On 18.03.2013 21:02 John Mikes said the following:
friends: don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please! It is
the religious mambo-jumbo put into the mind of the poor-believers in
ancient times to make them responsible for deeds the powerful
disliked - and consequently: make them
On 18 Mar 2013, at 21:02, John Mikes wrote:
friends:
don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please!
It is the religious mambo-jumbo put into the mind of the poor-
believers in ancient times to make them responsible for deeds the
powerful disliked - and consequently: make them
On 17 Mar 2013, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:47:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2013, at 03:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On Monday, March 18, 2013 6:01:18 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2013, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:47:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2013, at 03:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bruno
On 15 Mar 2013, at 18:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/15/2013 7:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You're walking down a road and spot a fork in the road far ahead.
You know of advantages and disadvantages to both paths so you
arn't sure if you will go right or left, you haven't finished the
On 15 Mar 2013, at 18:07, meekerdb wrote:
Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics
because he thinks physics is different from what all those stupid
physicists think it is. They just don't know about his top-down
physics, which no one has observed but which he
On 17 Mar 2013, at 18:40, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
So all free will means is that sometimes we can make correct
predictions about what we will do before we do it, and sometimes we
cannot, and in general beforehand there
On 18 Mar 2013, at 14:26, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 6:01:18 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2013, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:47:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2013, at 03:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On Monday, March 18, 2013 12:25:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2013, at 18:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/15/2013 7:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You're walking down a road and spot a fork in the road far ahead. You
know of advantages and disadvantages to both paths so you
friends:
don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please!
It is the religious mambo-jumbo put into the mind of the poor-believers in
ancient times to make them responsible for deeds the powerful disliked -
and consequently: make them punishable. Then it became a 'human treasure':
*We are
On Monday, March 18, 2013 4:02:51 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
friends:
don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please!
It is the religious mambo-jumbo put into the mind of the poor-believers in
ancient times to make them responsible for deeds the powerful disliked -
and consequently:
On 3/18/2013 1:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:
friends:
don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please!
I'm not. That's why I was careful to distinguish freedom and the feeling of freedom from
will and the feeling of resolve. We can have them together, but that doesn't make them
into one
On Monday, March 18, 2013 7:57:06 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/18/2013 1:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:
friends:
don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please!
I'm not. That's why I was careful to distinguish freedom and the feeling
of freedom from will and the feeling of
On 16 Mar 2013, at 23:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/16/2013 3:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that you haven't understood it,
That's because you are only working
On 17 Mar 2013, at 03:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that you haven't understood it,
That's because
On Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:47:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2013, at 03:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So all free will means is that sometimes we can make correct
predictions about what we will do before we do it, and sometimes we cannot,
and in general beforehand there is no way to tell which ones we can make
good
John: you answered YES on questions not drawing it:
(see your post copied below)
1st YES: can you (yes) or can you not (yes?) see?
2nd YES: can you NOT control? Yes, I can, Yes I cannot.
I was glad not to see a third YES.
YES
John A Mikes
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:22 PM, John Clark
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The scientific conception of neurons is that *nothing* in them happens
without a physical reason, ever.
Which is why we those scientists have no idea what consciousness is.
Physical is a meaningless term. Whatever
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:26:24 AM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
This has to be my last response on this for a while. I will just say,
about consciousness arising from other premises: It is not the material
itself that is important, but the organization of it.
I understand that
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If someone sells you into slavery, or brainwashes you in a cult, can you
not see that you have lost something?
Yes.
Can you not 'control' your lungs to a greater extent than you can
control your heartbeat?
Yes
How do
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
So all free will means is that sometimes we can make correct
predictions about what we will do before we do it,
Then a Turing Machine has free will because it can correctly predict that
it will list all the factors of
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:22:19 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
If someone sells you into slavery, or brainwashes you in a cult, can you
not see that you have lost something?
Yes.
Can you not 'control'
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:41:27 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
So all free will means is that sometimes we can make correct
predictions about what we will do before we do it,
That's what you
On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that you haven't understood it,
That's because you are only working with a straw man of me. What is
it that you think that I don't understand? The legacy view is
On 15 Mar 2013, at 21:18, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
No that is the exact opposite of the truth, we cannot follow our
own self determination. If you tell me that a system is
deterministic you have added exactly zero
On 15 Mar 2013, at 22:14, Terren Suydam wrote:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Feynman
A great quote that admonishes us to never trust our beliefs 100%.
Very few people I have met have Feynman's humility.
Wonderful (and funny) quote.
Bruno
On 3/16/2013 3:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that you haven't understood it,
That's because you are only working with a straw man of me. What is it
that you think
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that you haven't understood it,
That's because you are only working with a straw man of me.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't say that. I said When five billion of them jump to attention at
once, it is **often** because of something that the person is experiencing
intentionally,. Biochemistry, among other things, can cause billions
On Friday, March 15, 2013 12:23:42 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
A wheel is just [...] a mouse trap does not [...] it doesn't care
about [...] it doesn't matter to [...]
