his/her actions if only at the mercy of the physical laws of the universe (no free will). The answers I've been hearing that suggest she/he may not be responsible miss the point. The measure of wrongness was defined by society. If history and experience yields a member of society that does a horrendous wrong, he/she is a defect of society and needs to be removed, rehabilitated, or whatever society dictates. Here's where I don't agree with aquitting someone due to mental defect. If the defect is there, the result is the same. Fix it if it's fixable or if it's not fixable remove them from society. - Roy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rWOnm6N7FyoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 06 Jun 2012, at 19:43, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that is why the concept in question exists. Deep down, free will is the belief that, if we were put again under exactly the same situation, exactly the same feelings, the same perceptions, the same beliefs, the same memories, the same past, the same values, etc ... if everything was exactly the same, the belief in free will says that we still could do otherwise. It's silly. I agree free-will is silly if it is defined like that. So let us try a less silly definition. So instead of was exactly the same in your definition, we can use was exactly the same from the subject point of view. In that case, if the subject was aware of not having all information, he might consistently think that he could have done otherwise, because he was hesitating for example, as far as he can remember. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I agree free-will is silly if it is defined like that. So let us try a less silly definition. So instead of was exactly the same in your definition, we can use was exactly the same from the subject point of view. OK. In that case, if the subject was aware of not having all information, he might consistently think that he could have done otherwise, because he was hesitating for example, as far as he can remember. It depends on what we mean by could. If we mean that I would have done otherwise because I could have done otherwise, I still think that belief in free-will is silly. If the subject was aware of not having all information and yet he did what he did, why would the subject think (later) that he could have done otherwise? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 07 Jun 2012, at 10:00, R AM wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I agree free-will is silly if it is defined like that. So let us try a less silly definition. So instead of was exactly the same in your definition, we can use was exactly the same from the subject point of view. OK. In that case, if the subject was aware of not having all information, he might consistently think that he could have done otherwise, because he was hesitating for example, as far as he can remember. It depends on what we mean by could. If we mean that I would have done otherwise because I could have done otherwise, I still think that belief in free-will is silly. If the subject was aware of not having all information and yet he did what he did, why would the subject think (later) that he could have done otherwise? Because he remembers that he was hesitating. Yesterday I have eaten spaghetti, but I could have decide otherwise, I hesitated a lot. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
I have started reading Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics and I see one definition that seems to be pertinent to this discussion. p. 27 Def. 4. To assume it to suppose by an act of free choice. A person who 'makes an assumption' is making a supposition about which he is aware that he might if he chose make not that but another. All assumptions are suppositions, but all suppositions are not assumptions: for some are made altogether unawares, and others, though the persons what make them may be conscious of making them, are made without any consciousness of the possibility, if it is a possibility, that others might have been made instead. When correctly used, the word 'assumption' is always used with this implication of free choice, as when it is said 'let us assume x = 10'. What about that? It looks to be not far away from what Aleksandr Lokshin has suggested. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Because he remembers that he was hesitating. Yesterday I have eaten spaghetti, but I could have decide otherwise, I hesitated a lot. OK, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that you ate spaghetti because that's what you liked at that moment. Do you think you could have done otherwise? Now, let's suppose a gangster decides to rob a bank after considering all his options. Later he might be judged and told that he could have done otherwise? Could he really have done otherwise? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 07 Jun 2012, at 14:15, R AM wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Because he remembers that he was hesitating. Yesterday I have eaten spaghetti, but I could have decide otherwise, I hesitated a lot. OK, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that you ate spaghetti because that's what you liked at that moment. Do you think you could have done otherwise? Now, let's suppose a gangster decides to rob a bank after considering all his options. Later he might be judged and told that he could have done otherwise? Could he really have done otherwise? At the level of the arithmetical laws, or physical laws, the answer is no. But we don't live at that level, so at the level of its first person impression the answer is yes. A guy rapes and tortures 10 children, could he have done otherwise? Well, there is a sense for some medical expert to say that he could have done otherwise, for the guy is judged responsible and not under some mental disease (for example). Now, if the guy defends himself in saying that he was just obeying to the physical laws, he will convince nobody, and rightly so. We are determinate, but we cannot known completely our determination, so from our point of view there is a genuine spectrum of different possibilities and we can choose freely among them. It does not matter that a God, or a Laplacean daemon can predict our actions, for *we* can't, and have no other choice than choosing without complete information, and in some case it makes sense that we could have made a different choice (even if that is senseless at the basic ontological level, for the choice is made at another level, from an internal first person perspectives. To justify our acts by God Will or by Physical Laws (or Arithmetical laws) is the same type of level confusion, or perspective confusion, mistake. I would say. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: If he axed you because he has a brain tumor that caused him to see you as an alien monster, we wouldn't hold him culpable. What's with this we business, speak for yourself I certainly would hold him culpable, I don't understand why that particular reason for his action would render him non-responsible but another reason for his action would render him responsible. We'd operate on him, remove the tumor If you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that had fixed the problem (most unlikely) then I would be satisfied with that solution. If he were coerced into axing you by a hostile government that was holding his wife and children hostage and going to kill them if he didn't do you in, we would consider him much less culpable In that case it would be very unlikely he would ever again chase people with a ax and his punishment would be unlikely to deter people in a similar predicament from doing the same thing in the future, and so punishment would be pointless and be nothing but cruel. If he did it on an impulse because you offended him (e.g. you told him he spoke gibberish) we'd consider him less culpable than if you he had long planned to kill you for money. Again with this we business! I'd consider him MORE culpable if he did it on impulse over some trivial insult because that would mean he is a very very dangerous man; he is certain to receive other trivial insults just like that in the future likely causing more chasing with axes. And I would consider him LESS culpable if he did it for a large amount of money and planned the crime for 5 years because then he would be far less likely than the impulsive homicidal jerk to do something like that again. culpability is roughly equivalent to how likely the perp or people in his situation are to do it or similar again. That's how it should be but that's not what society does nor how you explained it in your post. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: There is no meaningful difference between will and free will. The will is in the state it is in for a reason or for no reason, but according to Craig Weinberg your free will is in the state it is in for no reason and isn't in the state it is in for no reason, therefore the meaningful difference between will and free will is that one is gibberish and the other is not. All will implies the capacity to intentionally control, which is not logically consistent with 100% determinism. Your ideas are not logically consistent with determinism and they are not logically consistent with indeterminism, in other words your ideas are so bad they're not even wrong. Execution is not intended to alter the behavior of the prisoner. I don't give a hoot in hell what the intention was, it remains a fact beyond dispute that execution DID alter the behavior of the prisoner. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/7/2012 5:15 AM, R AM wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Because he remembers that he was hesitating. Yesterday I have eaten spaghetti, but I could have decide otherwise, I hesitated a lot. OK, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that you ate spaghetti because that's what you liked at that moment. Do you think you could have done otherwise? Now, let's suppose a gangster decides to rob a bank after considering all his options. Later he might be judged and told that he could have done otherwise? Could he really have done otherwise? The answer must be relative to our (imperfect) knowledge. Since that knowledge is not sufficient to predict what he would do, we say Yes, he could have done otherwise. In the same way we may say, I know him well and he's not a person to rob a bank. We may believe the world is deterministic and yet still unpredictable, so when you ask could we need to think in what sense it is meant. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your preferences most of the time. And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will eventually stop or not, but not all of the time. The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability retrospectively to see all the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it seems that one could have done otherwise. Yes, and unlike other definitions of free will this one is not gibberish, however when you boil it down all it's really saying is you don't know what you don't know. The highest status the philosophical concept called free will can aspire to is that of being right but trivially circular, most of the time it's not even that, most of the time it's just gibberish. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
I will exercise my *insert gibberish here* by disagreeing. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your preferences most of the time. And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will eventually stop or not, but not all of the time. The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability retrospectively to see all the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it seems that one could have done otherwise. Yes, and unlike other definitions of free will this one is not gibberish, however when you boil it down all it's really saying is you don't know what you don't know. The highest status the philosophical concept called free will can aspire to is that of being right but trivially circular, most of the time it's not even that, most of the time it's just gibberish. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
Speaking of the legal aspect, Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill the Jews. IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your preferences most of the time. And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will eventually stop or not, but not all of the time. The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability retrospectively to see all the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it seems that one could have done otherwise. Yes, and unlike other definitions of free will this one is not gibberish, however when you boil it down all it's really saying is you don't know what you don't know. The highest status the philosophical concept called free will can aspire to is that of being right but trivially circular, most of the time it's not even that, most of the time it's just gibberish. Aside from the philosophical concept, there is the social/legal concept of not coerced, referred to as exercising 'free will', which is what Stenger proposes just to call autonomy. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of the legal aspect, Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill the Jews. IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances. Perhaps the concept of free-will exists because people think it is unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances? On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your preferences most of the time. And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will eventually stop or not, but not all of the time. The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability retrospectively to see all the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it seems that one could have done otherwise. Yes, and unlike other definitions of free will this one is not gibberish, however when you boil it down all it's really saying is you don't know what you don't know. The highest status the philosophical concept called free will can aspire to is that of being right but trivially circular, most of the time it's not even that, most of the time it's just gibberish. Aside from the philosophical concept, there is the social/legal concept of not coerced, referred to as exercising 'free will', which is what Stenger proposes just to call autonomy. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that is why the concept in question exists. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of the legal aspect, Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill the Jews. IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances. Perhaps the concept of free-will exists because people think it is unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances? On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your preferences most of the time. And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will eventually stop or not, but not all of the time. The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability retrospectively to see all the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it seems that one could have done otherwise. Yes, and unlike other definitions of free will this one is not gibberish, however when you boil it down all it's really saying is you don't know what you don't know. The highest status the philosophical concept called free will can aspire to is that of being right but trivially circular, most of the time it's not even that, most of the time it's just gibberish. Aside from the philosophical concept, there is the social/legal concept of not coerced, referred to as exercising 'free will', which is what Stenger proposes just to call autonomy. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/6/2012 9:08 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Speaking of the legal aspect, Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill the Jews. IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances. It's that idea of fairness or justice that seems to connect the idea of 'free will' to social policy. But is it really needed to make the connection? Why not look at as just rule utilitarianism, e.g. punishment will be a deterrent to others (would we execute murders to satisfy justice if it were known to increase the incidence of murder?) and a satisfaction to victims. So justice and fairness are values derived to make a good society and need not be considered fundamental. The social/legal 'free will', meaning nobody made him do it, still applies and we even distinguish degrees of coercion as mitigating factors. Low level Nazis were considered less culpable because to disobey would have risked their own lives. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that is why the concept in question exists. I agree that people make choices. I dont't think it is free will. You said that people would believe that it would unfair to punish anyone if there were no free will. I agree that people believe that On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of the legal aspect, Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill the Jews. IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances. Perhaps the concept of free-will exists because people think it is unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances? On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your preferences most of the time. And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will eventually stop or not, but not all of the time. The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability retrospectively to see all the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it seems that one could have done otherwise. Yes, and unlike other definitions of free will this one is not gibberish, however when you boil it down all it's really saying is you don't know what you don't know. The highest status the philosophical concept called free will can aspire to is that of being right but trivially circular, most of the time it's not even that, most of the time it's just gibberish. Aside from the philosophical concept, there is the social/legal concept of not coerced, referred to as exercising 'free will', which is what Stenger proposes just to call autonomy. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/6/2012 9:08 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Speaking of the legal aspect, Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill the Jews. IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances. Interestingly, Bill Press at UT has recently shown why the idea of placing a high value on justice and fairness might have evolved along with a theory of mind including 'free will': http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/16/1206569109 Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? It just mystifies me that someone would even ask a question like that. If you're chasing me with a bloody ax I don't care if you had a choice (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) to do so or not, nor do I care what thoughts, be they beautiful or ugly, are dancing around in your brain while you're doing it; all I want is for you to stop chasing me with that damn ax and I want measures taken to discourage that sort of thing happening in the future by you or anybody else. Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances. It seems even more unfair for me to get chopped up by your ax. There are only 2 legitimate reasons to punish anybody for anything: 1) To make sure they don't continue with such crimes. 2) To deter others from committing similar crimes. I admit there is another reason that the oldest reptilian parts of my brain can come up with, the fun of seeing somebody I dislike suffer, but that is not a reason the newer more evolved parts of my brain are proud of so I will not defend it. And the ASCII string free will has absolutely nothing to do with any of this, or anything else for that matter except gibberish. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/6/2012 9:30 AM, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote: I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that is why the concept in question exists. I agree that people make choices. I dont't think it is free will. You said that people would believe that it would unfair to punish anyone if there were no free will. I agree that people believe that If there were no free will of what kind? contra-causal? compatibilist? social/legal? And even if it's not fair (another social term) it may be a useful thing for society to do. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Jun 6, 12:23 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's that idea of fairness or justice that seems to connect the idea of 'free will' to social policy. But is it really needed to make the connection? Why not look at as just rule utilitarianism, e.g. punishment will be a deterrent to others (would we execute murders to satisfy justice if it were known to increase the incidence of murder?) and a satisfaction to victims. Fairness and justice, in this context supervenes on the idea that punishment can possibly have a containing effect which circumscribes behavior - which in turn supervenes upon free will to be able to control one's own behavior to some degree to avoid the experience of punishment. It's not possible to punish something that doesn't have free will. It has no choice but to do whatever it does, so no amount of pain or fear could cause the recipient to suddenly be able to change their own behavior if they couldn't change their own behavior voluntarily to begin with. You can't punish inanimate objects, and without free will, an organism is just an inanimate object that thinks it's in motion (for no reason). Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Jun 6, 12:37 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? It just mystifies me that someone would even ask a question like that. If you're chasing me with a bloody ax I don't care if you had a choice (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) to do so or not, nor do I care what thoughts, be they beautiful or ugly, are dancing around in your brain while you're doing it; all I want is for you to stop chasing me with that damn ax and I want measures taken to discourage that sort of thing happening in the future by you or anybody else. But that doesn't explain why we would pick 'punishment' as a prophylactic measure. If it was an axe that fell off the wall of your garage, do you seek to punish the garage? The axe? Punishment only works if something 1. cares whether or not it's experience is unpleasant - ie has sense qualia of pleasure and pain contrast and 2. has causally efficacious motive to alter their behavior, and by extension alter the circumstances of their environment - ie motive power: (continuum ranging from libertarian free will in our innermost thoughts and imagination, to voluntary control over some aspects of our attention and neuromuscular system, to involuntary reflex of subconscious and unconscious processes). Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: It's not possible to punish something that doesn't have free will. I can't say anything directly about that because neither you nor I know what the hell free will means, but I do know what will means and if something wants to do X and I prevent that something from doing X then that something will be unhappy and look upon my actions as a punishment and will not want it repeated. So independent of what if anything the noise free will means, punishment is a deterrent; but you should have already known that. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that is why the concept in question exists. Deep down, free will is the belief that, if we were put again under exactly the same situation, exactly the same feelings, the same perceptions, the same beliefs, the same memories, the same past, the same values, etc ... if everything was exactly the same, the belief in free will says that we still could do otherwise. It's silly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 06 Jun 2012, at 18:23, meekerdb wrote: On 6/6/2012 9:08 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Speaking of the legal aspect, Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill the Jews. IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances. It's that idea of fairness or justice that seems to connect the idea of 'free will' to social policy. But is it really needed to make the connection? Why not look at as just rule utilitarianism, e.g. punishment will be a deterrent to others (would we execute murders to satisfy justice if it were known to increase the incidence of murder?) and a satisfaction to victims. So justice and fairness are values derived to make a good society and need not be considered fundamental. The social/legal 'free will', meaning nobody made him do it, still applies and we even distinguish degrees of coercion as mitigating factors. Low level Nazis were considered less culpable because to disobey would have risked their own lives. OK, but then they are more victim than guilty, and have to present themselves as such. A popular jury might help to evaluate the sincerity. It is difficult to judge responsibility, and more so when it is diluted in social collective organizations, and even much more so when fear and intimidation are technic of power. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Punishment only works if something 1. cares whether or not it's experience is unpleasant Yes. 2. has causally efficacious motive to alter their behavior, No, although if the criminal's actions are not causal, if they are random, then the range of potential punishments that are effective becomes much more limited. However be the criminal random or causal a bullet in the brain will most certainly alter their behavior, and sometimes for the better. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/6/2012 9:37 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote: how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? It just mystifies me that someone would even ask a question like that. If you're chasing me with a bloody ax I don't care if you had a choice (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) to do so or not, nor do I care what thoughts, be they beautiful or ugly, are dancing around in your brain while you're doing it; all I want is for you to stop chasing me with that damn ax and I want measures taken to discourage that sort of thing happening in the future by you or anybody else. The question though was what to do about him *after* he committed the crime. If he axed you because he has a brain tumor that caused him to see you as an alien monster, we wouldn't hold him culpable. We'd operate on him, remove the tumor, and send regrets to your widow. If he were coerced into axing you by a hostile government that was holding his wife and children hostage and going to kill them if he didn't do you in, we would consider him much less culpable and might not punish him. If he did it on an impulse because you offended him (e.g. you told him he spoke gibberish) we'd consider him less culpable than if you he had long planned to kill you for money. So as actually applied culpability is roughly equivalent to how likely the perp or people in his situation are to do it or similar again. Brent Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances. It seems even more unfair for me to get chopped up by your ax. There are only 2 legitimate reasons to punish anybody for anything: 1) To make sure they don't continue with such crimes. 2) To deter others from committing similar crimes. I admit there is another reason that the oldest reptilian parts of my brain can come up with, the fun of seeing somebody I dislike suffer, but that is not a reason the newer more evolved parts of my brain are proud of so I will not defend it. And the ASCII string free will has absolutely nothing to do with any of this, or anything else for that matter except gibberish. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/6/2012 10:43 AM, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, R AM ramra...@gmail.com mailto:ramra...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote: I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that is why the concept in question exists. Deep down, free will is the belief that, if we were put again under exactly the same situation, exactly the same feelings, the same perceptions, the same beliefs, the same memories, the same past, the same values, etc ... if everything was exactly the same, the belief in free will says that we still could do otherwise. It's silly. That's why punishment is a deterrent. The person punished will remember it and so will have different memories even if the situation is otherwise the same. Can work fine on deterministic systems. No so well if the system is random or has no memory. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/6/2012 9:30 AM, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that is why the concept in question exists. I agree that people make choices. I dont't think it is free will. You said that people would believe that it would unfair to punish anyone if there were no free will. I agree that people believe that If there were no free will of what kind? contra-causal? compatibilist? social/legal? Contral-causal, I guess. What I'm defending is that the belief in free-will is, in part, a social construct, useful from the social/legal point of view, as you say. We are educated to believe it. And even if it's not fair (another social term) it may be a useful thing for society to do. I'm pretty convinced it is not fair. Doing the right thing is just a skill, like any other (running fast, jumping, intelligence, ...), and different people posess it to different degrees. Yet, from a social point of view, we consider everybody to have the same amount of free will, excet in extreme cases (madness, drunkenness, etc). It's definitely not fair, but on the other hand, it is difficult to see what else we could do. It's useful for society to consider it that way. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/6/2012 10:56 AM, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/6/2012 9:30 AM, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote: I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that is why the concept in question exists. I agree that people make choices. I dont't think it is free will. You said that people would believe that it would unfair to punish anyone if there were no free will. I agree that people believe that If there were no free will of what kind? contra-causal? compatibilist? social/legal? Contral-causal, I guess. What I'm defending is that the belief in free-will is, in part, a social construct, useful from the social/legal point of view, as you say. We are educated to believe it. The social/legal concept is certainly a social construct, and one that has evolved over time from simple revenge and an eye for an eye to all sorts mitigating and exacerbating factors. I think that belief in contra causal free will is natural and not a social construct. It arises from that feeling I could have done otherwise and then, by the theory of mind, the other guy could have done otherwise. We will have be educated to disbelieve it. And even if it's not fair (another social term) it may be a useful thing for society to do. I'm pretty convinced it is not fair. Doing the right thing is just a skill, like any other (running fast, jumping, intelligence, ...), and different people posess it to different degrees. Yet, from a social point of view, we consider everybody to have the same amount of free will, excet in extreme cases (madness, drunkenness, etc). It's definitely not fair, but on the other hand, it is difficult to see what else we could do. It's useful for society to consider it that way. We take into account those causative factors we understand and can change, but even if we realize the brain is strictly deterministic we don't know how to modify it except by crude methods like punishment and drugs and frontal lobotomies. We don't know how adjust people's values (or maybe we do, c.f. A Clockwork Orange) or will. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Contral-causal, I guess. What I'm defending is that the belief in free-will is, in part, a social construct, useful from the social/legal point of view, as you say. We are educated to believe it. The social/legal concept is certainly a social construct, and one that has evolved over time from simple revenge and an eye for an eye to all sorts mitigating and exacerbating factors. I think that belief in contra causal free will is natural and not a social construct. It arises from that feeling I could have done otherwise and then, by the theory of mind, the other guy could have done otherwise. We will have be educated to disbelieve it. I think the feeling that I could have done otherwise comes from education. When our parents got mad at something we did when kids, what belief could have we learned, except that I could have done otherwise or damn it, why didn't I do otherwise? But I'm not sure if we can substitute that belief with something else ... Next time I will do otherwise perhaps doesn't work equally well, because you might think, ok, next time I will do the same, and it will be next next time that I will do otherwise -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Jun 6, 1:48 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: There is no meaningful difference between will and free will. Adding 'free' only emphasizes that the intention is your own and not compelled by circumstances beyond your control. All will implies the capacity to intentionally control, which is not logically consistent with 100% determinism. If a rolling stone needs no experience of will to decide which way it will roll, then a person needs no such experience to function mechanically. Punishment only works if something 1. cares whether or not it's experience is unpleasant Yes. 2. has causally efficacious motive to alter their behavior, No, although if the criminal's actions are not causal, if they are random, then the range of potential punishments that are effective becomes much more limited. However be the criminal random or causal a bullet in the brain will most certainly alter their behavior, and sometimes for the better. Execution is not intended to alter the behavior of the prisoner. In order for us to have an expectation that the threat of execution could be a deterrent, we have to have an expectation that potential criminals have enough control over their own actions that that they will voluntarily choose to avoid it. We do not think that a deterrent is the same thing as a guarantee that crime cannot occur - in fact, the effectiveness of punishment as a deterrent is variable. It's up to the individuals, at least some individuals some of the time, to some extent or another, to determine for themselves whether they are deterred. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: You try moving your arm with an explanation or a reason or with no reason. Did it move? That's like asking how long is a piece of string. It depends on if I wanted to move my arm or not. Now just move your arm. This time I wanted to move my arm and so, unless it was tied down it moved. If it was tied down then a desire of my will remained unfulfilled and I will be unhappy and that will cause me to look for a way to untie my arm. And my will was in the state it was in, the state of wanting to move my arm, for a reason or for no reason, there is no third alternative. Was it a lack of explanation or reason or randomness that was preventing you from FREEly excercising your WILL over your own arm? I didn't move my arm because I didn't want to move my arm, and I don't know if I didn't want to because of determinism or randomness, but I do know it was one or the other, I do know there was a reason I didn't want to move it (although I might not know what it is) or there was no reason I didn't want to move it . Please explain how your arm moved in a way that shows it is purely deterministic or purely random You seem to believe that if you combine determinism and randomness you can make the free will noise more meaningful than a duck's quack, but you refuse to answer a question I have asked several times before; if I combine a calculator with a roulette wheel so that on average one time in 39 it gives the wrong answer to a calculation does that hybrid device have free will? If not why not. find a way to say that a reason or non- reason alone caused it Well that's not very difficult and I don't even need to know what the word reason means! I can also say without fear of contradiction that klogknee caused it or non klognee caused it. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be predictable. Apparently you never studied game theory. I'm no world class expert but I've taken several college courses on game theory and I know enough to understand that there has been no difficulty in incorporating the ideas of that discipline into computer programs, indeed many recent advances in game theory have come from the results of computer experiments. So are computers purposeful? Do computers have this thing you call free will? If not why not. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I don't understand what's odd about that, certainly we need retributive punishment if we don't want to be murdered in our beds. I don't understand why anyone could not see that as a glaring violation of common sense, except that I think it must be like handedness or gender orientation. Why would punishment work in any way if people are determined to commit crimes regardless? If people are determined then if we change them ( fine them, confine them, kill them, perform surgery on them) or change the environment (make the possibility of severe punishment more likely) then they're behavior will change. That's the nature of determinism, change the input and the output changes, otherwise it wouldn't be deterministic. How could punishment act on anything except the will? As I've said I have no problem with the word will and it does act on the will, if I change things their will will change and either they will no longer want to commit crimes (fear of punishment) or no longer able to fulfill the desire of their will because they are in jail or dead. Can you punish phosphorus until phosphorus changes? Yes, I can put it into a fireproof box or combine the phosphorous with other chemicals and turn it into fertilizer, something that is actually useful. I have never seen anyone with such a personal axe to grind about this subject. Thank you. You hate free will. Well, a lot of quacking ducks can become annoying. It is unworthy of even a hallucinatory status. Correct. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/4/2012 10:07 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be predictable. Apparently you never studied game theory. I'm no world class expert but I've taken several college courses on game theory and I know enough to understand that there has been no difficulty in incorporating the ideas of that discipline into computer programs, indeed many recent advances in game theory have come from the results of computer experiments. And so you know that pursuant to the purpose of winning a game it may be useful to make a random choice. So are computers purposeful? It depends on their program. Deep Blue purposefully acted to win chess games. Spirit and Opportunity purposely explored parts of Mars. Do computers have this thing you call free will? If not why not. Depends on what you mean by free will. I think that with certain AI programming a computer could have the so called feeling of free will, i.e. it could infer that it made a choice that was purposeful but not determined (even in cases where it was determined). If it were equipped to act it could act free of coercion. Brent John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) If it can be done then do so! Explain choose in a way that shows it is not deterministic and also not random, find a way to say that a choice did not happen for a reason and did not happen for no reason, and do so in a way that is not embarrassingly self contradictory. Do that and you have won the argument. when (which can be defined) presented (which can be defined) By the way, defined can't be defined unless you already know what defined means, that's why examples are more important than definitions; so if a definition is too hard for you just give me examples of things that can make choices and things that can't, but be prepared to defend your reasoning (a deterministic process) why they are in one category and not the other. with a choice (which can be defined). Certainly not meaningless. The word choice is perfectly respectable, I use it myself, but you are a fan of the free will noise so I would bet money that any definition you give of it will be self-contradictory or circular or both. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Agent might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably Without a reason. but purposefully. With a reason. But both of those are a little fuzzy. That's not fuzzy, it's idiotic. You can arrange the words free, decide, choose, purpose, reason, pick, voluntary and unpredictable in any order you like but it won't change the fact that at the end of the day things happen for a reason or things don't happen for a reason. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: oddly after spending 60 pages attacking free will as an illusion of an illusion, Sam Harris seems to that we may need retributive punishment anyway. I don't understand what's odd about that, certainly we need retributive punishment if we don't want to be murdered in our beds. And I disagree about free will being a illusion, a illusion is a real subjective phenomenon, free will is just a noise. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Jun 3, 12:38 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) If it can be done then do so! Explain choose in a way that shows it is not deterministic and also not random, find a way to say that a choice did not happen for a reason and did not happen for no reason, How about this. You try moving your arm with an explanation or a reason or with no reason. Did it move? Now just move your arm. Was it a lack of explanation or reason or randomness that was preventing you from FREEly excercising your WILL over your own arm? Please explain how your arm moved in a way that shows it is purely deterministic or purely random, find a way to say that a reason or non- reason alone caused it without the assistance of your choice, and do so in away that is not embarrassingly self contradictory. Do that and you have not lost the argument. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Jun 3, 1:00 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: oddly after spending 60 pages attacking free will as an illusion of an illusion, Sam Harris seems to that we may need retributive punishment anyway. I don't understand what's odd about that, certainly we need retributive punishment if we don't want to be murdered in our beds. I don't understand why anyone could not see that as a glaring violation of common sense, except that I think it must be like handedness or gender orientation. Why would punishment work in any way if people are determined to commit crimes regardless? How could punishment act on anything except the will? What law of physics supports the effectiveness of punishment? Can you punish phosphorus until phosphorus changes? Why not? And I disagree about free will being a illusion, a illusion is a real subjective phenomenon, free will is just a noise. I have never seen anyone with such a personal axe to grind about this subject. You hate free will. It is unworthy of even a hallucinatory status. It is intolerable to you. It's as if you were trying to...deny something that is undeniable. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Look up 'teleology'. Why? I already know it means things happen for a purpose, although it is never made clear who's purpose were talking about or what his purpose is supposed to be. One thing is clear, they had a purpose for a reason or they had a purpose for no reason, there is no third alternative. But is you have a purpose, even for no reason, it doesn't follow that your actions are random. Almost any reason a person will give If he has a reason then he is deterministic. You keep equating 'having a purpose', 'having a reason' and 'being determined', but I don't think they are the same thing. If your purpose is to win money at poker your optimum strategy includes some random actions. for their actions will be a reference to some future state. I did it because I desire to be in state X and I believe my present action will bring that about; and my desire and my belief have a cause or they do not have a cause, there is no third alternative. People who believe in 'free will' also agree that their decisions and beliefs and actions have causes or not. The difference is they believe that the causes are immaterial. In a deterministic world all physics is time reversible Not necessarily, in a deterministic world X and Y will always produce Z, but Q and T could also always produce Z, so if you detect the existence of Z you can't reverse things and figure out what the world was like in the past, you don't know if it was a world of X and Y or a world of Q and T. In a universe like that you could predict the future but you wouldn't know what happened in the past. Of course this is really moot, we probably don't live in a deterministic world, some things happen for no reason, some things are random. the question is whether this reason in terms of future purpose had a *physical* cause. I don't understand your emphasis, even information is physical, it determines entropy and takes energy to manipulate. I don't know what on earth would a non physical cause be like but I do know that the non physical cause would itself have a cause or it would not have a cause, there is no third alternative. Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not, that my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any determinative physical antecedent. A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising really, confusion is inevitable if you insist on trying to make sense out of gibberish. It was, and is, enormously popular. It's not gibberish since it can be empirically tested. The idea that all events are either physically determined or random is relatively recent. Before it was recognized how complex the activity of physical systems can be and how physically complex biota are it was reasonable to suppose there was something extra-physical about people and animals that made them unpredictable but purposeful. they think some events are physically uncaused So they think it had no cause No they think the cause is an immaterial spirit. but not-random So they think it happened for no cause and didn't happen for no cause and once again we enter into the merry world of gibberish. because they are purposeful. Then the purpose is the cause, and the purpose exists for a reason or the purpose exists for no reason, there is no third alternative. it is hard to eliminate the possibility that a 'spirit' might influence the distribution of these random events Then of course they would not be random but determined by the spirit, and the spirit influenced those things for a reason or for no reason, there is no third alternative. I think the apparent markers of 'free will', unpredictability and purposefulness, are easily explained without invoking 'spirits'. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither do you. John K Clark There's no point explaining something to someone determined not to understand. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/3/2012 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Agent might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably Without a reason. but purposefully. With a reason. But both of those are a little fuzzy. That's not fuzzy, it's idiotic. You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be predictable. Apparently you never studied game theory. You can arrange the words free, decide, choose, purpose, reason, pick, voluntary and unpredictable in any order you like but it won't change the fact that at the end of the day things happen for a reason or things don't happen for a reason. John K Clark Brent I've given you an argument. I'm not obliged to give you an understanding. --- Oliver Heaviside -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/3/2012 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote: The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) If it can be done then do so! Explain choose in a way that shows it is not deterministic and also not random, find a way to say that a choice did not happen for a reason and did not happen for no reason, and do so in a way that is not embarrassingly self contradictory. Do that and you have won the argument. when (which can be defined) presented (which can be defined) By the way, defined can't be defined unless you already know what defined means, that's why examples are more important than definitions; so if a definition is too hard for you just give me examples of things that can make choices and things that can't, but be prepared to defend your reasoning (a deterministic process) why they are in one category and not the other. with a choice (which can be defined). Certainly not meaningless. The word choice is perfectly respectable, I use it myself, but you are a fan of the free will noise so I would bet money that any definition you give of it will be self-contradictory or circular or both. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
OOPS. I hit send instead of delete. Brent On 6/3/2012 4:25 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 6/3/2012 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote: The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) If it can be done then do so! Explain choose in a way that shows it is not deterministic and also not random, find a way to say that a choice did not happen for a reason and did not happen for no reason, and do so in a way that is not embarrassingly self contradictory. Do that and you have won the argument. when (which can be defined) presented (which can be defined) By the way, defined can't be defined unless you already know what defined means, that's why examples are more important than definitions; so if a definition is too hard for you just give me examples of things that can make choices and things that can't, but be prepared to defend your reasoning (a deterministic process) why they are in one category and not the other. with a choice (which can be defined). Certainly not meaningless. The word choice is perfectly respectable, I use it myself, but you are a fan of the free will noise so I would bet money that any definition you give of it will be self-contradictory or circular or both. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 01.06.2012 21:30 meekerdb said the following: On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither do you. John K Clark Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that doesn't mean free will is a meaningless string. Freedom is defined by the observer. I note the freedom I have in choosing my beliefs. I am not bound to agree with you nor am I bound to disagree with you. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines free will as follows “Free Will” is a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. So what is the fuss about? The fuss is because the concept is thought to be fundamental to jurisprudence and social policy (it's even cited in some Supreme Court decisions). The concept of free will has been carried over from past theological and philosophical ideas. But now the concept is attacked by scientists and some philosophers as incoherent or empirically false. If they are right it would seem to imply revision of the social/legal concepts and laws derived from it. Can existing practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis? What about that if you see something working (like a human society) and you do not understand how it is working, then it might be a good idea not to try to change it. The drive for change usually comes from people who are not satisfied with their position in the current society. Why the drive for change should come from some metaphysical discussions? Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising really, confusion is inevitable if you insist on trying to make sense out of gibberish. So you think the existence of soul or spirit is not just false but incomprehensible. There are aspects of the soul theory that are comprehensible, in fact there are aspects about it that I think are true, but a much better name for it would be information. What I think is gibberish is free will, it is incomprehensible because their is nothing to comprehend, it isn't saying anything, there is no there there. there are experiments (e.g. healing prayer, NDE tests) that could have provided evidence for these extra-physical phenomena. By their null result they provide evidence against them. The God theory is not gibberish, it's just wrong. Free will is not even wrong. And they got null results only when the sick people didn't know they were being prayed over, when they did know they actually got worse. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that Free will is not meaningless. Free will has to mean something before it can be attacked. But I'm not saying free will does not exist, and I'm not attacking it because there is nothing to attack, it would be like attacking a duck's quack. I'm saying I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you type the ASCII characters free will and neither do you. I'm not saying the idea is wrong, I'm saying there is no idea there. How do I know this? Because whenever anybody talks about free will the resulting verbiage is ALWAYS a blizzard of contradictory statements, circular definitions, vague illusions, pious speeches, and just plain old idiocy; there is never any substance there. Never. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Can existing practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis? Yes. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) when (which can be defined) presented (which can be defined) with a choice (which can be defined). Certainly not meaningless. On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that Free will is not meaningless. Free will has to mean something before it can be attacked. But I'm not saying free will does not exist, and I'm not attacking it because there is nothing to attack, it would be like attacking a duck's quack. I'm saying I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you type the ASCII characters free will and neither do you. I'm not saying the idea is wrong, I'm saying there is no idea there. How do I know this? Because whenever anybody talks about free will the resulting verbiage is ALWAYS a blizzard of contradictory statements, circular definitions, vague illusions, pious speeches, and just plain old idiocy; there is never any substance there. Never. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
FREE means being *able *to choose *any *among a number of choices. You want freedom of will to mean an agent can choose something beyond what the given choices are? That would imply free will does not exist yet, in that event, free will is still NOT meaningless. Right now I am unconcerned with whether free will exists or not. I am concerned with the statement free will is meaningless. I have given a definition, borrowed from the SEP, that is as good a definition as for any concept (outside mathematical ones). It certainly IS not meaningless and IS an identification, however not of a *FREE* will. It is a decision between given choices. Tomorrow more info may be given to us and our today's choice may be overridden. What I consider a *free will* is independent of the 'choices' we *G E T* and is solely formatted by our (pesonal? inside?) mindset (call it will?). We, however, are part of a more extended (expanded?) world, I like to call it 'Everything' (an infinite complexity of so far(?) unknowable content) and all of its influences (may) contribute to our 'decisionmaking' although we may not know about either the nature of most of those influences, nor that we ARE responding to them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
