Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 To act on itself, as far as I can understand it, would mean to be uncaused
 or truly random, which is indeed incompatible with determinism. But why
 should that have anything to do with intentionality?


 What is intention if not acting on, or better 'through' yourself?

Intention in the colloquial sense is when I want to do something. I
still want to do things whether my brain processes are deterministic
or probabilistic.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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




Re: Brain teaser

2013-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto Corona):

We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless and  
doubly so!


I don't think we know that. This can only be an hypothesis, or a  
consequence of an hypothesis. The same is true for the proposition we  
are not machine.



Stephen P. King wrote (to me):


But neither Bp nor Bp  p are ontological. Only p is is.



Could you make a mental note to elaborate on how p is ontological?



I have fixed the base ontology with N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...}, with  
the usual successor, + and * axioms/laws.


p is used for an arbitrary arithmetical proposition, at that base  
level, with its usual standard interpretation. It is ontological as  
opposed to epistemological proposition, which in this setting means  
believed by some machine, and which I denote by Bp. Of course, and  
that is what comp makes possible, Bp is also a purely arithmetical  
proposition (beweisbar(p)), but they are epistemological because  
they involve a machine, and a proposition coded in the machine language.


When I write p, I allude to the arithmetical truth, which describes  
the ontology chosen (the numbers, and the arithmetical proposition  
with their usual standard interpretation). Then some arithmetical  
proposition are singled out as epistemological because they describe:

- the thinking of some machine, like Bp, or
- the knowledge of some machine, like Bp  p, or the observation of  
some machine like Bp  Dt, or

- the feeling of some machine like Bp  Dt  p.

See my papers for the precise morphisms, and the derivation of the  
corresponding logics and mathematics. Or ask further question. I don't  
want to be long.




That's why I have done UDA, for all good willing humans, from age 7  
to 77, and AUDA, for all digital machines and humans knowing how a  
digital machine work. Of course, the digital machine knew already,  
in some (platonic) sense.






You seem sometimes to forget that the children also have  
questions for you to answer...


???
Why do you ever make statements like that. Nothing is more wrong. I  
have no clue why you make such ad hominem and completely absurd comment.
I love answer all genuine question, from 7 to 77, I just precisely  
said. This include children.



Human can choose by themselves. Human are relative universal number  
by comp, even without step 8. Only a non-comp believer should be  
astonished.


   OK. Human are relative universal number by comp... Could you  
add more detail to this answer? What is the 'relative' word mean?  
Relative to what?


Either (according to the context):
-relative to the base theory (the starting universal system that we  
assume. I have chosen arithmetic (after an attempt of chosing the  
combinators, but people are less familiar with them), or
-relative to a universal number, which is universal relatively to the  
base theory, or
-relative to a universal number, which is relative to a universal  
number, which is relative to the base theory, etc.



You attribute to me the idea that chalkboard don't exist. Did I  
ever said that?





   UDA Step 8.



Many others have already told you this many times. UDA step 8  
concludes that chalkboard does not exist in a primary sense. Not that  
chalkboard does not exist in the observable sense. That would  
instantaneously refutes comp. The conclusion is that physics is not  
the fundamental science, and that it is reduced to arithmetic. Not  
that physics is non sense. OIn the contrary, with comp we see how a  
physical reality, even a quantum one, is unavoidable for almost all  
universal numbers.



Yes, we know that classical determinism is wrong, but it is not  
logically inconsistent with consciousness.


   I must disagree. It is baked into the topology of classical  
mechanics that a system cannot semantically act upon itself.



? (that seems to contradict comp, and be rather 1004)




   You do not seem consider the need to error correct and adapt to  
changing local conditions for a conscious machine nor the need to  
maintain access to low entropy resources. Your machines are never  
hungry.


Take the Heisenberg matrix of the Milky way at the level of strings,  
with 10^1000 decimals. Its evolution is emulated by infinitely many  
arithmetical relation, and in all of them a lot of machines are  
hungry, and many lack resources, and other do not. Now, such  
computation might not have the right first person indeterminacy  
measure, but in this case comp is false, and if someone show that he  
will refute comp. But in all case, arithmetic handle all relative  
resources. So you it seems that you are not correct here.



