2014/1/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 21 Jan 2014, at 12:50, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:11, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Brent, as much as I like the idea of quantum effects being true, and
the Hameroff-Penrose thesis
On 21 Jan 2014, at 16:55, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 21 Jan 2014, at 12:50, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:11, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Brent, as much as I like the idea of quantum
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:18:32PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But I see nothing that would imply that a rational agent is
predictable or that he could not make a random choice.
Brent
Because assuming that more than one choice is available, and that they
all having differing values of
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:32:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I am beginning to think that Russell is using a very narrow or perhaps
formal definition of rationality, in which case perhaps objections that
random (or unpredictable) behaviour can be rational don't fit it, even
though most people think
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:53:33PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some competence, I guess you mean.
Without competence, and giving time to the creature, any universal
machine do have an open-ended creativity. Well, certainly in the
sense of Post (I can explain this, but it is a bit
On 22 January 2014 13:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:32:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I am beginning to think that Russell is using a very narrow or perhaps
formal definition of rationality, in which case perhaps objections that
random (or
On 22 January 2014 13:13, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I can concede that making a random choice amongst options of equal
and optimal utility could satisfy the definition of rational as a
borderline case, but I like the picture of Robby the robot saying
that doesn't compute
On 1/21/2014 4:13 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:18:32PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But I see nothing that would imply that a rational agent is
predictable or that he could not make a random choice.
Brent
Because assuming that more than one choice is available, and that
On 1/21/2014 4:33 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:32:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I am beginning to think that Russell is using a very narrow or perhaps
formal definition of rationality, in which case perhaps objections that
random (or unpredictable) behaviour can be rational
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 06:31:16PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
So what do you make of Nash's theorem which says every finite game
has an equilibrium in a *mixed* strategy?
Brent
What's the relevance? The corollory, I suppose, is that not every game with
rational players (ie pure strategy
On 20 January 2014 16:09, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:40:45PM +1300, LizR wrote:
One problem, surely, in real life is not knowing what the other person's
utility function is? So someone may behave apparently irrationally -
e.g.
giving away
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's not the definition. A rational agent is someone who always
chooses the optimal course of action, not that
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:09:02PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's not the definition. A rational agent is someone
On 20 January 2014 22:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising
your utility. You a choosing something other than the optimum action,
so are behaving irrationally by definition. Yet, it could be a
beneficial
On 19 Jan 2014, at 20:00, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
nobody would buy an argument of a lawyer saying that his client is
not guilty, because his client is just a bunch of particles obeying
to the SWE.
I would buy the
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:17, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:42:51PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Rational agents are entirely predictable.
Rational agents are entirely deterministic but that
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:24, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 08:03:31AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
Russell,
Thanks for your answer. But I am having trouble seeing the link
between doing something stupid and randomness. Are you implying
randomness is necessary for stupidity or
On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:14, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:56:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2014 9:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
No, I'm not. Rational agents are entirely predictable. They always
choose the best course of action, or fail to make a choice at
all (it
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:39, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:09:02PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
If a rational agent can compute its utility to determine its next course
of action, then so can any observer with access to the same
environmental information.
Yes, but only by going through the same process the
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I would buy the argument that mass murderer Charles Manson is the way a
bunch of particles obey the Schrodinger Wave Equation, but I'll be damned
it I can see what that has to do with his guild or innocence; that bunch of
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:50, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 22:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising
your utility. You a choosing something other than the optimum action,
so are behaving irrationally by
On 1/20/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's not the definition. A rational
On 1/20/2014 1:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:09:02PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's not the
On 1/20/2014 9:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:50, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 22:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising
your utility. You a choosing
: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 2:27 pm
Subject: Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms
Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 1/20/2014 9:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:50, LizR wrote
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:50:06PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 22:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising
your utility. You a choosing something other than the optimum action,
so are behaving
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:33:31PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:39, Russell Standish wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising
your utility. You a choosing something other than the optimum action,
so are behaving irrationally by
On 1/20/2014 2:28 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:50:06PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 22:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising
your utility. You a choosing something other than
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:41:04AM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But Russell seems to think that specific reason means some
objective, i.e. publicly determinable reason. In general one's
utility function is private, subjective and not known to others or
maybe even to yourself.
