Re: [OT] Love and free will
On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: This week in Die Zeit there were two papers about love and fidelity. One more scientific, another more philosophic. In the latter there is a couple of paragraphs related to Goethe’s “Elective Affinities” that are 100% in agreement with Rex: Die Utopie der Liebe http://www.zeit.de/2011/15/Ps-Treue-Philosophie Fidelity is mere an idea that fails due to the natural laws. The materialistic calculation that Goethe has reviewed in a sharp game becomes clear in a remark by the captain, with whom Charlotte felt reluctant in love: “Think of an A that is intimately connected with a B, such that one cannot separate them without violence; think of a C that is connected in a similar way with a D; now bring the two couples in touch: A goes to D, C goes to B, without that one can say who first left, who first joined the other.“ So it happens. And is it not devilish near to a common way of thinking? The fact that we are not masters of our decisions, but products of biochemical processes (or some others)? Hence Rex might well be right that the discussion here continues because we do not have free will. This shows only that we don't have free-will in the absolute incompatibilist sense, but there are compatibilist theories, which explains well the correctness of a relative (to the subject) incompatibilist feature of free will. Critics of free-will are based on error confusion level. I think it is a bit dangerous, especially that there is already a social tendency to dissolve responsibility among those taking decisions. We are just not living at the level were we are determined. If we were, we could replace jail by hospital, and people would feel having the right to justify any act by uncontrollable pulsions. This leads to person and conscience eliminativism. 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: Request: computation=thermodynamics paper(s)
Hi Colin, Energy cost is due to erasure of information only (Landauer principle), and you can compute without erasing anything, as you need to do if you do quantum computation. You might search on Landauer, Bennett, Zurek, and on the Maxwell daemon. Bruno On 15 Apr 2011, at 02:27, Colin Hales wrote: Hi all, I was wondering if anyone out there knows of any papers that connect computational processes to thermodynamics in some organized fashion. The sort of thing I am looking for would have statements saying cooling is (info/computational equivalent) pressure is ..(info/computational equivalent) temperature is volume is entropy is I have found a few but I think I am missing the good stuff. here's one ... Reiss, H. 'Thermodynamic-Like Transformations in Information Theory', Journal of Statistical Physics vol. 1, no. 1, 1969. 107-131. cheers colin -- 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: [OT] Love and free will
-Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:45 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [OT] Love and free will On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: This week in Die Zeit there were two papers about love and fidelity. One more scientific, another more philosophic. In the latter there is a couple of paragraphs related to Goethe’s “Elective Affinities” that are 100% in agreement with Rex: Die Utopie der Liebe http://www.zeit.de/2011/15/Ps-Treue-Philosophie Fidelity is mere an idea that fails due to the natural laws. The materialistic calculation that Goethe has reviewed in a sharp game becomes clear in a remark by the captain, with whom Charlotte felt reluctant in love: “Think of an A that is intimately connected with a B, such that one cannot separate them without violence; think of a C that is connected in a similar way with a D; now bring the two couples in touch: A goes to D, C goes to B, without that one can say who first left, who first joined the other.“ So it happens. And is it not devilish near to a common way of thinking? The fact that we are not masters of our decisions, but products of biochemical processes (or some others)? Hence Rex might well be right that the discussion here continues because we do not have free will. This shows only that we don't have free-will in the absolute incompatibilist sense, but there are compatibilist theories, which explains well the correctness of a relative (to the subject) incompatibilist feature of free will. Critics of free-will are based on error confusion level. I think it is a bit dangerous, especially that there is already a social tendency to dissolve responsibility among those taking decisions. We are just not living at the level were we are determined. If we were, we could replace jail by hospital, and people would feel having the right to justify any act by uncontrollable pulsions. This leads to person and conscience eliminativism. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ ** Hi Bruno, Well said! I wonder if such eliminatists are subconsciously attempting to justify psychotic thoughts, tendencies and/or impulses. Parenthetically, it has been noticed that almost all of the serial (and mass) murderers in history where highly intelligent but did not even care to justify their pathological acts. Onward! Stephen -- 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: Request: computation=thermodynamics paper(s)