The hard one to define with falling into circularity is agent which is often defined as an entity with free will. To test something you need an operational definition. Agent might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably but purposefully. But both of those are a little fuzzy. Brent On 6/2/2012 10:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) when (which can be defined) presented (which can be defined) with a choice (which can be defined). Certainly not meaningless. On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that Free will is not meaningless. Free will has to mean something before it can be attacked. But I'm not saying free will does not exist, and I'm not attacking it because there is nothing to attack, it would be like attacking a duck's quack. I'm saying I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you type the ASCII characters free will and neither do you. I'm not saying the idea is wrong, I'm saying there is no idea there. How do I know this? Because whenever anybody talks about free will the resulting verbiage is ALWAYS a blizzard of contradictory statements, circular definitions, vague illusions, pious speeches, and just plain old idiocy; there is never any substance there. Never. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/2/2012 11:45 AM, John Mikes wrote: Did ANYBODY so far - among those ~100(+?) posts (so far erased in this discussion) *I D E N T I F Y* */_free will_/*? I've tried to identify two meanings: One, which I consider unproblematic, is the social and legal attribute of decisions which are not coerced. The other is the folk meaning attributing decisions to a spirit or soul which can initiate physical events but which is independent of all prior physical events. Brent I red about a /_'relatively'_/ free will, (= among (given) choices) as well as 'totally freely chosen' decisions etc. etc. - none of them too impressive. I tried to substantiate several time that we live in a steadily evolving state of cognition and consider (observe?) as of yesterday more than earlier, consequently (by induction) there is more to the world than our today-s position. Whatever we know - either consciously, or not knowingly: subconsciously adds to our decision making and by tomorrow we may be able to draw different conclusions. (When I wrote my reply up to this point, my mailbox induced Brian's post:) --- /_*The capacity*_ (which can be defined) *_of an agent_* (which can be defined) *_to be able_* (which can be defined) *_to choose_* (which can be defined) *_when_* (which can be defined) *_presented_* (which can be defined) *_with a choice_* (which can be defined).//Certainly not meaningless. - Brian Tenneson/ /---/ (emphasis of the ID words by me) - and I reflect: It certainly IS not meaningless and IS an identification, however not of a *_FREE_* will. It is a decision between given choices. Tomorrow more info may be given to us and our today's choice may be overridden. What I consider a *_free will_* is independent of the 'choices' we *_G E T_* and is solely formatted by our (pesonal? inside?) mindset (call it will?). We, however, are part of a more extended (expanded?) world, I like to call it 'Everything' (an infinite complexity of so far(?) unknowable content) and all of its influences (may) contribute to our 'decisionmaking' although we may not know about either the nature of most of those influences, nor that we ARE responding to them. Brent Meeker (if it really came from YOUR post ha ha): */ Can existing practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis? /* Of course it can, in the 'purely utilitarian sense'. Just do not mix such into a theoretical aspect and don't call it (rational?) truth. (Let me stay out of discussing Max Velman's position. I appreciate his scientific base - however different from my agnostic views). John M *//* * //* On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru mailto:use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: On 01.06.2012 20:48 meekerdb said the following: On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote: Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not, that my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any determinative physical antecedent. A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising really, confusion is inevitable if you insist on trying to make sense out of gibberish. So you think the existence of soul or spirit is not just false but incomprehensible. I disagree since there are experiments (e.g. healing prayer, NDE tests) that could have provided evidence for these extra-physical phenomena. By their null result they provide evidence against them. But on your view there cannot be evidence for or against because the concept cannot be given any meaning, much less an operational meaning that can be tested. From Understanding Consciousness by Max Velmans: p. 300 To make matters worse, there are four distinct ways in which body/brain and mind/consciousness might in principle, enter into casual relationship. There might be physical causes of physical states, physical causes of mental states, mental causes of mental states, and mental causes of physical states. Establishing which forms of causation are effective in practice has clear implication for understanding the aetiology and proper treatment of illness and disease. Within conventional medicine, physical - physical is taken for granted. Consequently, the proper treatment for physical disorders is assumed to be some from of physical intervention. Psychiatry takes the efficacy of physical - mental causation for granted, along with the assumption that the proper treatment for psychological disorders may involve psychoactive drugs, neurosurgery and so on. Many forms of psychotherapy take mental - mental causation for granted, and assume that psychological disorders can be alleviated by
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/1/2012 11:25 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: The fuss is because the concept is thought to be fundamental to jurisprudence and social policy (it's even cited in some Supreme Court decisions). The concept of free will has been carried over from past theological and philosophical ideas. But now the concept is attacked by scientists and some philosophers as incoherent or empirically false. If they are right it would seem to imply revision of the social/legal concepts and laws derived from it. Can existing practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis? What about that if you see something working (like a human society) and you do not understand how it is working, then it might be a good idea not to try to change it. I agree with that. An oddly after spending 60 pages attacking free will as an illusion of an illusion, Sam Harris seems to that we may need retributive punishment anyway. The drive for change usually comes from people who are not satisfied with their position in the current society. Why the drive for change should come from some metaphysical discussions? Every successful revolution has its ideology and philosophy though. Brent Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain. --- John Adams -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
How about define agent to be a type 4 agent as explained here: http://cs.wallawalla.edu/~aabyan/Colloquia/Aware/aware2.html On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The hard one to define with falling into circularity is agent which is often defined as an entity with free will. To test something you need an operational definition. Agent might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably but purposefully. But both of those are a little fuzzy. Brent On 6/2/2012 10:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) when (which can be defined) presented (which can be defined) with a choice (which can be defined). Certainly not meaningless. On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that Free will is not meaningless. Free will has to mean something before it can be attacked. But I'm not saying free will does not exist, and I'm not attacking it because there is nothing to attack, it would be like attacking a duck's quack. I'm saying I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you type the ASCII characters free will and neither do you. I'm not saying the idea is wrong, I'm saying there is no idea there. How do I know this? Because whenever anybody talks about free will the resulting verbiage is ALWAYS a blizzard of contradictory statements, circular definitions, vague illusions, pious speeches, and just plain old idiocy; there is never any substance there. Never. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
I don't think any of us qualify since you have to believe and be aware of your belief of every tautology which means all possible mathematical proofs. Actually it seems to me that so much self awareness is contrary to the common notion of 'free will'. The feeling of 'free will' comes about because not only or our decisions unpredictable, they are unpredictable even by us. If you had really complete self-awareness you could trace your every decision back to various external inputs or random events and you would be disabused of the feeling that I could have done otherwise. Brent On 6/2/2012 5:59 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: How about define agent to be a type 4 agent as explained here: http://cs.wallawalla.edu/~aabyan/Colloquia/Aware/aware2.html http://cs.wallawalla.edu/%7Eaabyan/Colloquia/Aware/aware2.html On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The hard one to define with falling into circularity is agent which is often defined as an entity with free will. To test something you need an operational definition. Agent might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably but purposefully. But both of those are a little fuzzy. Brent On 6/2/2012 10:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) when (which can be defined) presented (which can be defined) with a choice (which can be defined). Certainly not meaningless. On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that Free will is not meaningless. Free will has to mean something before it can be attacked. But I'm not saying free will does not exist, and I'm not attacking it because there is nothing to attack, it would be like attacking a duck's quack. I'm saying I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you type the ASCII characters free will and neither do you. I'm not saying the idea is wrong, I'm saying there is no idea there. How do I know this? Because whenever anybody talks about free will the resulting verbiage is ALWAYS a blizzard of contradictory statements, circular definitions, vague illusions, pious speeches, and just plain old idiocy; there is never any substance there. Never. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Thu, May 31, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Look up 'teleology'. Why? I already know it means things happen for a purpose, although it is never made clear who's purpose were talking about or what his purpose is supposed to be. One thing is clear, they had a purpose for a reason or they had a purpose for no reason, there is no third alternative. Almost any reason a person will give If he has a reason then he is deterministic. for their actions will be a reference to some future state. I did it because I desire to be in state X and I believe my present action will bring that about; and my desire and my belief have a cause or they do not have a cause, there is no third alternative. In a deterministic world all physics is time reversible Not necessarily, in a deterministic world X and Y will always produce Z, but Q and T could also always produce Z, so if you detect the existence of Z you can't reverse things and figure out what the world was like in the past, you don't know if it was a world of X and Y or a world of Q and T. In a universe like that you could predict the future but you wouldn't know what happened in the past. Of course this is really moot, we probably don't live in a deterministic world, some things happen for no reason, some things are random. the question is whether this reason in terms of future purpose had a *physical* cause. I don't understand your emphasis, even information is physical, it determines entropy and takes energy to manipulate. I don't know what on earth would a non physical cause be like but I do know that the non physical cause would itself have a cause or it would not have a cause, there is no third alternative. Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not, that my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any determinative physical antecedent. A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising really, confusion is inevitable if you insist on trying to make sense out of gibberish. they think some events are physically uncaused So they think it had no cause but not-random So they think it happened for no cause and didn't happen for no cause and once again we enter into the merry world of gibberish. because they are purposeful. Then the purpose is the cause, and the purpose exists for a reason or the purpose exists for no reason, there is no third alternative. it is hard to eliminate the possibility that a 'spirit' might influence the distribution of these random events Then of course they would not be random but determined by the spirit, and the spirit influenced those things for a reason or for no reason, there is no third alternative. I think the apparent markers of 'free will', unpredictability and purposefulness, are easily explained without invoking 'spirits'. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither do you. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither do you. John K Clark Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that doesn't mean free will is a meaningless string. Freedom is defined by the observer. I note the freedom I have in choosing my beliefs. I am not bound to agree with you nor am I bound to disagree with you. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines free will as follows “Free Will” is a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. So what is the fuss about? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote: Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not, that my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any determinative physical antecedent. A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising really, confusion is inevitable if you insist on trying to make sense out of gibberish. So you think the existence of soul or spirit is not just false but incomprehensible. I disagree since there are experiments (e.g. healing prayer, NDE tests) that could have provided evidence for these extra-physical phenomena. By their null result they provide evidence against them. But on your view there cannot be evidence for or against because the concept cannot be given any meaning, much less an operational meaning that can be tested. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither do you. John K Clark Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that doesn't mean free will is a meaningless string. Freedom is defined by the observer. I note the freedom I have in choosing my beliefs. I am not bound to agree with you nor am I bound to disagree with you. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines free will as follows “Free Will” is a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. So what is the fuss about? The fuss is because the concept is thought to be fundamental to jurisprudence and social policy (it's even cited in some Supreme Court decisions). The concept of free will has been carried over from past theological and philosophical ideas. But now the concept is attacked by scientists and some philosophers as incoherent or empirically false. If they are right it would seem to imply revision of the social/legal concepts and laws derived from it. Can existing practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that Free will is not meaningless. Free will has to mean something before it can be attacked. On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither do you. John K Clark Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that doesn't mean free will is a meaningless string. Freedom is defined by the observer. I note the freedom I have in choosing my beliefs. I am not bound to agree with you nor am I bound to disagree with you. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines free will as follows “Free Will” is a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. So what is the fuss about? The fuss is because the concept is thought to be fundamental to jurisprudence and social policy (it's even cited in some Supreme Court decisions). The concept of free will has been carried over from past theological and philosophical ideas. But now the concept is attacked by scientists and some philosophers as incoherent or empirically false. If they are right it would seem to imply revision of the social/legal concepts and laws derived from it. Can existing practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: Freedom is defined by the observer. Exactly! A man is walking down a road and spots a fork in the road far ahead. He knows of advantages and disadvantages to both paths so he isn't sure if he will go right or left, he hadn't decided. Now imagine a powerful demon able to look into the man's head and quickly deduce that he would eventually choose to go to the left. Meanwhile the man, whose mind works much more slowly than the demon's, hasn't completed the thought process yet. He might be saying to himself I haven't decided, I'll have to think about it, I'm free to go either way. From his point of view he is in a sense correct, even a robot does not feel like a robot, but from the demon's viewpoint it's a different matter, he simply deduced a purely mechanical operation that can have only one outcome. Or it may not be deterministic at all, perhaps I took the left path for no reason at all, either way the free will noise that some human beings like to make is of no more help clarifying the situation than the quack noise ducks like to make. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines free will as follows “ Free Will” is a particular sort of capacity of rational agents If they're rational there is a reason they do what they do, hence they are deterministic. to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. And there is a reason for making that particular choice or there is not a reason for making that particular choice, there is no third alternative. So what is the fuss about? No fuss at all as long as you don't examine too closely what it is actually trying to say; but to be fair that definition of free will is not significantly more idiotic and self contradictory than the verbiage most professional philosophers churn out. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 01.06.2012 20:48 meekerdb said the following: On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote: Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not, that my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any determinative physical antecedent. A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising really, confusion is inevitable if you insist on trying to make sense out of gibberish. So you think the existence of soul or spirit is not just false but incomprehensible. I disagree since there are experiments (e.g. healing prayer, NDE tests) that could have provided evidence for these extra-physical phenomena. By their null result they provide evidence against them. But on your view there cannot be evidence for or against because the concept cannot be given any meaning, much less an operational meaning that can be tested. From Understanding Consciousness by Max Velmans: p. 300 To make matters worse, there are four distinct ways in which body/brain and mind/consciousness might in principle, enter into casual relationship. There might be physical causes of physical states, physical causes of mental states, mental causes of mental states, and mental causes of physical states. Establishing which forms of causation are effective in practice has clear implication for understanding the aetiology and proper treatment of illness and disease. Within conventional medicine, physical - physical is taken for granted. Consequently, the proper treatment for physical disorders is assumed to be some from of physical intervention. Psychiatry takes the efficacy of physical - mental causation for granted, along with the assumption that the proper treatment for psychological disorders may involve psychoactive drugs, neurosurgery and so on. Many forms of psychotherapy take mental - mental causation for granted, and assume that psychological disorders can be alleviated by means of 'talking cures', guided imagery, hypnosis and other form of mental intervention. Psychosomatic medicine assumes that mental - physical causation can be effective ('psychogenesis'). Consequently, under some circumstances, a physical disorder (for example, hysterical paralysis) may require a mental (psychotherapeutic) intervention. Given the extensive evidence for all these causal interactions (cf. Velmans, 1996a), how we to make sense of them? Velmans, M. 1996a: The Science of Consciousness: Psychological, Neuropsychological and Clinical Reviews, London: Routledge. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, May 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The axiom of choice just asserts that an arbitrary product of a family of non empty set is non empty. True, but my dictionary says arbitrary means based on a random choice or personal whim. There is no clue of direct relationship with physics If modern physics said randomness does not exist then there would be a conflict with the Axiom of Choice, they could not both be true; but physics says randomness DOES exist so they are compatible. It has a priori nothing to do with free will Of course it doesn't, nothing real can have anything to do with free will because free will is gibberish. But the Axiom of Choice does have something to do with cause and effect and randomness because those things are not gibberish, it even has something to do with intelligence. When Alan Turing designed the first stored program electronic digital computer, the Manchester Mark 1, he insisted it have a hardware random number generator incorporated in it because he felt that pseudo-random numbers being produced by a numerical process could not be truly random. He thought that if a machine could sometimes make purely random guesses and then use logic to examine the validity of those guesses it might be able to overcome some of the limitations he himself had found in pure Turing Machines (although he never used that name for them), and then you could make what he called a Learning Machine. He thought that in this way the limitations all deterministic processes have that he and Godel had found might be overcome, at least in part. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
Of course it doesn't, nothing real can have anything to do with free will because free will is gibberish. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
Brian, thanks for the excerpt from the Stanford Enc. It is the usual 'scientifically' diluted 'everything', yet includes some supprt for John's quoted phrase. May I add my contribution (not included in the Enc.-txt: In -MY- belief system we are part of that infinite complexity we may call world - or: Everything with very limited knowledge of its structure and 'content' (if it has such). WITHIN those possibilities the complexity provides we can choose from those chances we know of - and we do. Other 'chances' are hidden, no-chances are excluded. So whatever we 'will' is a limited choice - but freely so. It is yet our responsibility from the limited sortiment - faith-based philosophies have it almost right - except for the influence of the 'hidden' part from us, playing a part in our cognition. It is not partially free: rather it is partially deterministic. We THINK it is free will. R A N D O M is another thorn in my views: if such thing was real and available (in any aspect) we were wrong in ANY prediction we made and make upon the belief that data will fall into position. Unless, of course, one restricts random to those instances where it would interfere with a non-random computation. (Nice random, indeed!) Then there is another flaw: random is thought of in our known logical systems, a restricted domain and not controling Nature (Everything) at all. We don't even know if the 'infinite complexity' is a dynamic set of relations only, or an infinite(?) system(?) of everything in an interchange? Or: whatever we cannot even think of? But we are proud of our Free Will. Good for us. John Mikes On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: Of course it doesn't, nothing real can have anything to do with free will because free will is gibberish. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 31 May 2012, at 17:03, John Clark wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The axiom of choice just asserts that an arbitrary product of a family of non empty set is non empty. True, but my dictionary says arbitrary means based on a random choice or personal whim. It math, if P(x) is true for arbitrary x, it just means that P(x) is true for all x. There is no clue of direct relationship with physics If modern physics said randomness does not exist then there would be a conflict with the Axiom of Choice, The axiom of choice has nothing to with randomness, a priori. I can imagine the existence of theories bringing relation, for divine (non turing emulable) entities. But then you have to present those theories. they could not both be true; but physics says randomness DOES exist so they are compatible. Comp says randomness does exist, and physics confirms that, OK. But again, this has nothing to do directly with the axiom of choice which concerns set theory. There are evidence that 'mathematical physics can live in little constructive toposes, and if I remember well the reading of papers some time ago, I think that the axiom of choice makes those toposes, or topoi, boolean, that is still obeying classical logic, which is not so much liked by the constructive people. Physics lives in very short initial segment of ZF, it is not clear if the axiom of choice says anything about the physical reality, nor even of the math, except by making true some nice completing property, like having *all* Hilbet space having orthonormal base, in physics, or like all consistent set of sentences having unique consistent extensions. But, with comp, this concerns the epistemology, and things are very difficult. Consciousness surfs on coherent dreams, and it is just an open question if that converges to a unique physical universe, or a unique multiverse, or a unique multi-multiverse, or and this on all ordinals (in which theory? With AC?. It has a priori nothing to do with free will Of course it doesn't, nothing real can have anything to do with free will because free will is gibberish. That is *your* theory, and to be honest, I don't find it so much interesting. I do agree that some definition of free will are gibberish, that is either inconsistent, or empty, but some are not. I suggest that free-will is the machine awareness of the possibility of hesitating in front of a spectrum of possibilities. Butterflies are close to free will, imo, because of the spectrum of flowers and nectars, but I have no evidence that butterfly have free will because I have no evidence that butterfly can infer and reflect. They might be mainly attracted. But I gave evidence that jumping spiders and octopi have free will in the sense that they do infer the possibilities, and reflect on it. Relatively to their cognitive abilities, they have as much free will than you, me and PA (with the definition above). But the Axiom of Choice does have something to do with cause and effect and randomness because those things are not gibberish, We could make that true if we would formalize physics in set theory. But there are conceptual reason why such an enterprise is doomed at the start. ZF is the fortran of the mathematical theories. Just an altar for category theory and natural transformations (Eilenberg and MacLane). I love ZF, but as a very imaginative Löbian machine. To say that the axiom of choice has something to do with the notion of cause and effect, without saying in which theory you work is confusing. it even has something to do with intelligence. When Alan Turing designed the first stored program electronic digital computer, the Manchester Mark 1, he insisted it have a hardware random number generator incorporated in it because he felt that pseudo-random numbers being produced by a numerical process could not be truly random. He thought that if a machine could sometimes make purely random guesses and then use logic to examine the validity of those guesses it might be able to overcome some of the limitations he himself had found in pure Turing Machines (although he never used that name for them), and then you could make what he called a Learning Machine. He thought that in this way the limitations all deterministic processes have that he and Godel had found might be overcome, at least in part. For problem solving this in vindicated by the result that Random Oracle can enlarged classes of problem solving. Those are given by necessary non constructive proofs. This does not overcome Incompleteness or insolubility, but can reduce complexities in relative way. That might play a role in the first person indeterminacy comp measure problem, as it gives freely a first person random Oracle a priori, relativized by their many computational extensions. Bruno
Re: free will and mathematics
