Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread Craig Weinberg 
On Jun 6, 1:48 pm, John Clark  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg  wrote:

There is no meaningful difference between will and free will. Adding
'free' only emphasizes that the intention is your own and not
compelled by circumstances beyond your control. All will implies the
capacity to intentionally control, which is not logically consistent
with 100% determinism. If a rolling stone needs no experience of will
to decide which way it will roll, then a person needs no such
experience to function mechanically.

>
>
>
> > > Punishment only works if something 1. cares whether or not it's
> > experience is unpleasant
>
> Yes.
>
> > 2. has causally efficacious motive to alter their behavior,
>
>                  
> No, although if the criminal's actions are not causal, if they are random,
> then the range of potential punishments that are effective becomes much
> more limited.  However be the criminal random or causal a bullet in the
> brain will most certainly alter their behavior, and sometimes for the
> better.
>

Execution is not intended to alter the behavior of the prisoner. In
order for us to have an expectation that the threat of execution could
be a deterrent, we have to have an expectation that potential
criminals have enough control over their own actions that that they
will voluntarily choose to avoid it. We do not think that a deterrent
is the same thing as a guarantee that crime cannot occur - in fact,
the effectiveness of punishment as a deterrent is variable. It's up to
the individuals, at least some individuals some of the time, to some
extent or another, to determine for themselves whether they are
deterred.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Popper's World 3 and Multiverse

2012-06-06 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi 
The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch is full of Popper's 
methodology. Also one can find there a statement that the knowledge 
exists objectively.


On the other hand, Maarten Hoenen in his lectures several times has 
mentioned Popper's World 3. Interestingly enough that though Deutsch 
seems to like Popper a lot, in his book he has mentioned nothing about 
this part of Popper's heritage.


Hence I have finally decided to learn what Popper's World 3 is. It 
happened that Popper had a very special view on where the objective 
knowledge exist. A couple of quotes are below. They could be useful in a 
discussion with a Popperian. Popper seems to be not a dualist but rather 
a trialist.


Three Worlds, Karl Popper
The Tanner Lecture On Human Values
Delivered at The University of Michigan, April 7, 1978

“In this lecture I intend to challenge those who uphold a monist or even 
a dualist view of the universe; and I will propose, instead, a pluralist 
view. I will propose a view of the universe that recognizes at least 
three different but interacting sub-universes.”


“To sum up, we arrive at the following picture of the universe.  There 
is the physical universe, world 1, with its most important sub-universe, 
that of the living organisms.  World 2, the world of conscious 
experience, emerges as an evolutionary product from the world of 
organisms.  World 3, the world of the products of the human mind, 
emerges as an evolutionary product from world 2.”


“If I am right that the physical world has been changed by the world 3 
products of the human mind, acting through the intervention of the human 
mind then this means that the worlds 1, 2, and 3, can interact and, 
therefore, that none of them is causally closed. The thesis that the 
physical world is not causally closed but that it can be acted upon by 
world 2 and, through its intervention, by world 3, seems to be 
particularly hard to swallow for the materialist monist, or the 
physicalist.”


“Of course, the materialist will explain it all in terms of our brain 
processes; and admittedly, they do play a role in mediating the 
intervention of effects from world 3 through world 2 to world 1. But 
where the great change originated is in world 3, in our theories. These 
have, metaphorically speaking, a kind of life of their own, though they 
depend heavily on our minds and, very likely, also on our brains.”


“The feedback effect between world 3 and world 2 is of particular 
importance. Our minds are the creators of world 3; but world 3 in its 
turn not only informs our minds, but largely creates them. The very idea 
of a self depends on world 3 theories, especially upon a theory of time 
which underlies the identity of the self, the self of yesterday, of 
today, and of tomorrow. The learning of a language, which is a world 3 
object, is itself partly a creative act and partly a feedback effect; 
and the full consciousness of self is anchored in our human language.”


Evgenii
--

http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/06/three-worlds.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread R AM 
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>
>  Contral-causal, I guess. What I'm defending is that the belief in
> free-will is, in part, a social construct, useful from the social/legal
> point of view, as you say. We are educated to believe it.
>
>
> The social/legal concept is certainly a social construct, and one that has
> evolved over time from simple revenge and "an eye for an eye" to all sorts
> mitigating and exacerbating factors.  I think that belief in contra causal
> free will is natural and not a social construct.  It arises from that
> "feeling I could have done otherwise" and then, by the theory of mind, the
> other guy "could have done otherwise".  We will have be educated to
> disbelieve it.
>
>
I think the feeling that "I could have done otherwise" comes from
education. When our parents got mad at something we did when kids, what
belief could have we learned, except that "I could have done otherwise" or
"damn it, why didn't I do otherwise?"