Colin, I used to work in chemical thermodynamics for awhile and I give you the answer from such a viewpoint. As this is the area that I know, then my message will be a bit long and I guess it differs from the viewpoint of people in information theory. CLASSICAL THERMODYNAMICS First entropy has been defined in classical thermodynamics and the best is to start with it. Basically here The Zeroth Law defines the temperature. If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. The Second Law defines the entropy. There exist an additive state function such that dS = dQ/T (The heat Q is not a state function) The Third Law additionally defines that at zero K the change in entropy is zero for all processes that allows us to define unambiguously the absolute entropy. Note that for the energy we always have the difference only (with an exception of E = mc^2). That's it. The rest follows from above, well clearly you need also the First Law to define the internal energy. I mean this is enough to determine entropy in practical applications. Please just tell me entropy of what do you want to evaluate and I will describe you how it could be done. A nice book about classical thermodynamics is The Tragicomedy of Classical Thermodynamics by Truesdell but please do not take it too seriously. Everything that he writes is correct but somehow classical thermodynamics survived until now, though I am afraid it is a bit exotic. Well, if someone needs numerical values of the entropy, then people do it the usual way of classical thermodynamics. STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS Statistical thermodynamics was developed after the classical thermodynamics and I guess many believe that it has completely replaced the classical thermodynamics. The Boltzmann equation for the entropy looks so attractive that most people are acquainted with it only and I am afraid that they do not quite know the business with heat engines that actually were the original point for the entropy. Here let me repeat that I have written recently to this list about heat vs. molecular motion, as this give you an idea about the difference between statistical and classical thermodynamics (replace heat by classical thermodynamics and molecular motion by statistical). At the beginning, the molecules and atoms were considered as hard spheres. At this state, there was the problem as follows. We bring a glass of hot water in the room and leave it there. Eventually the temperature of the water will be equal to the ambient temperature. According to the heat theory, the temperature in the glass will be hot again spontaneously and it is in complete agreement with our experience. With molecular motion, if we consider them as hard spheres there is a nonzero chance that the water in the glass will be hot again. Moreover, there is a theorem (Poincaré recurrence) that states that if we wait long enough then the temperature of the glass must be hot again. No doubt, the chances are very small and time to wait is very long, in a way this is negligible. Yet some people are happy with such statistical explanation, some not. Hence, it is a bit too simple to say that molecular motion has eliminated heat at this level. INFORMATION ENTROPY Shannon has defined the information entropy similar way to the Boltzmann equation for the entropy. Since them many believe that Shannon's entropy is the same as the thermodynamic entropy. In my view this is wrong as this is why http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/12/entropy-and-artificial-life.html I believe that here everything depends on definitions and if we start with the entropy as defined by classical thermodynamics then it has nothing to do with information. INFORMATION AND THERMODYNAMIC ENTROPY Said above, in my viewpoint there is meaningful research where people try to estimate the thermodynamic limit for the number of operations. The idea here to use kT as a reference. I remember that there was a nice description on that with references in Nanoelectronics and Information Technology, ed Rainer Waser I believe that somewhere in introduction but now I am not sure now. By the way the book is very good but I am not sure if it as such is what you are looking for. Evgenii On 15.04.2011 02:27 Colin Hales said the following: Hi all, I was wondering if anyone out there knows of any papers that connect computational processes to thermodynamics in some organized fashion. The sort of thing I am looking for would have statements saying cooling is (info/computational equivalent) pressure is ..(info/computational equivalent) temperature is volume is entropy is I have found a few but I think I am missing the good stuff. here's one ... Reiss, H. 'Thermodynamic-Like Transformations in Information Theory', Journal of Statistical Physics vol. 1, no. 1, 1969. 107-131. cheers colin -- You received this
Re: [OT] Love and free will