This is really getting
On 14 Mar 2013, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:59:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Who are you to say that natural phenomena
On Friday, March 15, 2013 6:59:42 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I didn't say that. I said When five billion of them jump to attention
at
once, it is **often** because of something that the person is
On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2013, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:59:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg
On 15 Mar 2013, at 04:19, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Because both dragons and God are well defined concepts, just
concepts that don’t happen to have the attribute of existence. In
contrast “free will” is not only incoherently
Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics because he thinks
physics is different from what all those stupid physicists think it is. They just don't
know about his top-down physics, which no one has observed but which he *directly
experiences* and therefore *just knows
On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics
because he thinks physics is different from what all those stupid
physicists think it is. They just don't know about his top-down physics,
which no one has
On 3/15/2013 7:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You're walking down a road and spot a fork in the road far ahead. You know of
advantages and disadvantages to both paths so you arn't sure if you will go right or
left, you haven't finished the calculation yet, you haven't decided yet. Once you get
to
On 3/15/2013 1:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics
because he thinks physics is different from what all those stupid
physicists think it is. They just don't know about
On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:28:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 3/15/2013 1:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics
because he thinks physics is different
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Exactly. It is interesting also in that it seems to be like one of those
ambiguous images, in that as long as people are focused on one fixed idea
of reality, they are honestly incapable of seeing any other, even if
On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:55:26 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Exactly. It is interesting also in that it seems to be like one of those
ambiguous images, in that as long as people are focused on
No, I think that you haven't understood it, due to whatever biases have led
you to invest so much in your theory - a theory which is AFAICT completely
unfalsifiable and predicts nothing.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that you haven't understood it,
That's because you are only working with a straw man of me. What is it that
you think that I don't understand? The legacy view is that if you have many
molecular systems working
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that you haven't understood it,
That's because you are only working with a straw man of me. What is it
that you think that I don't
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
No that is the exact opposite of the truth, we cannot follow our own
self determination. If you tell me that a system is deterministic you have
added exactly zero information by telling me that the system also has free
On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:11:32 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that you haven't understood it,
That's because you
On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:18:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
wrote:
No that is the exact opposite of the truth, we cannot follow our own
self determination. If you tell me that a system is deterministic you
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:11:32 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I
On Friday, March 15, 2013 5:14:16 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:11:32 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg
This has to be my last response on this for a while. I will just say, about
consciousness arising from other premises: It is not the material itself
that is important, but the organization of it. Consciousness *might* be
what happens when certain kinds of organization arise. The human brain
might
On 13 Mar 2013, at 17:32, John Clark wrote:
Because both dragons and God are well defined concepts, just
concepts that don’t happen to have the attribute of existence. In
contrast “free will” is not only incoherently defined it is every
bit as self contradictory as the largest prime
On 14 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Who are you to say that natural phenomena are superfluous?
Who are you to say that they aren't?
The natural world is as it is. It's not my place to say the
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:59:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Who are you to say that natural phenomena are superfluous?
Who
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The color white is not red, but since white cannot be made without using
red wavelengths, then it can't be said that it is not not red either.
If that's true, and you're the one who keeps telling me that the qualia
color has
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:27:17 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
The color white is not red, but since white cannot be made without using
red wavelengths, then it can't be said that it is not not red either.
If
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
And what is determining your personal will is your brain, which
follows the laws of physics.
What law of physics makes my will decide to get my house painted in exactly
30 days? Does electromagnetism have some 30
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:42:10 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
And what is determining your personal will is your brain, which
follows the laws of physics.
What law of physics makes my will
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
What law of physics makes my will decide to get my house painted in
exactly
30 days? Does electromagnetism have some 30 day cycle that is predicted
by
gravity for me and nobody else?
What laws of physics
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Because both dragons and God are well defined concepts, just concepts
that don’t happen to have the attribute of existence. In contrast “free
will” is not only incoherently defined it is every bit as self
contradictory
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:29:09 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
What law of physics makes my will decide to get my house painted in
exactly
30 days? Does electromagnetism have some 30 day cycle
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
A wheel is just [...] a mouse trap does not [...] it doesn't care about
[...] it doesn't matter to [...]
This is really getting tedious. Again and again you are decreeing what is
and what is not so but you're not
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:45:10 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On 13/03/2013, at 4:53 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
We're talking about the basic principle of determinism though. We should
use a basic example of it. What special ingredient does complexity add
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:56:00 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On 12/03/2013, at 12:30 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
No, it doesn't make sense to me that there would be a highly valued
qualia of free will (and highly charged qualia of responsibility) if our
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:51:56 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
But physics does describe how high you will decide to throw the ball,
since physics describes the movement of the ball and the
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
There is no reason to think that a deterministic universe universe had
to have a beginning, or a non-deterministic one either for that matter.