Not at all - the
On 1/20/2014 2:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:41:04AM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But Russell seems to think that specific reason means some
objective, i.e. publicly determinable reason. In general one's
utility function is private, subjective and not known to others or
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:35:13AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:14, Russell Standish wrote:
Well yes, that is certainly arguable, and I'm indeed somewhat critical
of the notion myself. But is not my concept - it is the accepted
concept from economics, game theory,
Beware Edgar! You pulled the string on John Clark's back labelled free
will. He now will emit noise...
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:05:43 AM UTC+11, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
This has nothing to do with
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:33:18 AM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:08:08PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
PS: On second thought maybe we don't agree completely. Though free will
is
quantum random based (we agree on that), it doesn't mean
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:28:03AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:24, Russell Standish wrote:
Re the creativity question - it is still an open problem, ISTM.
I think this is solved. Creativity = Universality. (Turing
universality). Post gave a definition of creativity,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:53:41AM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
Except in games (like chess) you never have perfect knowledge. The
definition of rationality you cited recognized this by saying you
optimised your *expected* utility.
But you can optimise your
expected utility by acting
On 21 January 2014 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I would buy the argument that mass murderer Charles Manson is the way
a bunch of particles obey the Schrodinger Wave Equation, but I'll be damned
it I can see
On 21 January 2014 06:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's not
I am beginning to think that Russell is using a very narrow or perhaps
formal definition of rationality, in which case perhaps objections that
random (or unpredictable) behaviour can be rational don't fit it, even
though most people think that such actions are at times the most rational
choice.
On 1/20/2014 5:14 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would buy the argument that mass murderer Charles
On 1/20/2014 5:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 06:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/20/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan
On 1/20/2014 5:32 PM, LizR wrote:
I am beginning to think that Russell is using a very narrow or perhaps formal definition
of rationality, in which case perhaps objections that random (or unpredictable)
behaviour can be rational don't fit it, even though most people think that such actions
are
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules
confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 05:56:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 13:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:41:08AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 19, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:38:28PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
Russell,
What are your thoughts regarding
On Jan 19, 2014, at 2:43 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:41:08AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 19, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:38:28PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
Russell,
Russell,
No, rational agents are NOT entirely predictable. And the definition of a
'rational agent' is not someone who always makes the best choice.
First of all there is no such thing as a best choice, because best choice
is a judgement that depends on the value scale of some observer, and it
On 18 Jan 2014, at 16:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
That's not an 'argument'. You are simply stating an hypothesis
without any logical supporting argument.
Not at all. I gave you an argument. Computational physics entails
comp, and comp entails NON-computational physics by the UDA, so
On 18 Jan 2014, at 05:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2014 4:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
PS: On second thought maybe we don't agree completely. Though free
will is quantum random based (we agree on that), it doesn't mean
that it is irrational.
And conversely, just making them
On 19 Jan 2014, at 09:43, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:41:08AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 19, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:38:28PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
Russell,
What are your thoughts
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Rational agents are entirely predictable.
Rational agents are entirely deterministic but that does NOT mean they're
predictable. It would only take you a few minutes to write a program to
look for the first even
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
nobody would buy an argument of a lawyer saying that his client is not
guilty, because his client is just a bunch of particles obeying to the SWE.
I would buy the argument that mass murderer Charles Manson is the way a
On 20 January 2014 03:03, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Could an uploaded brain running on a deterministic computer act
irrationally or creatively? (assuming it's entire source code was open
source and it had no access to enviromental randomness)
According to comp it could, because
On 20 January 2014 08:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
nobody would buy an argument of a lawyer saying that his client is not
guilty, because his client is just a bunch of particles obeying to the SWE.
I
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 08:38:59AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
No, rational agents are NOT entirely predictable. And the definition of a
'rational agent' is not someone who always makes the best choice.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_agent
First of all there is no
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:42:51PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Rational agents are entirely predictable.
Rational agents are entirely deterministic but that does NOT mean they're
predictable. It would only
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 08:03:31AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
Russell,
Thanks for your answer. But I am having trouble seeing the link
between doing something stupid and randomness. Are you implying
randomness is necessary for stupidity or making errors?
How do you choose an irrational
On 1/18/2014 9:33 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
BTW did you mean irrational unpredicatibility? Rational
unpredictability is an oxymoron.