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: This week in Die Zeit there were two papers about love and fidelity. One more scientific, another more philosophic. In the latter there is a couple of paragraphs related to Goethe’s “Elective Affinities” that are 100% in agreement with Rex: Die Utopie der Liebe http://www.zeit.de/2011/15/Ps-Treue-Philosophie Fidelity is mere an idea that fails due to the natural laws. The materialistic calculation that Goethe has reviewed in a sharp game becomes clear in a remark by the captain, with whom Charlotte felt reluctant in love: “Think of an A that is intimately connected with a B, such that one cannot separate them without violence; think of a C that is connected in a similar way with a D; now bring the two couples in touch: A goes to D, C goes to B, without that one can say who first left, who first joined the other.“ So it happens. And is it not devilish near to a common way of thinking? The fact that we are not masters of our decisions, but products of biochemical processes (or some others)? Hence Rex might well be right that the discussion here continues because we do not have free will. This shows only that we don't have free-will in the absolute incompatibilist sense, but there are compatibilist theories, which explains well the correctness of a relative (to the subject) incompatibilist feature of free will. The free will that we don't have in the absolute incompatibilist sense is the free will that most people believe in. Compatibilist free will should be called faux will. Or more charitably, subjective will. Critics of free-will are based on error confusion level. Critics of free will in the absolute incompatibilist sense are correct. Critics of compatibilist free will object to the misuse of terms by compatibilists, not to the concepts described by those terms. There is no confusion. The problem is quite clear...combatibilists are engaged in word-jugglery. I think it is a bit dangerous, especially that there is already a social tendency to dissolve responsibility among those taking decisions. Rewarding bad behavior will get you more bad behavior - but this is a consequence of human nature, and has nothing to do with free will. Even if we take a purely deterministic, mechanistic view of human nature, the question remains: What works best in promoting a well-ordered society? Society, in that crime is only an issue when you have more than one person involved. Is more criminal behavior due to correctable conditions that can be alleviated through education programs or by a more optimal distribution of the wealth that is generated by society as a whole? In other words, can criminal behavior be minimized proactively? Or is most criminal behavior an unavoidable consequence of human nature, and thus deterrence by threat of punishment is the most effective means of minimizing that behavior? In other words, can criminal behavior only be addressed reactively? The question is: As a practical matter, what works best? What results in the greatest good for the greatest number? Whatever it is, I vote we do that. We are just not living at the level were we are determined. But we are nonetheless determined, and thus not free from what determines us. This is an inconvenient truth, and no amount of word-jugglery gets around it. Best to just deal with it squarely, rather than try to hide it under the rug as with compatibilism. If we were, we could replace jail by hospital, and people would feel having the right to justify any act by uncontrollable pulsions. All acts are justifiable in that sense. But, just as we don't allow malfunctioning machines to run amuck, neither should we allow malfunctioning people to do so. To the greatest extent possible, malfunctions should be minimized through proper configuration and maintenance. When malfunctions inevitably occur, the damage should be minimized and repairs made if possible. Free will is irrelevant at best, and more likely a counter-productive distraction. As before, the question is what works best? -- 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: [OT] Love and free will
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:45 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [OT] Love and free will On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: This week in Die Zeit there were two papers about love and fidelity. One more scientific, another more philosophic. In the latter there is a couple of paragraphs related to Goethe’s “Elective Affinities” that are 100% in agreement with Rex: Die Utopie der Liebe http://www.zeit.de/2011/15/Ps-Treue-Philosophie Fidelity is mere an idea that fails due to the natural laws. The materialistic calculation that Goethe has reviewed in a sharp game becomes clear in a remark by the captain, with whom Charlotte felt reluctant in love: “Think of an A that is intimately connected with a B, such that one cannot separate them without violence; think of a C that is connected in a similar way with a D; now bring the two couples in touch: A goes to D, C goes to B, without that one can say who first left, who first joined the other.“ So it happens. And is it not devilish near to a common way of thinking? The fact that we are not masters of our decisions, but products of biochemical processes (or some others)? Hence Rex might well be right that the discussion here continues because we do not have free will. This shows only that we don't have free-will in the absolute incompatibilist sense, but there are compatibilist theories, which explains well the correctness of a relative (to the subject) incompatibilist feature of free will. Critics of free-will are based on error confusion level. I think it is a bit dangerous, especially that there is already a social tendency to dissolve responsibility among those taking decisions. We are just not living at the level were we are determined. If we were, we could replace jail by hospital, and people would feel having the right to justify any act by uncontrollable pulsions. This leads to person and conscience eliminativism. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ ** Hi Bruno, Well said! I wonder if such eliminatists are subconsciously attempting to justify psychotic thoughts, tendencies and/or impulses. Parenthetically, it has been noticed that almost all of the serial (and mass) murderers in history where highly intelligent but did not even care to justify their pathological acts. You think Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and Mark Twain were closet psychopaths? I would think that you should focus on refuting their arguments rather than defaming their character. Besides, if we are ascribing unsavory motives to our opponents, what equally dark impulses might we conclude drive the believer in free will? That knife cuts both ways. Rex -- 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: Request: computation=thermodynamics paper(s)