But I'm not sure if we can substitute that belief with something else  ...

"Next time I will do otherwise" perhaps doesn't work equally well, because
you might think, "ok, next time I will do the same, and it will be next
next time that I will do otherwise"


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Autonomy?

2012-06-06 Thread John Mikes 
Stathis:
in my simplicity: "free is free" and *"pseudo"* means *"not really".*
So: *pseudo-free
will* is *not free (will*), only something similar. Restricted by
circumstances. Or so.
I allow into my 'deterministically' constrained free will(!) a free
choice from available variants. I know nothing about how to apply it: how
the unknowable (hidden? not yet disclosed?) factors incluence my decision,
so I say "I have a choice. Same way the less agnostics say: free will.
Please correct me if you know more.
Thanx
John M

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> wrote:
>
> >> If it looks like it has a will but doesn't then it has pseudo-will.
> >
> > It only looks like it has a will if you interpret it that way. It
> > doesn't look that way to me. No more than Bugs Bunny is a pseudo-
> > rabbit that has a pseudo-appetite for pseudo-carrots. It could be said
> > that way figuratively, and that is the sense in which any simulation
> > or emulation 'exists' but literally, Bugs Bunny is a shared audio-
> > visual text: A recurring part of our direct personal and indirect
> > cultural sense experience.
>
> I know that according to you I'm misinterpreting the deterministically
> driven entity as having free will - we've established that much if
> nothing else! So if I think it has free will but I'm wrong, it has
> pseudo-free will. How can we tell that its will is pseudo-free? You
> said earlier that if it's causally efficacious it can't be pseudo-free
> but that's obviously wrong. What other criteria can we use to decide
> if the entity in question has true free will or just looks as if it
> has free will to people like me?
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread meekerdb 

On 6/6/2012 10:56 AM, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 6/6/2012 9:30 AM, R AM wrote:

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson mailto:tenn...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I think people make choices from among available options many times 
every day
and that is why the concept in question exists.


I agree that people make choices. I dont't think it is free will.

You said that people would believe that it would unfair to punish anyone if 
there
were no "free will". I agree that people believe that


If there were no "free will" of what kind? contra-causal? compatibilist? 
social/legal?


Contral-causal, I guess. What I'm defending is that the belief in free-will is, in part, 
a social construct, useful from the social/legal point of view, as you say. We are 
educated to believe it.


The social/legal concept is certainly a social construct, and one that has evolved over 
time from simple revenge and "an eye for an eye" to all sorts mitigating and exacerbating 
factors.  I think that belief in contra causal free will is natural and not a social 
construct.  It arises from that "feeling I could have done otherwise" and then, by the 
theory of mind, the other guy "could have done otherwise".  We will have be educated to 
disbelieve it.




And even if it's not fair (another social term) it may be a useful thing 
for society
to do.


I'm pretty convinced it is not fair. "Doing the right thing" is just a skill, like any 
other (running fast, jumping, intelligence, ...), and different people posess it to 
different degrees. Yet, from a social point of view, we consider everybody to have "the 
same amount of free will", excet in extreme cases (madness, drunkenness, etc). It's 
definitely not fair, but on the other hand, it is difficult to see what else we could 
do. It's useful for society to consider it that way.


We take into account those causative factors we understand and can change, but even if we 
realize the brain is strictly deterministic we don't know how to modify it except by crude 
methods like punishment and drugs and frontal lobotomies.  We don't know how adjust 
people's values (or maybe we do, c.f. "A Clockwork Orange") or will.


Brent


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Welcome to Life

2012-06-06 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi 

On 06.06.2012 06:50 meekerdb said the following:

Here's your closest continuation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E&feature=relmfu

Brent



Excellent. Thanks for the link.