Why did you do that?
I wanted to be unpredictable.
Why did you want to be unpredictable.
So my opponent cannot possibly anticipate my move.
Sounds rational to
On 1/18/2014 9:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
No, I'm not. Rational agents are entirely predictable. They always
choose the best course of action, or fail to make a choice at
all (it does not compute!). They cannot behave unpredictably.
Why not. Not having one's behavior predictable by others
Russell,
I agree that your model here is theoretical and does NOT apply to the
actual reality of decision making organisms such as humans. My comments DO
apply to the real world.
Rational agent theory properly applies to only extremely limited and
non-representative cases in the real world.
On 1/18/2014 10:03 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 07:19:37AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Yes, I'm familiar with that and just posted a journal reference to it. But
it's an incorrect understanding. What is really important here is RATIONAL
UNpredictability, not
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:56:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2014 9:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
No, I'm not. Rational agents are entirely predictable. They always
choose the best course of action, or fail to make a choice at
all (it does not compute!). They cannot behave unpredictably.
On 1/19/2014 12:50 PM, LizR wrote:
In practice we have over time relied more and more on the defence that the person
concerned couldn't help what they did because of various conditions that aren't their
fault (e.g. genetic or due to illnesses or maltreatment), and we even have the science
to
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:48:35PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2014 9:33 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
BTW did you mean irrational unpredicatibility? Rational
unpredictability is an oxymoron.
Why did you do that?
I wanted to be unpredictable.
Why did you want to be unpredictable.
So my
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:58:43PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
I agree that your model here is theoretical and does NOT apply to the
actual reality of decision making organisms such as humans. My comments DO
apply to the real world.
Rational agent theory properly applies to
On 1/19/2014 2:33 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Or computing the winning outcome takes too long, so it is better to
make some decision rather than none at all. Think Chess with a clock.
Which means it is rational to make an arbitrary/random choice between those that appear
equally good. It
On 1/19/2014 1:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:42:51PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Rational agents are entirely predictable.
Rational agents are entirely deterministic but that does NOT
On 1/19/2014 2:14 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Absolutely. As I said to Liz, being irrational is sometimes the best
way to get ahead.
So if you define rational as always making the best move to get ahead you are trapped in a
contradiction - which comes from starting with a poor definition of
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 02:37:25PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 2:14 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Absolutely. As I said to Liz, being irrational is sometimes the best
way to get ahead.
So if you define rational as always making the best move to get
ahead you are trapped in a
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 02:34:08PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 1:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
If a rational agent can compute its utility to determine its next
course of action, then so can any observer with access to the same
environmental information.
Its got nothing to do
One problem, surely, in real life is not knowing what the other person's
utility function is? So someone may behave apparently irrationally - e.g.
giving away money - because their utility function involves making
themselves feel good, or getting a reward in heaven, or they want to show
off how
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:40:45PM +1300, LizR wrote:
One problem, surely, in real life is not knowing what the other person's
utility function is? So someone may behave apparently irrationally - e.g.
giving away money - because their utility function involves making
themselves feel good, or
On 1/19/2014 4:40 PM, LizR wrote:
One problem, surely, in real life is not knowing what the other person's utility
function is? So someone may behave apparently irrationally - e.g. giving away money -
because their utility function involves making themselves feel good, or getting a reward
in
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's not the definition. A rational agent is someone who always
chooses the optimal course of action, not that there might be a reason
for it.
Isn't being optimal a reason?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's not the definition. A rational agent is someone who always
chooses the optimal course of action, not that there might be a reason
for it.
Isn't being optimal a reason?
Yes - a
On 17 Jan 2014, at 17:57, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
I give a coherent definition of free will in my book on Reality.
Free will is simply the fact that some bounded system generates
actions that are not entirely determined
On 17 Jan 2014, at 18:04, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
John,
I give a fairly detailed answer to what quantum randomness is and
what it applies to in my New Topic post Another shot at how
spacetime emerges from computational reality.
You did not answer the argument that there is no computational
On 18 Jan 2014, at 01:01, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:10:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 11:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It doesn't mean anything. There are microtubles in all cells. So
why
don't I think with my penis...oh...never mind. :-)
Natural selection can favour ‘irrational’ behaviour
J. M. McNamara1, P. C. Trimmer2 and A. I. Houston2
1School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, University Walk, Bristol BS8
1TW, UK
2School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road,
Bristol BS8 1UG, UK
e-mail:
Brent,
First, there are NO possibilities in the future. The future does not
exist and thus there is no content that can ascribed to it.