Entropy and information are related. In classical thermodynamics the relation is between what constraint you impose on the substance and dQ/T. You note that it is calculated assuming constant pressure - that is a constraint; another is assuming constant energy. In terms of the phase space in a statistical mechanics model, this is confining the system to a hypersurface in the the phase space. If you had more information about the system, e.g. you knew all the molecules were moving the same direction (as in a rocket exhaust) that you further reduce the part of phase space and the entropy. If you knew the proportions of molecular species that would reduce it further. In rocket exhaust calculations the assumption of fixed species proportion is often made as an approximation - it's referred to as a frozen entropy calculation. If the species react that changes the size of phase space and hence the Boltzmann measure of entropy. Brent On 4/15/2011 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Colin, I used to work in chemical thermodynamics for awhile and I give you the answer from such a viewpoint. As this is the area that I know, then my message will be a bit long and I guess it differs from the viewpoint of people in information theory. CLASSICAL THERMODYNAMICS First entropy has been defined in classical thermodynamics and the best is to start with it. Basically here The Zeroth Law defines the temperature. If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. The Second Law defines the entropy. There exist an additive state function such that dS = dQ/T (The heat Q is not a state function) The Third Law additionally defines that at zero K the change in entropy is zero for all processes that allows us to define unambiguously the absolute entropy. Note that for the energy we always have the difference only (with an exception of E = mc^2). That's it. The rest follows from above, well clearly you need also the First Law to define the internal energy. I mean this is enough to determine entropy in practical applications. Please just tell me entropy of what do you want to evaluate and I will describe you how it could be done. A nice book about classical thermodynamics is The Tragicomedy of Classical Thermodynamics by Truesdell but please do not take it too seriously. Everything that he writes is correct but somehow classical thermodynamics survived until now, though I am afraid it is a bit exotic. Well, if someone needs numerical values of the entropy, then people do it the usual way of classical thermodynamics. STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS Statistical thermodynamics was developed after the classical thermodynamics and I guess many believe that it has completely replaced the classical thermodynamics. The Boltzmann equation for the entropy looks so attractive that most people are acquainted with it only and I am afraid that they do not quite know the business with heat engines that actually were the original point for the entropy. Here let me repeat that I have written recently to this list about heat vs. molecular motion, as this give you an idea about the difference between statistical and classical thermodynamics (replace heat by classical thermodynamics and molecular motion by statistical). At the beginning, the molecules and atoms were considered as hard spheres. At this state, there was the problem as follows. We bring a glass of hot water in the room and leave it there. Eventually the temperature of the water will be equal to the ambient temperature. According to the heat theory, the temperature in the glass will be hot again spontaneously and it is in complete agreement with our experience. With molecular motion, if we consider them as hard spheres there is a nonzero chance that the water in the glass will be hot again. Moreover, there is a theorem (Poincaré recurrence) that states that if we wait long enough then the temperature of the glass must be hot again. No doubt, the chances are very small and time to wait is very long, in a way this is negligible. Yet some people are happy with such statistical explanation, some not. Hence, it is a bit too simple to say that molecular motion has eliminated heat at this level. INFORMATION ENTROPY Shannon has defined the information entropy similar way to the Boltzmann equation for the entropy. Since them many believe that Shannon's entropy is the same as the thermodynamic entropy. In my view this is wrong as this is why http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/12/entropy-and-artificial-life.html I believe that here everything depends on definitions and if we start with the entropy as defined by classical thermodynamics then it has nothing to do with information. INFORMATION AND THERMODYNAMIC ENTROPY Said above, in my viewpoint there is meaningful research where people try to estimate the thermodynamic limit for the number of operations.