Bruno



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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, 

Re: Cats fall for illusions too

2013-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Mar 2013, at 21:47, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 3/8/2013 2:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 08 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Terren Suydam wrote:

Ah. That's above my pay grade unfortunately. But I don't think our  
immediate failure to solve that problem dooms the idea that a  
cat's experience of the world is explainable in terms of  
mechanism. Conversely, even if we did solve it, there would still  
be doubts. For the time being, comp remains for me the most  
fruitful assumption about reality, such as it is. It assumes so  
little and opens up such incredible vistas.


Yes.

And that comp leads to problems is what makes it interesting. I use  
comp like the drunk man who looks for his key under the lamp, as  
elsewhere he knows he will not find it.


Comp is only a lamp.

It shows that the somber unknown is bigger than what some might  
think at first sight.


Bruno


   What about building more lamps?


You take the analogy too much seriously, and not in the intended sense.

Bruno





--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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



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




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-09 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, March 9, 2013 1:01:50 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:


 On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
  

 who would vow never to change their views?


 The religious faithful.  


I'm not sure I would say that is their view, so much as the view of an 
institution, but fair enough.
 


  By simple logic the answer has to be yes if the following conditions 
 are met. If whenever a traffic jam happens the sun goes down and whenever 
 the sun goes down a traffic jam happens and there has never been a single 
 recorded instance of this not happening then the sun going down and traffic 
 jams are inextricably linked together.  


  But you can see that's a fallacy just by understanding that obviously 
 we cannot cause the Sun to go down by making a traffic jam. 


 Obviously be damned! If we lived in a universe where without exception 
 every single time there was a traffic jam then obviously the laws of 
 physics and the orbital mechanics of the solar system would have to be 
 radically different from what they are in this universe. And if we don't 
 have a good theory to explain how it could be that traffic jams could 
 effect the rotation of the Earth that's just too bad but the universe 
 doesn't care if we understand how it works or not and our lack of 
 understanding would not change the fact that the every single time a 
 traffic jam happens the sun goes down. 


What I am saying though is that even a perfect correlation does not mean 
direct causation. Everyone has a brain and a heart, but that doesn't mean 
the brain causes the heart.



   we know that whenever there is a change in brain chemistry there is 
 ALWAYS a change in consciousness and whenever there is a change in 
 consciousness there is ALWAYS a change in brain chemistry, so consciousness 
 and chemistry are also inextricably linked together. 


 No. 


 NO? WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN NO?!!


If I said that the electronics of your television must be linked to the 
plot of the TV series you are watching, would you still not understand? 
Would you insist that there must be some plot generating component in your 
TV set? Of course human consciousness and human biochemistry are parts of 
the big picture which fit together, but not necessarily in the way that you 
assume at all.

 


   they are opposite in every way - because they are literally the 
 opposite side of each other. 


 If whenever X happens Y happens and whenever X does not happen Y never 
 happens then X causes Y, it's what the word causes means for goodness 
 sake.


And it is the word 'causes' which is completely wrong when applied to the 
explanatory gap. It is more like a content-form relation than a 
cause-effect relation. A glass of water happens every time there is water 
in a glass. That doesn't mean the water causes the glass or the glass 
causes the water.
 

  

  Computers are made of atoms and molecules just like humans are, 


  No, they are made of different molecules entirely. Which is why we plug 
 them into electric current rather than feeding them cheeseburgers.


 So you think carbon is inherently more conscious than silicon and 
 hydrocarbons are more conscious than silicon-dioxide. That's just dumb.  


No, I think that living cells are more conscious than anything which is not 
a living cell. If you can get silicon dioxide to make a living cell, then 
you might have a point, but until that time, your argument is with nature 
not me. You can tell nature that it is stupid for favoring sugars and 
proteins and lipids in constructing cells.
 


  If my brain changed my mind, 


 In other words if your brain started to do things differently. 


