It seems to me that there is no that much difference between Universes
with complete determinism and inherent randomness. Rex put it quite well
here
Intelligence and Nomologicalism Optionen
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/5ab5303cdb696ef5
From the viewpoint of
On 19 Nov 2010, at 22:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/19/2010 6:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Nov 2010, at 06:10, Rex Allen wrote:
In this case, if we had sufficient mental capacity there would no
need
to think in terms of trees or forests - we could think exclusively
in
terms
On 21 Nov 2010, at 09:11, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
It seems to me that there is no that much difference between
Universes with complete determinism and inherent randomness. Rex put
it quite well here
Intelligence and Nomologicalism Optionen
Dear Bruno,
Could you please recommend some reading about the mechanist assumption?
Especially that
then the observable reality cannot be a machine
Evgenii
on 21.11.2010 15:58 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 09:11, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
It seems to me that there is
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
My position is:
So either there is a reason for what I choose to do, or there isn't.
If there is a reason, then the reason determined the choice. No free will.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Nov 2010, at 07:31, Rex Allen wrote:
As for my definition of free will:
The ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused.
Obviously there is no such ability, since random and caused
exhaust the
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
where
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
Have I understood you correctly, that the current discussion has been
already predetermined by the initial conditions of the Universe?
Well...maybe. But I'm not overly concerned with the question of
whether the causal
On 11/21/2010 10:43 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Reschjasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex,
Your post
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 11/21/2010 10:43 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Therefore some other, sufficiently complex, robots have intentionality
Not proven.
Proof is for
This is exactly the model of free will I argue in favour for in my
book Theory of Nothing. Thanks 1Z - this is well put. Not that it will
convince the others who argue that free will is excluded by being
neither deterministic nor random. That debate will rage for
centuries...
Cheers
On Fri, Nov
The problem you're making is that, we can't choose (freely) under
deterministics rules and we can't choose (freely) under random rules...
Because the world is ruled (random or not). I think free will is compatible
to both views. As long as you defined it to be ignorance of the knowing
entities,
Well it would seem to me that ignorance is not free will. Ignorance
is ignorance.
Belief in free will is not free will. Belief in free will is
*belief* in free will.
Why do you want to define it in terms of ignorance? What motivates this?
And how does that fit with how the term is used with
13 matches
Mail list logo