Re: [OT] Love and free will
On 4/15/2011 12:16 PM, Rex Allen wrote: Critics of free will in the absolute incompatibilist sense are correct. Critics of compatibilist free will object to the misuse of terms by compatibilists, not to the concepts described by those terms. There is no confusion. The problem is quite clear...combatibilists are engaged in word-jugglery. It is not word-jugglery. It's legal terminology and distinguishes what someone does out of their personal desires as compared to what they do under threat of coercion. Compatibilist free will corresponds with the legal term. 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: [OT] Love and free will
On 4/15/2011 12:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This shows only that we don't have free-will in the absolute incompatibilist sense, but there are compatibilist theories, which explains well the correctness of a relative (to the subject) incompatibilist feature of free will. Critics of free-will are based on error confusion level. I think it is a bit dangerous, especially that there is already a social tendency to dissolve responsibility among those taking decisions. But they want to deny compatibilist free will too. You never hear politicians use the excuse, I did it because that's who I am. Brent We are just not living at the level were we are determined. If we were, we could replace jail by hospital, and people would feel having the right to justify any act by uncontrollable pulsions. This leads to person and conscience eliminativism. 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.
Re: [OT] Love and free will
Could someone recommend a nice and not that long reading (the best in the form of en executive summary) on absolute incompatibilist sense and compatibilist theories of free will? On 15.04.2011 21:16 Rex Allen said the following: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: This week in Die Zeit there were two papers about love and fidelity. One more scientific, another more philosophic. In the latter there is a couple of paragraphs related to Goethe’s “Elective Affinities” that are 100% in agreement with Rex: Die Utopie der Liebe http://www.zeit.de/2011/15/Ps-Treue-Philosophie Fidelity is mere an idea that fails due to the natural laws. The materialistic calculation that Goethe has reviewed in a sharp game becomes clear in a remark by the captain, with whom Charlotte felt reluctant in love: “Think of an A that is intimately connected with a B, such that one cannot separate them without violence; think of a C that is connected in a similar way with a D; now bring the two couples in touch: A goes to D, C goes to B, without that one can say who first left, who first joined the other.“ So it happens. And is it not devilish near to a common way of thinking? The fact that we are not masters of our decisions, but products of biochemical processes (or some others)? Hence Rex might well be right that the discussion here continues because we do not have free will. This shows only that we don't have free-will in the absolute incompatibilist sense, but there are compatibilist theories, which explains well the correctness of a relative (to the subject) incompatibilist feature of free will. The free will that we don't have in the absolute incompatibilist sense is the free will that most people believe in. Compatibilist free will should be called faux will. Or more charitably, subjective will. Critics of free-will are based on error confusion level. Critics of free will in the absolute incompatibilist sense are correct. Critics of compatibilist free will object to the misuse of terms by compatibilists, not to the concepts described by those terms. There is no confusion. The problem is quite clear...combatibilists are engaged in word-jugglery. I think it is a bit dangerous, especially that there is already a social tendency to dissolve responsibility among those taking decisions. Rewarding bad behavior will get you more bad behavior - but this is a consequence of human nature, and has nothing to do with free will. Even if we take a purely deterministic, mechanistic view of human nature, the question remains: What works best in promoting a well-ordered society? Society, in that crime is only an issue when you have more than one person involved. Is more criminal behavior due to correctable conditions that can be alleviated through education programs or by a more optimal distribution of the wealth that is generated by society as a whole? In other words, can criminal behavior be minimized proactively? Or is most criminal behavior an unavoidable consequence of human nature, and thus deterrence by threat of punishment is the most effective means of minimizing that behavior? In other words, can criminal behavior only be addressed reactively? The question is: As a practical matter, what works best? What results in the greatest good for the greatest number? Whatever it is, I vote we do that. We are just not living at the level were we are determined. But we are nonetheless determined, and thus not free from what determines us. This is an inconvenient truth, and no amount of word-jugglery gets around it. Best to just deal with it squarely, rather than try to hide it under the rug as with compatibilism. If we were, we could replace jail by hospital, and people would feel having the right to justify any act by uncontrollable pulsions. All acts are justifiable in that sense. But, just as we don't allow malfunctioning machines to run amuck, neither should we allow malfunctioning people to do so. To the greatest extent possible, malfunctions should be minimized through proper configuration and maintenance. When malfunctions inevitably occur, the damage should be minimized and repairs made if possible. Free will is irrelevant at best, and more likely a counter-productive distraction. As before, the question is what works best? -- 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: [OT] Love and free will