Then determinism, having no prior cause, violates determinism.
No,
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:32:34 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
the phrase dragons exist or God exists is not gibberish just wrong,
and free will is not even wrong. I'm saying that if free will doesn't
exist
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:36:36 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
There is no reason to think that a deterministic universe universe had
to have a beginning, or a non-deterministic one either for that
On 3/13/2013 3:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The computer as a whole is
not a computer at all, it is an animal, a being. In reality, it only looks
like a computer on the lower levels because it is too distant from our
personal experience to relate to personally.
At last Craig admits that
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:00:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/13/2013 3:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The computer as a whole is
not a computer at all, it is an animal, a being. In reality, it only
looks
like a computer on the lower levels because it is too distant from our
On 3/13/2013 3:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:00:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/13/2013 3:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The computer as a whole is
not a computer at all, it is an animal, a being. In reality, it only
looks
like a computer
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:38:24 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/13/2013 3:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:00:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/13/2013 3:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The computer as a whole is
not a computer at all, it is an
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you can't demonstrate that one carbon atom is intelligent or conscious
does that mean that trillions of them together can't be either?
If your model of physics doesn't include intelligence then it can't
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:53:23 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If you can't demonstrate that one carbon atom is intelligent or
conscious
does that mean that trillions of them together can't be
On 3/13/2013 4:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:38:24 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/13/2013 3:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:00:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/13/2013 3:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/13/2013 4:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:38:24 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/13/2013 3:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:00:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
So you have experiences which you can't deny, and which you can't explain as
being necessary or sensible for a computer to have in any way. Why would you
decide to infer that computers have superfluous phenomena
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:51:20 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
So you have experiences which you can't deny, and which you can't
explain as
being necessary or sensible for a computer to have in
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I may not be able to predict what your brain will do 30 days from now,
but that does not necessarily mean your brain is not deterministic.
And it certainly doesn't mean your brain is neither deterministic nor
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Who are you to say that natural phenomena are superfluous?
Who are you to say that they aren't?
The natural world is as it is. It's not my place to say the the Great
Red Spot of Jupiter is superfluous, that the
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:13:47 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I may not be able to predict what your brain will do 30 days from now,
but that does not necessarily mean your brain is not
On 3/13/2013 10:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The last one is especially cool. As you can see, the brain's behavior reflects massive,
simultaneous, spontaneously formed patterns that have nothing whatsoever to do with
physical laws. The same physical laws are in place whether the subject has
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:37:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Who are you to say that natural phenomena are superfluous?
Who are you to say that they aren't?
The natural world is as it is.
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:12:37 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/13/2013 10:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The last one is especially cool. As you can see, the brain's behavior
reflects massive, simultaneous, spontaneously formed patterns that have
nothing whatsoever to do with physical
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
And it would be easy to show that physics was incomplete by
demonstrating biological systems operate contrary to physics.
If I pickup a basketball and throw it up in the air, that result is not
contrary to
On 11 Mar 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 10:01:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2013, at 00:57, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 10, 2013 5:51:35 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/10/2013 1:08 PM, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Question- I also
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:56:58 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
And it would be easy to show that physics was incomplete by
demonstrating biological systems operate contrary to physics.
If I
On 11 Mar 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 1:27:57 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2013, at 14:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 8:43:03 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 15:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:20:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 1:27:57 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2013, at 14:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 8:43:03 AM UTC-4, Bruno
On 12 Mar 2013, at 00:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/11/2013 6:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 22:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/10/2013 1:08 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Question- I also thought determinism mean't that you could
predict where and when, a particle could move. But
On 12 Mar 2013, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:20:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What does it mean to contribute causally to a deterministic process
though? What contribution does the stone make to its
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Question- I also thought determinism mean't that you could predict where
and when, a particle could move.
No, determinism and predictability are two different things. In
adeterministic system its
future state depends entirely on its
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
a deterministic universe always begins with a miracle that is never
allowed to happen again.
There is no reason to think that a deterministic universe universe had to
have a beginning, or a non-deterministic one either for that
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Free will is not an illusion. It is real.
Unless declared a integer.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53:24 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2013, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:20:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What does it mean to contribute causally to a
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:41:05 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
a deterministic universe always begins with a miracle that is never
allowed to happen again.
There is no reason to think that a deterministic universe
On 13/03/2013, at 4:53 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
We're talking about the basic principle of determinism though. We should use
a basic example of it. What special ingredient does complexity add which
changes the nature of determinism? One stone rolling or a trillion
On 12/03/2013, at 12:30 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No, it doesn't make sense to me that there would be a highly valued qualia of
free will (and highly charged qualia of responsibility) if our participation
did not actually contribute causally in determining the
On Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:01:34 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:39:50 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
On 10 Mar 2013, at 15:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 10, 2013 4:33:43 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 01:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, March 9, 2013 7:26:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/9/2013 4:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, March 9,
1 - 100 of 223 matches
Mail list logo