On 5/31/2012 10:24 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote: Of course it doesn't, nothing real can have anything to do with free will because free will is gibberish. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ I stopped reading after the first line: “Free Will” is a philosophical Already I have a bad feeling about this. term of art or a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. If they are rational agents then it's rational and if it's rational then there is a reason behind it and if there is a reason behind it then it's deterministic. That's not logically the case. People who believe in 'free will' think the reason is in front of it, i.e. the reason for posting this is to communicate. If they believe in 'libertarian free will' they think that this teleological reason can be an efficient physical cause with no determinate antecedents. A random event could satisfy the 'efficient physical cause' but they rule out random events as inconsistent with obviously purposeful decisions and actions. This contradicts our theories of physics and the brain - but it is not a logical contradiction as you imply. Brent Like I said, gibberish, but that shouldn't be surprising, it was after all written by philosophers. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 5/31/2012 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: it even has something to do with intelligence. When Alan Turing designed the first stored program electronic digital computer, the Manchester Mark 1, he insisted it have a hardware random number generator incorporated in it because he felt that pseudo-random numbers being produced by a numerical process could not be truly random. He thought that if a machine could sometimes make purely random guesses and then use logic to examine the validity of those guesses it might be able to overcome some of the limitations he himself had found in pure Turing Machines (although he never used that name for them), and then you could make what he called a Learning Machine. He thought that in this way the limitations all deterministic processes have that he and Godel had found might be overcome, at least in part. For problem solving this in vindicated by the result that Random Oracle can enlarged classes of problem solving. Those are given by necessary non constructive proofs. This does not overcome Incompleteness or insolubility, but can reduce complexities in relative way. That might play a role in the first person indeterminacy comp measure problem, as it gives freely a first person random Oracle a priori, relativized by their many computational extensions. Bruno And it is a very likely trick for evolution to have developed since making random choices is part of optimum strategies in games with incomplete information. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: If they are rational agents then it's rational and if it's rational then there is a reason behind it and if there is a reason behind it then it's deterministic. That's not logically the case. People who believe in 'free will' think the reason is in front of it, In front of it? I don't know what that means and I would bet money you don't either. It sounds good though as long as you don't examine it. the reason for posting this is to communicate. You wish to communicate your ideas, and there is a reason for this desire (maybe genes maybe environment probably both), or maybe there is no reason for this desire and is thus random. A random event could satisfy the 'efficient physical cause' but they rule out random events as inconsistent with obviously purposeful decisions and actions. So fans of the free will noise think purposeful events, things that happen for a reason, are not random, that is to say they did not happen for no reason. Or to say the same thing with different words fans of the free will noise think random events are random and purposeful events are purposeful. Well, it may not be deep but at least it's true. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 5/31/2012 12:39 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: If they are rational agents then it's rational and if it's rational then there is a reason behind it and if there is a reason behind it then it's deterministic. That's not logically the case. People who believe in 'free will' think the reason is in front of it, In front of it? I don't know what that means and I would bet money you don't either. It sounds good though as long as you don't examine it. Look up 'teleology'. Almost any reason a person will give for their actions will be a reference to some future state. In a deterministic world all physics is time reversible so there's no fundamental distinction between being determined by a future state and being determined by a past state. But if successive states are not physically determined by prior states the two are not the same. the reason for posting this is to communicate. You wish to communicate your ideas, and there is a reason for this desire (maybe genes maybe environment probably both), There is a reason; I gave one. But the question is whether this reason in terms of future purpose had a *physical* cause. Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not, that my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any determinative physical antecedent. or maybe there is no reason for this desire and is thus random. A random event could satisfy the 'efficient physical cause' but they rule out random events as inconsistent with obviously purposeful decisions and actions. So fans of the free will noise think purposeful events, things that happen for a reason, are not random, that is to say they did not happen for no reason. Or to say the same thing with different words fans of the free will noise think random events are random and purposeful events are purposeful. No, they think some events are physically uncaused but not-random (because they are purposeful). This is difficult to disprove empirically because the brain is very complex and has lots of random events in it (radioactive decay of potassium K40, gamma ray strikes,...). So it is hard to eliminate the possibility that a 'spirit' might influence the distribution of these random events, in a way that our relatively crude monitoring could not detect, so that chaotic amplification would produce an action in accordance with the 'spirit' purpose. I don't believe this theory because I think the apparent markers of 'free will', unpredictability and purposefulness, are easily explained without invoking 'spirits'. But it's still an empirical question. Brent Well, it may not be deep but at least it's true. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 5/29/2012 11:46 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jesse, Would it be correct to think of arbitrary as used here as meaning some y subset Y identified by some function i or mapping j that is not a subset (or faithfully represented) in X, yet x = y : x /subset X? The choice of a basis of a linear space comes to mind. The idea is that one it is not necessary to specify the method of identification ab initio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_initio. I can't really tell what you're asking here. As I said, an arbitrary member of set Y will have property X just means every member of set Y has property X, nothing more complicated. For example, Y might be the set of all triangles in Euclidean geometry, and X might be the property of having all the inner angles add up to 180 degrees. It would be easier to understand your question if you similarly supplied some simple of what Y, y, j, X, and x could stand for, such that your description above would make sense. Jesse -- Hi Jesse, You previously wrote: The notion of choosing isn't actually important--if a proof says something like pick an arbitrary member of the set X, and you will find it obeys Y, this is equivalent to the statement every member of the set _X obeys Y_. and not an arbitrary member of set Y will have property X just means every member of set Y has property X , a small but possibly important difference. Are you assuming a commutative relation for Y and X? Details... -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 5/29/2012 11:52 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 5/29/2012 8:11 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin wrote: The original poster introduces what free will means. 1) Every choice which is allowed in physics is a random choice or a determinate one. 2) If human free will choice exists, it is agreed that it is not determined by some law and is not a random process. 3)We have agfeed that the choice of an arbitrary element is not a random chaice and is not a choice determinate by some law. We haven't even agreed that it is a choice. It's just using a function, as in (. is an element of X) so (x is an element of X)-true and (y is an element of X)-false. (all x |x an element of X) doesn't involve choosing an element x, just specifying a function that defines X. Then it is a choice determinate by some law. And whether X is infinite or finite is a red herring. Suppose I said,Consider an arbitrary person with no feet. Then he has no toenails. This is a perfectly valid inference whether there are finitely many or infinitely many persons in the multiverse. Brent Brent, You are assuming that there is no difference between an known and an unknown quantity. A big mistake! 4)Therefore I do call it a free will choice in mathematics. One can consider it as a definition of a specific free will choice in mathematics. 5) If one uses mathematics, then one operates with a process which is prohibited in physics. Therefore an investigator who uses mathematics cannot deny existence of mental processes which cannot be described by physics (and, in particular, cannot deny existence of free will, even if free will is not introduced explicitly). Good luck. On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 5/29/2012 2:09 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:52 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 27, 2012 Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.com mailto:aaloks...@gmail.com wrote: All main mathematical notions ( such as infinity, variable, integer number) implicitly depend on the notion of free will. Because nobody can explain what the ASCII string free will means the above statement is of no value. Precisely. The original poster should introduce some sensible definition of free will. Good luck! -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 5/30/2012 12:06 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 5/29/2012 8:47 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 5/29/2012 5:18 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.com mailto:aaloks...@gmail.com wrote: It is impossible to consider common properties of elements of an infinite set since, as is known from psycology, a man can consider no more than 7 objects simultaneously. That's just about the number of distinct chunks of information you can hold in working memory, so that you can name the distinctive features of each one after they are removed from your sense experience (see http://www.intropsych.com/ch06_memory/magical_number_seven.html ). But I'm not talking about actually visualizing each and every member of an infinite set, such that I am aware of the distinctive features of each one which differentiate them from the others. I'm talking about a more abstract understanding that a certain property applies to every member, perhaps simply by definition (for example, triangles are defined to be three-sided, so three-sidedness is obviously one of the common properties of the set of all triangles). Do you think it's impossible to have an abstract understanding that a large (perhaps infinite) set of objects all share a particular property? A single finite and faithful (to within the finite margin of error) representation of triangle works given that definition. This is there nominalism and universalism come to blows Your remarkable objection that *if two mathematicians consider two different arbitrary objects they will obtain different results* demonstrates that you are not a mathematician. Huh? I didn't write the phrase you put in quotes, nor imply that this was how *I* thought mathematicians actually operated--I was just saying that *you* seemed to be suggesting that mathematicians could only prove things by making specific choices of examples to consider, using their free will. If that's not what you were suggesting, please clarify (and note that I did ask if this is what you meant in my previous post, rather than just assuming it...I then went on to make the conditional statement that IF that was indeed what you meant, THEN you should find it impossible to explain how mathematicians could be confident that a theorem could not be falsified by a new choice of example. But of course I might be misunderstanding your argument, that's why I asked if my reading was correct.) Arbitrary element is not an object, it is a mental but non-physical process which*enables one to do a physically impossible thing : to observe an infinite set of objects simultaneously* considering then all their common properties at a single really existing object. Therefore two different mathematicians will necessarily obtain the same result. So you agree mathematicians don't have to make an actual choice of a specific element to consider? Then how is free will supposed to be relevant if there is no actual choice whatsoever being made? -- Why do you keep insisting on a specific property to the choice while being shown that the a priori specificity itself that is prohibited by the definition. He didn't refer to a specific property but to a specific choice of element, which is what Loskin says entails the magic ability to select one among an infinite number. He apparently thinks of it like the complement of the axiom of choice: to pick an element you need to say,Not this one. Not this one. Not... an infinite number of times. Hi Brent, Yes, that is a very good point! The axiom of choice is a suspect here. Banach and Tarsky proved a paradox of the axiom of choice, it is the scalar field of mathematics, IMHO; you can get from it anything you want. The point is is that what ever the choice is, there are ab initio alternatives that are not exactly known to be optimal solutions to some criterion and some not-specified-in-advance function that picks one. ??? The function is specified in advance, e.g. triangles is a function that picks out things with three sides meeting pairwise as three vertices. But I have no idea what you mean by optimality. What does that word mean? Try this from http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Optimality *1.