What we have is the problem of how nature is to align separate spacetime
fragments in the PRESENT moment when an event common to them occurs,
necessitating
Russell,
Yes, I'm familiar with that and just posted a journal reference to it. But
it's an incorrect understanding. What is really important here is RATIONAL
UNpredictability, not IRrationality.
This is just rationally outsmarting your competitor by figuring out what he
thinks you are going
Bruno,
That's not an 'argument'. You are simply stating an hypothesis without any
logical supporting argument.
As to your second point you are talking about clock time, not p-time. You
still don't understand the difference which I've described in exhausting
detail... Moving clocks have
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 07:06:48PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 18:49, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
Surprisingly, perhaps, such acts sometimes deliver payoffs to the actor.
Yes, for example, in cases where doing something is
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 08:05:03PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2014 4:33 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Their actions aren't irrational, they just aren't completely determined by
their environments.
Rational beings are completely determined by their
environment.
Not if they have rational
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:40:51PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:08:08PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
PS: On second thought maybe we don't agree completely. Though free will
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 05:56:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 13:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:08:08PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
PS: On second thought maybe we don't agree completely. Though free will
is
On 19 January 2014 18:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
So much for free will, except as a synonym for instinct, unconscious
urges
and rational unpredictability.
That's exactly how I use the term free will. What other possible
meanings might it have?
People seem to
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 07:19:37AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Yes, I'm familiar with that and just posted a journal reference to it. But
it's an incorrect understanding. What is really important here is RATIONAL
UNpredictability, not IRrationality.
This is just rationally
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:38:28PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
Russell,
What are your thoughts regarding
compatibilismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism?
Do you consider it a cop-out?
Jason
I think it largely irrelevant, as it is clear we don't live in a
deterministic world.
--
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:42 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms
Subject: Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms
Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 05:56:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 13:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:08:08PM -0800, Edgar
On Jan 19, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:38:28PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
Russell,
What are your thoughts regarding
compatibilismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism?
Do you consider it a cop-out?
Jason
I think it
John,
I agree completely that free will must be well defined before it can be
intelligently discussed, and I agree that the usual definitions are often
nonsensical. (Particularly the notion that free will is the ability of some
higher self to override base instinctual desires.)
I give a
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
I give a coherent definition of free will in my book on Reality. Free
will is simply the fact that some bounded system generates actions that are
not entirely determined by its environmental inputs.
OK, then the term
John,
I give a fairly detailed answer to what quantum randomness is and what it
applies to in my New Topic post Another shot at how spacetime emerges from
computational reality.
Basically nature must choose randomly when it aligns the separate spacetime
networks that arise from particle
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
I give a fairly detailed answer to what quantum randomness is [...]
Basically nature must choose randomly
So randomness is random.
when it aligns the separate spacetime networks
I don't see how bringing in spacetime
John,
How about reading my new topic post on another shot at how spacetime
emerges from computational reality that explains it before commenting? I
think you missed the context of the first of this thread where that was
referenced...
Edgar
On Friday, January 17, 2014 3:06:12 PM UTC-5, John
It doesn't mean anything. There are microtubles in all cells. So why don't I think with
my penis...oh...never mind. :-)
Brent
On 1/17/2014 4:46 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
This has nothing to do with consciousness, but it may have something to do with the
origin of free will.
Edgar
On 18 January 2014 11:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It doesn't mean anything. There are microtubles in all cells. So why
don't I think with my penis...oh...never mind. :-)
Teehee. You're not the messiah, you're a very naught boy!
I thought Tegmark showed that the Penrose
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:10:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 11:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It doesn't mean anything. There are microtubles in all cells. So why
don't I think with my penis...oh...never mind. :-)
Teehee. You're not the messiah, you're a very
Russell,
Gosh, somebody on this list is actually nice enough to volunteer they agree
with me on something. Very refreshing!
Thanks!
Edgar
On Friday, January 17, 2014 7:01:26 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:10:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 11:34,
201 - 300 of 315 matches
Mail list logo