Evgenii

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread R AM 
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 6/6/2012 9:30 AM, R AM wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson  wrote:
>
>> I think people make choices from among available options many times every
>> day and that is why the concept in question exists.
>
>
>  I agree that people make choices. I dont't think it is free will.
>
>  You said that people would believe that it would unfair to punish anyone
> if there were no "free will". I agree that people believe that
>
>
> If there were no "free will" of what kind? contra-causal? compatibilist?
> social/legal?
>

Contral-causal, I guess. What I'm defending is that the belief in free-will
is, in part, a social construct, useful from the social/legal point of
view, as you say. We are educated to believe it.

And even if it's not fair (another social term) it may be a useful thing
> for society to do.
>

I'm pretty convinced it is not fair. "Doing the right thing" is just a
skill, like any other (running fast, jumping, intelligence, ...), and
different people posess it to different degrees. Yet, from a social point
of view, we consider everybody to have "the same amount of free will",
excet in extreme cases (madness, drunkenness, etc). It's definitely not
fair, but on the other hand, it is difficult to see what else we could do.
It's useful for society to consider it that way.


> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread meekerdb 

On 6/6/2012 10:43 AM, R AM wrote:

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, R AM mailto:ramra...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson mailto:tenn...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I think people make choices from among available options many times 
every day
and that is why the concept in question exists.



Deep down, free will is the belief that, if we were put again under exactly the same 
situation, exactly the same feelings, the same perceptions, the same beliefs, the same 
memories, the same past, the same values, etc ... if everything was exactly the same, 
the belief in free will says that we still could do otherwise.


It's silly.


That's why punishment is a deterrent.  The person punished will remember it and so will 
have different memories even if the situation is otherwise the same.  Can work fine on 
deterministic systems.  No so well if the system is random or has no memory.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread meekerdb 

On 6/6/2012 9:37 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012  Brian Tenneson mailto:tenn...@gmail.com>> wrote:

>  how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? 



It just mystifies me that someone would even ask a question like that. If you're chasing 
me with a bloody ax I don't care if you had a "choice" (whatever the hell that is 
supposed to mean) to do so or not, nor do I care what thoughts, be they beautiful or 
ugly, are dancing around in your brain while you're doing it; all I want is for you to 
stop chasing me with that damn ax and I want measures taken to discourage that sort of 
thing happening in the future by you or anybody else.


The question though was what to do about him *after* he committed the crime.  If he axed 
you because he has a brain tumor that caused him to see you as an alien monster, we 
wouldn't hold him culpable.  We'd operate on him, remove the tumor, and send regrets to 
your widow.


If he were coerced into axing you by a hostile government that was holding his wife and 
children hostage and going to kill them if he didn't do you in, we would consider him much 
less culpable and might not punish him.


If he did it on an impulse because you offended him (e.g. you told him he spoke gibberish) 
we'd consider him less culpable than if you he had long planned to kill you for money.


So as actually applied "culpability" is roughly equivalent to how likely the perp or 
people in his situation are to do it or similar again.


Brent



> Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances.


It seems even more unfair for me to get chopped up by your ax.  There are only 2 
legitimate reasons to punish anybody for anything:


1) To make sure they don't continue with such crimes.

2) To deter others from committing similar crimes.

I admit there is another reason that the oldest reptilian parts of my brain can come up 
with, the fun of seeing somebody I dislike suffer, but that is not a reason the newer 
more evolved parts of my brain are proud of so I will not defend it. And the ASCII 
string "free will" has absolutely nothing to do with any of this, or anything else for 
that matter except gibberish.


  John K Clark



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread John Clark 
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
> > Punishment only works if something 1. cares whether or not it's
> experience is unpleasant


Yes.

> 2. has causally efficacious motive to alter their behavior,
>
 
No, although if the criminal's actions are not causal, if they are random,
then the range of potential punishments that are effective becomes much
more limited.  However be the criminal random or causal a bullet in the
brain will most certainly alter their behavior, and sometimes for the
better.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 06 Jun 2012, at 18:23, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/6/2012 9:08 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:

Speaking of the legal aspect,
Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued  
orders to kill the Jews.
IF "*gibberish*" does not exist, then how can we hold criminals  
culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime?  Seems  
unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances.