Differently than what? My brain changes my mind all the time. Every morning 
my brain wakes me up. That's a simplified way of saying it of course, but 
for our purposes here, that's what happens - predictably, every day. I am 
asleep and am awakened at a time deemed appropriate by my brain.
 


  then it would be an involuntary change. 


 I have no idea what that means,


It means that I don't have a choice when my brain wakes me up in the 
morning.
 

 I do know that the mind is what the brain does


You think that you know that, but you don't really seem to know much about 
what either the mind or brain does.
 

 and if it started to do things differently it did so for a reason, 


Where do you get this do things differently from? Differently from what? 
The brain and mind have always worked this way. I move my arm, and my brain 
changes to accomplish that. My arm moves by itself from a twitch and my 
mind notices that it is happening.
 

 a new chemical introduced into your bloodstream that made it past the 
 blood brain barrier for example, or the brain started doing things 
 differently for no reason at all, in other words random.  


?
 


  If you change your mind, that is to say if your brain changes what it 
 is doing, then your brain chemistry changes. And if your 

Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

How exactly such weights or probabilities of firing might work is not
 understood, but Tse argues that weights would constitute  informational
 criteria as opposed to being simply physical.


I don't know who wrote the above words but whoever it was the writer
clearly does not understand them. I wonder if Tse does.  And certainly
before anyone can determine if free will has a neural basis they must
first figure out what in the world free will is supposed to be. And
nobody has done that.

 Tse's findings, which contradict recent claims by neuroscientists and
 philosophers that free will is an illusion,


People who say free will is a illusion are every bit as silly as those
saying it is not. The word illusion means something, the phrase free
will does not, it doesn't even have the property of nonexistence.

 It has to be either random or determined.


  Says who?


Says anyone who has not suffered brain damage or anyone who doesn't want
something to be true so badly that they are willing to renounce logic if
that's what it takes to convince themselves of it.

 This sounds a lot more like teleology than randomness or determinism.


What the hell are you talking about?? If it's teleological then its
mechanistic; event X happened for a reason, the achievement of result Y.

 But I can't blame you - all of your responses are generated randomly or
 automatically


But you can blame me, it doesn't matter if its random or mechanistic
everybody is always responsible for their actions, or at least I can see no
reason why they shouldn't be.

   John K Clark

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, March 9, 2013 1:35:20 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

 How exactly such weights or probabilities of firing might work is not  
 understood, but Tse argues that weights would constitute  informational 
 criteria as opposed to being simply physical.


 I don't know who wrote the above words but whoever it was the writer 
 clearly does not understand them. I wonder if Tse does.  And certainly 
 before anyone can determine if free will has a neural basis they must 
 first figure out what in the world free will is supposed to be. And 
 nobody has done that.


Everyone except free will deniers know exactly what free will is. It needs 
no description unless you are bending over backward to pretend it doesn't 
exist.


  Tse's findings, which contradict recent claims by neuroscientists and 
 philosophers that free will is an illusion, 


 People who say free will is a illusion are every bit as silly as those 
 saying it is not. The word illusion means something, the phrase free 
 will does not, it doesn't even have the property of nonexistence. 


Are you claiming then that it both does not exist and does not not exist?


   It has to be either random or determined.


  Says who? 


 Says anyone who has not suffered brain damage or anyone who doesn't want 
 something to be true so badly that they are willing to renounce logic if 
 that's what it takes to convince themselves of it. 


So just standard bigotry. Whoever disagrees with me about anything is a 
crazy idiot.. So impressive and convincing...
 


  This sounds a lot more like teleology than randomness or determinism.


 What the hell are you talking about?? If it's teleological then its 
 mechanistic;


No. Mechanistic means can be employed to teleological ends but teleology 
but teleology itself need not have anything to do with mechanism.
 

 event X happened for a reason, the achievement of result Y.


No. From the driver's teleological perspective, the event of him starting 
the car happens for the achievement of the result of going to the store. 
From the machine's perspective, there is no driver, no store, and the 
engine starts because of the presence of fuel, vapor, and a spark from the 
ignition.
 