* (mathematics) *optimal* - Describes a solution to a problem which minimises some cost function. Linear programming http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Linear+programming is one technique used to discover the optimal solution to certain problems. *2.* (programming) *optimal* - Of code: best or most efficient in time, space or code size. Is that helpful? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 5/30/2012 1:25 AM, Aleksandr Lokshin wrote: 5) If one uses mathematics, then one operates with a process which is prohibited in physics. Rubbish! I insist on my statement which, unfortunately, is not understood. I stop taking part in the discussion. Best wishes Ale OK. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 30 May 2012, at 08:12, Stephen P. King wrote: On 5/30/2012 12:06 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 5/29/2012 8:47 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 5/29/2012 5:18 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.com wrote: It is impossible to consider common properties of elements of an infinite set since, as is known from psycology, a man can consider no more than 7 objects simultaneously. That's just about the number of distinct chunks of information you can hold in working memory, so that you can name the distinctive features of each one after they are removed from your sense experience (see http://www.intropsych.com/ch06_memory/magical_number_seven.html ). But I'm not talking about actually visualizing each and every member of an infinite set, such that I am aware of the distinctive features of each one which differentiate them from the others. I'm talking about a more abstract understanding that a certain property applies to every member, perhaps simply by definition (for example, triangles are defined to be three-sided, so three-sidedness is obviously one of the common properties of the set of all triangles). Do you think it's impossible to have an abstract understanding that a large (perhaps infinite) set of objects all share a particular property? A single finite and faithful (to within the finite margin of error) representation of triangle works given that definition. This is there nominalism and universalism come to blows Your remarkable objection that if two mathematicians consider two different arbitrary objects they will obtain different results demonstrates that you are not a mathematician. Huh? I didn't write the phrase you put in quotes, nor imply that this was how *I* thought mathematicians actually operated--I was just saying that *you* seemed to be suggesting that mathematicians could only prove things by making specific choices of examples to consider, using their free will. If that's not what you were suggesting, please clarify (and note that I did ask if this is what you meant in my previous post, rather than just assuming it...I then went on to make the conditional statement that IF that was indeed what you meant, THEN you should find it impossible to explain how mathematicians could be confident that a theorem could not be falsified by a new choice of example. But of course I might be misunderstanding your argument, that's why I asked if my reading was correct.) Arbitrary element is not an object, it is a mental but non- physical process which enables one to do a physically impossible thing : to observe an infinite set of objects simultaneously considering then all their common properties at a single really existing object. Therefore two different mathematicians will necessarily obtain the same result. So you agree mathematicians don't have to make an actual choice of a specific element to consider? Then how is free will supposed to be relevant if there is no actual choice whatsoever being made? -- Why do you keep insisting on a specific property to the choice while being shown that the a priori specificity itself that is prohibited by the definition. He didn't refer to a specific property but to a specific choice of element, which is what Loskin says entails the magic ability to select one among an infinite number. He apparently thinks of it like the complement of the axiom of choice: to pick an element you need to say,Not this one. Not this one. Not... an infinite number of times. Hi Brent, Yes, that is a very good point! The axiom of choice is a suspect here. Banach and Tarsky proved a paradox of the axiom of choice, it is the scalar field of mathematics, IMHO; you can get from it anything you want. Banach and Tarski proved an amazing theorem with the axiom of choice, but it is not a paradox, in the sense that it contradicts nothing, and you can't get anything from it. Bruno The point is is that what ever the choice is, there are ab initio alternatives that are not exactly known to be optimal solutions to some criterion and some not-specified-in-advance function that picks one. ??? The function is specified in advance, e.g. triangles is a function that picks out things with three sides meeting pairwise as three vertices. But I have no idea what you mean by optimality. What does that word mean? Try this from http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Optimality 1. (mathematics) optimal - Describes a solution to a problem which minimises some cost function. Linear programming is one technique used to discover the optimal solution to certain problems. 2. (programming) optimal - Of code: best or most efficient in time, space or code size. Is that helpful? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this
Re: free will and mathematics
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 5/29/2012 11:46 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Jesse, Would it be correct to think of arbitrary as used here as meaning some y subset Y identified by some function i or mapping j that is not a subset (or faithfully represented) in X, yet x = y : x /subset X? The choice of a basis of a linear space comes to mind. The idea is that one it is not necessary to specify the method of identification ab initiohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_initio. I can't really tell what you're asking here. As I said, an arbitrary member of set Y will have property X just means every member of set Y has property X, nothing more complicated. For example, Y might be the set of all triangles in Euclidean geometry, and X might be the property of having all the inner angles add up to 180 degrees. It would be easier to understand your question if you similarly supplied some simple of what Y, y, j, X, and x could stand for, such that your description above would make sense. Jesse -- Hi Jesse, You previously wrote: The notion of choosing isn't actually important--if a proof says something like pick an arbitrary member of the set X, and you will find it obeys Y, this is equivalent to the statement every member of the set *X obeys Y*. and not an arbitrary member of set Y will have property X just means every member of set Y has property X , a small but possibly important difference. Are you assuming a commutative relation for Y and X? Details... Sorry, I was speaking informally, so I wasn't being too careful about keeping my use of the symbols X and Y consistent from one post to another. In the sentence an arbitrary member of set Y will have property X I was using Y to refer to a set and X to refer to a property, while in the sentence pick an arbitrary member of the set X, and you will find it obeys Y it was X that referred to a set, and Y that referred to a property. I'll try to stick to the second usage from now on to be consistent. Also, if I was worrying more about notation it would be more standard to use Y(x) to refer to the notion that some mathematical object x has a property Y, and then if X refers to a set, I could write ∀x (x ∈ X - Y(x) ), which means for all objects x in our domain of discourse, if x is a member of the set X, this implies that x has property Y. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 30 May 2012 04:16, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: I think that the word free means that it is unconstrained by a pre-given or knowable function; it is not the result of a known computational process. I'm sorry if my point was not clear. I simply meant that we can define arbitrary, if we wish, to mean neither random nor constrained by law. Then, simply by convention, an arbitrary choice is freely willed. But this cannot by itself exhaust the analysis of any particular agency because, as you say, we cannot be certain that it is not constrained by some unknown or unknowable computational process. Some particular agent can only be known to be free, in this sense, to some limit. Consequently, I don't see how we can argue from the limitations of mathematicians as agents to the metaphysics of mathematics. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 30 May 2012 04:41, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Only David Nyman agreed as far as I can see See my reply to Stephen. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 5/30/2012 4:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 May 2012, at 08:12, Stephen P. King wrote: On 5/30/2012 12:06 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 5/29/2012 8:47 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 5/29/2012 5:18 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.com mailto:aaloks...@gmail.com wrote: It is impossible to consider common properties of elements of an infinite set since, as is known from psycology, a man can consider no more than 7 objects simultaneously. That's just about the number of distinct chunks of information you can hold in working memory, so that you can name the distinctive features of each one after they are removed from your sense experience (see http://www.intropsych.com/ch06_memory/magical_number_seven.html ). But I'm not talking about actually visualizing each and every member of an infinite set, such that I am aware of the distinctive features of each one which differentiate them from the others. I'm talking about a more abstract understanding that a certain property applies to every member, perhaps simply by definition (for example, triangles are defined to be three-sided, so three-sidedness is obviously one of the common properties of the set of all triangles). Do you think it's impossible to have an abstract understanding that a large (perhaps infinite) set of objects all share a particular property? A single finite and faithful (to within the finite margin of error) representation of triangle works given that definition. This is there nominalism and universalism come to blows Your remarkable objection that *if two mathematicians consider two different arbitrary objects they will obtain different results* demonstrates that you are not a mathematician. Huh? I didn't write the phrase you put in quotes, nor imply that this was how *I* thought mathematicians actually operated--I was just saying that *you* seemed to be suggesting that mathematicians could only prove things by making specific choices of examples to consider, using their free will. If that's not what you were suggesting, please clarify (and note that I did ask if this is what you meant in my previous post, rather than just assuming it...I then went on to make the conditional statement that IF that was indeed what you meant, THEN you should find it impossible to explain how mathematicians could be confident that a theorem could not be falsified by a new choice of example. But of course I might be misunderstanding your argument, that's why I asked if my reading was correct.) Arbitrary element is not an object, it is a mental but non-physical process which*enables one to do a physically impossible thing : to observe an infinite set of objects simultaneously* considering then all their common properties at a single really existing object. Therefore two different mathematicians will necessarily obtain the same result. So you agree mathematicians don't have to make an actual choice of a specific element to consider? Then how is free will supposed to be relevant if there is no actual choice whatsoever being made? -- Why do you keep insisting on a specific property to the choice while being shown that the a priori specificity itself that is prohibited by the definition. He didn't refer to a specific property but to a specific choice of element, which is what Loskin says entails the magic ability to select one among an infinite number. He apparently thinks of it like the complement of the axiom of choice: to pick an element you need to say,Not this one. Not this one. Not... an infinite number of times. Hi Brent, Yes, that is a very good point! The axiom of choice is a suspect here. Banach and Tarsky proved a paradox of the axiom of choice, it is the scalar field of mathematics, IMHO; you can get from it anything you want. Banach and Tarski proved an amazing theorem with the axiom of choice, but it is not a paradox, in the sense that it contradicts nothing, and you can't get anything from it. Bruno The axiom of choice allows for violation of conservation laws, if it where to be a physical law. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Tue, May 29, 2012 Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.com wrote: The original poster introduces what free will means. Every choice which is allowed in physics is a random choice OK, In other words it had no cause. or a determinate one. In other words it had a cause. If human free will choice exists, it is agreed that it is not determined by some law In other words free will has no cause and thus is random. and is not a random process. In other words free will is random and not random. In still other words when a human makes the free will noise it conveys just as much information as a cow does when it makes the moo noise. We have agfeed that the choice of an arbitrary element is not a random chaice and is not a choice determinate by some law. In other words we have agreed that free will is gibberish. If one uses mathematics, then one operates with a process which is prohibited in physics. Free will is not just prohibited in physics, it is prohibited in logic too. Therefore an investigator who uses mathematics cannot deny existence of mental processes which cannot be described by physics (and, in particular, cannot deny existence of free will That is true, you can't deny free will because there is nothing to deny, there is no there there. It would be like denying a duck's quack. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.