It's that idea of fairness or justice that seems to connect the idea  
of 'free will' to social policy.  But is it really needed to make  
the connection?  Why not look at as just rule utilitarianism, e.g.  
punishment will be a deterrent to others (would we execute murders  
to satisfy justice if it were known to increase the incidence of  
murder?) and a satisfaction to victims.  So justice and fairness are  
values derived to make a good society and need not be considered  
fundamental.  The social/legal 'free will', meaning nobody made him  
do it, still applies and we even distinguish degrees of coercion as  
mitigating factors.  Low level Nazis were considered less culpable  
because to disobey would have risked their own lives.


OK, but then they are more victim than guilty, and have to present  
themselves as such. A popular jury might help to evaluate the sincerity.


It is difficult to judge responsibility, and more so when it is  
diluted in social collective organizations, and even much more so when  
fear and intimidation are technic of power.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread R AM 
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, R AM  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson  wrote:
>
>> I think people make choices from among available options many times every
>> day and that is why the concept in question exists.
>
>
>
Deep down, free will is the belief that, if we were put again under exactly
the same situation, exactly the same feelings, the same perceptions, the
same beliefs, the same memories, the same past, the same values, etc ... if
everything was exactly the same, the belief in free will says that we still
could do otherwise.

It's silly.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread John Clark 
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> It's not possible to punish something that doesn't have free will.


I can't say anything directly about that because neither you nor I know
what the hell "free will" means, but I do know what "will" means and if
something wants to do X and I prevent that something from doing X then that
something will be unhappy and look upon my actions as a punishment and will
not want it repeated. So independent of what if anything the noise "free
will" means, punishment is a deterrent; but you should have already known
that.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread Craig Weinberg 
On Jun 6, 12:37 pm, John Clark  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012  Brian Tenneson  wrote:
>
> >  how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to
> > commit crime?
>
> It just mystifies me that someone would even ask a question like that. If
> you're chasing me with a bloody ax I don't care if you had a "choice"
> (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) to do so or not, nor do I care
> what thoughts, be they beautiful or ugly, are dancing around in your brain
> while you're doing it; all I want is for you to stop chasing me with that
> damn ax and I want measures taken to discourage that sort of thing
> happening in the future by you or anybody else.

But that doesn't explain why we would pick 'punishment' as a
prophylactic measure. If it was an axe that fell off the wall of your
garage, do you seek to punish the garage? The axe? Punishment only
works if something

1. cares whether or not it's experience is unpleasant - ie has sense
qualia of pleasure and pain contrast

and

2. has causally efficacious motive to alter their behavior, and by
extension alter the circumstances of their environment - ie motive
power: (continuum ranging from libertarian free will in our innermost
thoughts and imagination, to voluntary control over some aspects of
our attention and neuromuscular system, to involuntary reflex of
subconscious and unconscious processes).

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread Craig Weinberg 
On Jun 6, 12:23 pm, meekerdb  wrote:

> It's that idea of fairness or justice that seems to connect the idea of 'free 
> will' to
> social policy.  But is it really needed to make the connection?  Why not look 
> at as just
> rule utilitarianism, e.g. punishment will be a deterrent to others (would we 
> execute
> murders to satisfy justice if it were known to increase the incidence of 
> murder?) and a
> satisfaction to victims.

Fairness and justice, in this context supervenes on the idea that
punishment can possibly have a containing effect which circumscribes
behavior - which in turn supervenes upon free will to be able to
control one's own behavior to some degree to avoid the experience of
punishment.

It's not possible to punish something that doesn't have free will. It
has no choice but to do whatever it does, so no amount of pain or fear
could cause the recipient to suddenly be able to change their own
behavior if they couldn't change their own behavior voluntarily to
begin with. You can't punish inanimate objects, and without free will,
an organism is just an inanimate object that thinks it's in motion
(for no reason).

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread meekerdb 

On 6/6/2012 9:30 AM, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson > wrote:


I think people make choices from among available options many times every 
day and
that is why the concept in question exists.


I agree that people make choices. I dont't think it is free will.

You said that people would believe that it would unfair to punish anyone if there were 
no "free will". I agree that people believe that


If there were no "free will" of what kind? contra-causal? compatibilist? 
social/legal?

And even if it's not fair (another social term) it may be a useful thing for 
society to do.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread John Clark 
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012  Brian Tenneson  wrote:

>  how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to
> commit crime?


It just mystifies me that someone would even ask a question like that. If
you're chasing me with a bloody ax I don't care if you had a "choice"
(whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) to do so or not, nor do I care
what thoughts, be they beautiful or ugly, are dancing around in your brain
while you're doing it; all I want is for you to stop chasing me with that
damn ax and I want measures taken to discourage that sort of thing
happening in the future by you or anybody else.

> Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances.
>

It seems even more unfair for me to get chopped up by your ax.  There are
only 2 legitimate reasons to punish anybody for anything:

1) To make sure they don't continue with such crimes.

2) To deter others from committing similar crimes.

I admit there is another reason that the oldest reptilian parts of my brain
can come up with, the fun of seeing somebody I dislike suffer, but that is
not a reason the newer more evolved parts of my brain are proud of so I
will not defend it. And the ASCII string "free will" has absolutely nothing
to do with any of this, or anything else for that matter except gibberish.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread meekerdb 

On 6/6/2012 9:08 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:

Speaking of the legal aspect,
Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill 
the Jews.
IF "*gibberish*" does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they 
had no choice but to commit crime?  Seems unfair to punish anyone under those 
circumstances.


Interestingly, Bill Press at UT has recently shown why the idea of placing a high value on 
justice and fairness might have evolved along with a theory of mind including 'free will':


http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/16/1206569109

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread R AM 
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson  wrote:

> I think people make choices from among available options many times every
> day and that is why the concept in question exists.


I agree that people make choices. I dont't think it is free will.

You said that people would believe that it would unfair to punish anyone if
there were no "free will". I agree that people believe that



>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM, R AM  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Brian Tenneson  wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of the legal aspect,
>>> Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders
>>> to kill the Jews.
>>> IF "*gibberish*" does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable
>>> in that they had no choice but to commit crime?  Seems unfair to punish
>>> anyone under those circumstances.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the concept of free-will exists because people think it is unfair
>> to punish anyone under those circumstances?
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>


 On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012  meekerdb  wrote:
>
>
>  > while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know
>> your preferences most of the time.
>>
>
> And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will
> eventually stop or not, but not all of the time.
>
>   > The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability
>> retrospectively to see all the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it 
>> seems
>> that one could have done otherwise.
>>
>
> Yes, and unlike other definitions of "free will" this one is not
> gibberish, however when you boil it down all it's really saying is you
> don't know what you don't know. The highest status the philosophical
> "concept" called "free will" can aspire to is that of being right but
> trivially circular, most of the time it's not even that, most of the time
> it's just gibberish.
>

 Aside from the philosophical concept, there is the social/legal concept
 of not coerced, referred to as exercising 'free will', which is what
 Stenger proposes just to call "autonomy".

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "Everything List" group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

>>>
>>>  --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread meekerdb 

On 6/6/2012 9:08 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:

Speaking of the legal aspect,
Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill 
the Jews.
IF "*gibberish*" does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they 
had no choice but to commit crime?  Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances.


It's that idea of fairness or justice that seems to connect the idea of 'free will' to 
social policy.  But is it really needed to make the connection?  Why not look at as just 
rule utilitarianism, e.g. punishment will be a deterrent to others (would we execute 
murders to satisfy justice if it were known to increase the incidence of murder?) and a 
satisfaction to victims.  So justice and fairness are values derived to make a good 
society and need not be considered fundamental.  The social/legal 'free will', meaning 
nobody made him do it, still applies and we even distinguish degrees of coercion as 
mitigating factors.  Low level Nazis were considered less culpable because to disobey 
would have risked their own lives.


Brent


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread Brian Tenneson 
I think people make choices from among available options many times every
day and that is why the concept in question exists.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM, R AM  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Brian Tenneson  wrote:
>
>> Speaking of the legal aspect,
>> Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders
>> to kill the Jews.
>> IF "*gibberish*" does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable
>> in that they had no choice but to commit crime?  Seems unfair to punish
>> anyone under those circumstances.
>
>
> Perhaps the concept of free-will exists because people think it is unfair
> to punish anyone under those circumstances?
>
>
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark  wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, Jun 5, 2012  meekerdb  wrote:


  > while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know
> your preferences most of the time.
>

 And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will
 eventually stop or not, but not all of the time.

   > The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability
> retrospectively to see all the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it seems
> that one could have done otherwise.
>

 Yes, and unlike other definitions of "free will" this one is not
 gibberish, however when you boil it down all it's really saying is you
 don't know what you don't know. The highest status the philosophical
 "concept" called "free will" can aspire to is that of being right but
 trivially circular, most of the time it's not even that, most of the time
 it's just gibberish.