  But I can't blame you - all of your responses are generated randomly or 
 automatically


 But you can blame me, it doesn't matter if its random or mechanistic 
 everybody is always responsible for their actions, or at least I can see no 
 reason why they shouldn't be.


You think people should be held responsible for random events and events 
which they were powerless to stop? Just for fun?

Craig
 


John K Clark
  



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




Re: Cats fall for illusions too

2013-03-09 Thread Stephen P. King

On 3/9/2013 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 08 Mar 2013, at 21:47, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 3/8/2013 2:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 08 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Terren Suydam wrote:

Ah. That's above my pay grade unfortunately. But I don't think our 
immediate failure to solve that problem dooms the idea that a cat's 
experience of the world is explainable in terms of mechanism. 
Conversely, even if we did solve it, there would still be doubts. 
For the time being, comp remains for me the most fruitful 
assumption about reality, such as it is. It assumes so little and 
opens up such incredible vistas.


Yes.

And that comp leads to problems is what makes it interesting. I use 
comp like the drunk man who looks for his key under the lamp, as 
elsewhere he knows he will not find it.


Comp is only a lamp.

It shows that the somber unknown is bigger than what some might 
think at first sight.


Bruno


   What about building more lamps?


You take the analogy too much seriously, and not in the intended sense.

Bruno



I suppose so. I thought that you would respond that way... I am 
trying to make the point that the problem should not be considered from 
only one theoretical basis. Otherwise the problem might be just an 
artifact of the theory... ;-)


--
Onward!

Stephen


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




Re: Brain teaser

2013-03-09 Thread Stephen P. King

On 3/9/2013 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto Corona):

We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless and 
doubly so!


I don't think we know that. 


Hi Bruno,

Of course we don't know that for sure... you are being ridiculous !


This can only be an hypothesis, or a consequence of an hypothesis.


Yes, of course. We can only have certainty within a theory with a 
proof, for your idea of we know that. I understand...



The same is true for the proposition we are not machine.



Is not p, of Bpp, a hypothesis as well?




Stephen P. King wrote (to me):


But neither Bp nor Bp  p are ontological. Only p is is.



Could you make a mental note to elaborate on how p is ontological?



I have fixed the base ontology with N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...}, with 
the usual successor, + and * axioms/laws.


p is used for an arbitrary arithmetical proposition, at that base 
level, with its usual standard interpretation. It is ontological as 
opposed to epistemological proposition, which in this setting means 
believed by some machine, and which I denote by Bp. Of course, and 
that is what comp makes possible, Bp is also a purely arithmetical 
proposition (beweisbar(p)), but they are epistemological because 
they involve a machine, and a proposition coded in the machine language.


When I write p, I allude to the arithmetical truth, which describes 
the ontology chosen (the numbers, and the arithmetical proposition 
with their usual standard interpretation). Then some arithmetical 
proposition are singled out as epistemological because they describe:

- the thinking of some machine, like Bp, or
- the knowledge of some machine, like Bp  p, or the observation of 
some machine like Bp  Dt, or

- the feeling of some machine like Bp  Dt  p.

See my papers for the precise morphisms, and the derivation of the 
corresponding logics and mathematics. Or ask further question. I don't 
want to be long.


I wish that you could speak vaguely with us and be OK. Precision 
has its place and time but not here when our time to respond is limited.




That's why I have done UDA, for all good willing humans, from age 7 
to 77, and AUDA, for all digital machines and humans knowing how a 
digital machine work. Of course, the digital machine knew already, in 
some (platonic) sense.






You seem sometimes to forget that the children also have 
questions for you to answer...


???
Why do you ever make statements like that. Nothing is more wrong. I 
have no clue why you make such ad hominem and completely absurd comment.
I love answer all genuine question, from 7 to 77, I just precisely 
said. This include children.


But you demand too much exactness in a response, as you demonstrate 
above.





Human can choose by themselves. Human are relative universal number 
by comp, even without step 8. Only a non-comp believer should be 
astonished.