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2011 12:16 PM, Rex Allen wrote: Critics of free will in the absolute incompatibilist sense are correct. Critics of compatibilist free will object to the misuse of terms by compatibilists, not to the concepts described by those terms. There is no confusion. The problem is quite clear...combatibilists are engaged in word-jugglery. It is not word-jugglery. It's legal terminology and distinguishes what someone does out of their personal desires as compared to what they do under threat of coercion. Compatibilist free will corresponds with the legal term. What court has ever ruled that libertarian free will does not exist? What percentage of legislators, judges, lawyers, and jurors do you think are compatibilists vs. libertarian on free will? I would guess that the legal system, and the people who work within it, and the jurors who participate, and the legislators who write the laws that are enforced are *all* heavily biased towards a libertarian view of free will. Compatibilism corresponds to the legal term because that's the whole *point* of compatibilism...to be compatible with the libertarian view of free will which underlies every aspect of the legal system. Change the definitions and justifications, keep everything else the same. Compatibilism. Rex -- 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: [OT] Love and free will
On 4/15/2011 1:36 PM, Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:48 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2011 12:16 PM, Rex Allen wrote: Critics of free will in the absolute incompatibilist sense are correct. Critics of compatibilist free will object to the misuse of terms by compatibilists, not to the concepts described by those terms. There is no confusion. The problem is quite clear...combatibilists are engaged in word-jugglery. It is not word-jugglery. It's legal terminology and distinguishes what someone does out of their personal desires as compared to what they do under threat of coercion. Compatibilist free will corresponds with the legal term. What court has ever ruled that libertarian free will does not exist? What court has ever ruled that it does exist? None. That's not a question courts rule on. They decide on coerced vs not coerced, competent vs not competent. They don't address metaphysics. What percentage of legislators, judges, lawyers, and jurors do you think are compatibilists vs. libertarian on free will? What percentage are pre-destinationists? What percentage are fatalists? Who cares? I would guess that the legal system, and the people who work within it, and the jurors who participate, and the legislators who write the laws that are enforced are *all* heavily biased towards a libertarian view of free will. And theism and capitalism. -- 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: [OT] Love and free will
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2011 1:36 PM, Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:48 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2011 12:16 PM, Rex Allen wrote: Critics of free will in the absolute incompatibilist sense are correct. Critics of compatibilist free will object to the misuse of terms by compatibilists, not to the concepts described by those terms. There is no confusion. The problem is quite clear...combatibilists are engaged in word-jugglery. It is not word-jugglery. It's legal terminology and distinguishes what someone does out of their personal desires as compared to what they do under threat of coercion. Compatibilist free will corresponds with the legal term. What court has ever ruled that libertarian free will does not exist? What court has ever ruled that it does exist? None. That's not a question courts rule on. They decide on coerced vs not coerced, competent vs not competent. They don't address metaphysics. Then compatibilism is not legal terminology, and so gains no legitimacy there. Compatibilism involves redefining words associated with the traditional notion of free will in such a way as to make determinism seem compatibile with free will. But if I get to redefine terms unilaterally, I can make anything seem compatible with anything else. On paper at least. Compatibilism is just a technical term for free will related word jugglery. I'm not sure what you meant by your claim that it was legal terminology. What percentage of legislators, judges, lawyers, and jurors do you think are compatibilists vs. libertarian on free will? What percentage are pre-destinationists? What percentage are fatalists? Who cares? People who claim that compatibilism is a legal term, I assume. -- 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: [OT] Love and free will
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: Could someone recommend a nice and not that long reading (the best in the form of en executive summary) on absolute incompatibilist sense and compatibilist theories of free will? On the compatibilism side, maybe Daniel Dennett's Elbow Room? On the incompatibilist side...maybe Galen Stawson's Freedom and Belief? Here is a recent article in the NY Times by Strawson on free will: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/your-move-the-maze-of-free-will/ -- 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.