>>>
>>> Aside from the philosophical concept, there is the social/legal concept
>>> of not coerced, referred to as exercising 'free will', which is what
>>> Stenger proposes just to call "autonomy".
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread R AM 
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Brian Tenneson  wrote:

> Speaking of the legal aspect,
> Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to
> kill the Jews.
> IF "*gibberish*" does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable
> in that they had no choice but to commit crime?  Seems unfair to punish
> anyone under those circumstances.


Perhaps the concept of free-will exists because people think it is unfair
to punish anyone under those circumstances?


> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012  meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  > while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know
 your preferences most of the time.

>>>
>>> And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will
>>> eventually stop or not, but not all of the time.
>>>
>>>   > The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability retrospectively
 to see all the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it seems that one could
 have done otherwise.

>>>
>>> Yes, and unlike other definitions of "free will" this one is not
>>> gibberish, however when you boil it down all it's really saying is you
>>> don't know what you don't know. The highest status the philosophical
>>> "concept" called "free will" can aspire to is that of being right but
>>> trivially circular, most of the time it's not even that, most of the time
>>> it's just gibberish.
>>>
>>
>> Aside from the philosophical concept, there is the social/legal concept
>> of not coerced, referred to as exercising 'free will', which is what
>> Stenger proposes just to call "autonomy".
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread Brian Tenneson 
Speaking of the legal aspect,
Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to
kill the Jews.
IF "*gibberish*" does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in
that they had no choice but to commit crime?  Seems unfair to punish anyone
under those circumstances.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012  meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>
>>  > while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your
>>> preferences most of the time.
>>>
>>
>> And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will
>> eventually stop or not, but not all of the time.
>>
>>   > The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability retrospectively
>>> to see all the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it seems that one could
>>> have done otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and unlike other definitions of "free will" this one is not
>> gibberish, however when you boil it down all it's really saying is you
>> don't know what you don't know. The highest status the philosophical
>> "concept" called "free will" can aspire to is that of being right but
>> trivially circular, most of the time it's not even that, most of the time
>> it's just gibberish.
>>
>
> Aside from the philosophical concept, there is the social/legal concept of
> not coerced, referred to as exercising 'free will', which is what Stenger
> proposes just to call "autonomy".
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread meekerdb 




On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark > wrote:


On Tue, Jun 5, 2012  meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:


> while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your
preferences most of the time.


And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will 
eventually
stop or not, but not all of the time.

> The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability retrospectively 
to see all
the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it seems that one could have 
done otherwise.


Yes, and unlike other definitions of "free will" this one is not gibberish, 
however
when you boil it down all it's really saying is you don't know what you 
don't know.
The highest status the philosophical "concept" called "free will" can 
aspire to is
that of being right but trivially circular, most of the time it's not even 
that,
most of the time it's just gibberish.



Aside from the philosophical concept, there is the social/legal concept of not coerced, 
referred to as exercising 'free will', which is what Stenger proposes just to call "autonomy".


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread Brian Tenneson 
I will exercise my *insert gibberish here* by disagreeing.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012  meekerdb  wrote:
>
>
> > while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your
>> preferences most of the time.
>>
>
> And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will
> eventually stop or not, but not all of the time.
>
>  > The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability retrospectively to
>> see all the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it seems that one could have
>> done otherwise.
>>
>
> Yes, and unlike other definitions of "free will" this one is not
> gibberish, however when you boil it down all it's really saying is you
> don't know what you don't know. The highest status the philosophical
> "concept" called "free will" can aspire to is that of being right but
> trivially circular, most of the time it's not even that, most of the time
> it's just gibberish.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-06-06 Thread John Clark 
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012  meekerdb  wrote:


> while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your
> preferences most of the time.
>

And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will
eventually stop or not, but not all of the time.

> The feeling of 'free will' comes from the inability retrospectively to
> see all the causes; so that, out of ignorance, it seems that one could have
> done otherwise.
>

Yes, and unlike other definitions of "free will" this one is not gibberish,
however when you boil it down all it's really saying is you don't know what
you don't know. The highest status the philosophical "concept" called "free
will" can aspire to is that of being right but trivially circular, most of
the time it's not even that, most of the time it's just gibberish.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.