   OK. Human are relative universal number by comp... Could you add 
more detail to this answer? What is the 'relative' word mean? 
Relative to what?


Either (according to the context):
-relative to the base theory (the starting universal system that we 
assume. I have chosen arithmetic (after an attempt of chosing the 
combinators, but people are less familiar with them), or
-relative to a universal number, which is universal relatively to the 
base theory, or
-relative to a universal number, which is relative to a universal 
number, which is relative to the base theory, etc.




Fine, could you consider how the general pattern of this can be 
seen in the isomorphisms of universal numbers? Consider how many 
different languages humans use to describe the same physical world, we 
would think it silly if someone made claims that only English was the 
'correct' language. So too with mathematics.




You attribute to me the idea that chalkboard don't exist. Did I ever 
said that?





   UDA Step 8.



Many others have already told you this many times. UDA step 8 
concludes that chalkboard does not exist in a primary sense. Not that 
chalkboard does not exist in the observable sense.


OK, my point is that just as the chalkboard emerges so too do the 
possible arithmetic representations of said chalkboard. They are 
co-dependent in my dual aspect theory. I do not understand how you 
explain the emergence of the chalkboard except to refer to a vague 
arithmetic body problem'.


That would instantaneously refutes comp. The conclusion is that 
physics is not the fundamental science, and that it is reduced to 
arithmetic. Not that physics is non sense. OIn the contrary, with comp 
we see how a physical reality, even a quantum one, is unavoidable for 
almost all universal numbers.


Yes, but can we try to restate this in a different form?




Yes, we know that classical determinism is wrong, but it is not 
logically inconsistent with consciousness.


   I must disagree. It is baked into the 

Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou


On 10/03/2013, at 6:03 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

  But I can't blame you - all of your responses are generated randomly or 
  automatically
 
 But you can blame me, it doesn't matter if its random or mechanistic 
 everybody is always responsible for their actions, or at least I can see no 
 reason why they shouldn't be.
 
 You think people should be held responsible for random events and events 
 which they were powerless to stop? Just for fun?

They are not powerless to stop them since if someone yells, Hey, stop! they 
may stop. This is the case even though the process is still deterministic or 
probabilistic. A court would not let you off if you got an expert witness in to 
say that you were not responsible for your crime due to the way your brain 
works. This is not because the judge does not believe the expert witness, it is 
because brain physics is not relevant to the question of responsibility for a 
crime.

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread meekerdb

On 3/9/2013 2:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal a car will steal it 
regardless of whether someone yells at them. 


I don't think you know what deterministic means (hint: it doesn't mean 
resolved).

Brent

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, March 9, 2013 5:27:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/9/2013 2:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal a car 
 will steal it regardless of whether someone yells at them. 


 I don't think you know what deterministic means (hint: it doesn't mean 
 resolved).


You seem to think that deterministic means whatever means I'm right.
 


 Brent
  

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Craig Weinberg
Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of 
affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and 
necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs.  - 
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/determinism.html

Craig


On Saturday, March 9, 2013 5:27:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/9/2013 2:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal a car 
 will steal it regardless of whether someone yells at them. 


 I don't think you know what deterministic means (hint: it doesn't mean 
 resolved).

 Brent
  

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 They are not powerless to stop them since if someone yells, Hey, stop!
 they may stop. This is the case even though the process is still
 deterministic or probabilistic.


 In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal a car will
 steal it regardless of whether someone yells at them. If someone yelling at
 the thief creates an opportunity for the them to exercise free will over
 their own actions, then it is not a deterministic universe. You can yell at
 a stone rolling down a hill as much as you want and there will be no change
 in where the stone rolls.

In a deterministic universe it is determined whether the thief will
stop if someone yells at him. However, neither the person yelling nor
the thief knows for sure whether he will stop or not. Furthermore, it
is not possible to know for sure if the thief will stop or not even
with a perfect model of his brain, due to the nature of classical
chaotic systems.

 A court would not let you off if you got an expert witness in to say that
 you were not responsible for your crime due to the way your brain works.
 This is not because the judge does not believe the expert witness, it is
 because brain physics is not relevant to the question of responsibility for
 a crime.


 When a suspect pleads insanity, they are saying precisely that the brain
 physics is relevant to the question of responsibility for a crime. An expert
 witness who can establish that you have a tumor in an area of your brain
 which is associated with impulse control will have a very good chance of
 convincing a judge that brain physics is indeed relevant.

Mentally ill people don't have different brain *physics*. If the brain
is deterministic in a well person it is deterministic in a mentally
ill person as well. The difference is that the mentally ill person may
not be able to (deterministically) respond to certain situations in
the way a well person will (deterministically) respond to them. Judges
are usually quite intelligent people and I expect that most of them
are aware that everything in the world must be either determined or
random, but they still make their judgements despite this.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread meekerdb

On 3/9/2013 2:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including 
every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of 
antecedent states of affairs.  - 


Including hearing the shout Stop!  Note that it doesn't say antecedent state of brain 
ten seconds earlier.


Brent



http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/determinism.html

Craig


On Saturday, March 9, 2013 5:27:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/9/2013 2:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal a car will 
steal
it regardless of whether someone yells at them. 


I don't think you know what deterministic means (hint: it doesn't mean 
resolved).

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

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


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6156 - Release Date: 03/08/13



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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, March 9, 2013 6:30:53 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

 On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 

  They are not powerless to stop them since if someone yells, Hey, 
 stop! 
  they may stop. This is the case even though the process is still 
  deterministic or probabilistic. 
  
  
  In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal a car 
 will 
  steal it regardless of whether someone yells at them. If someone yelling 
 at 
  the thief creates an opportunity for the them to exercise free will over 
  their own actions, then it is not a deterministic universe. You can yell 
 at 
  a stone rolling down a hill as much as you want and there will be no 
 change 
  in where the stone rolls. 

 In a deterministic universe it is determined whether the thief will 
 stop if someone yells at him. However, neither the person yelling nor 
 the thief knows for sure whether he will stop or not. 


What difference would it make to them if neither the person yelling nor the 
thief can control whether or not they are yelling or stealing? I don't know 
whether or not a puddle in the gutter will dry out or not overnight, but 
why would that generate some sort of interest to me?
 

 Furthermore, it 
 is not possible to know for sure if the thief will stop or not even 
 with a perfect model of his brain, due to the nature of classical 
 chaotic systems. 


It doesn't matter because in a deterministic universe it would be 
impossible to care whether the thief would stop or not.


  A court would not let you off if you got an expert witness in to say 
 that 
  you were not responsible for your crime due to the way your brain 
 works. 
  This is not because the judge does not believe the expert witness, it 
 is 
  because brain physics is not relevant to the question of responsibility 
 for 
  a crime. 
  
  
  When a suspect pleads insanity, they are saying precisely that the brain 
  physics is relevant to the question of responsibility for a crime. An 
 expert 
  witness who can establish that you have a tumor in an area of your brain 
  which is associated with impulse control will have a very good chance of 
  convincing a judge that brain physics is indeed relevant. 

 Mentally ill people don't have different brain *physics*.


Splitting hairs. Using English words in a nonsense order may technically be 
*English* but it is still a language problem.
 

 If the brain 
 is deterministic in a well person it is deterministic in a mentally 
 ill person as well. The difference is that the mentally ill person may 
 not be able to (deterministically) respond to certain situations in 
 the way a well person will (deterministically) respond to them. Judges 
 are usually quite intelligent people and I expect that most of them 
 are aware that everything in the world must be either determined or 
 random, but they still make their judgements despite this. 


No judge could make any judgment against a person if they really believed 
that everything must be determined or random. That would mean that their 
judgments would also be deterministic or random, so that they would not be 
a judge at all, but rather a pawn of inevitable and necessary consequences 
of antecedent states of affairs.

Judgment is impossible under determinism.

Craig



 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou 


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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, March 9, 2013 7:00:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/9/2013 2:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of 
 affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and 
 necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs.  - 


 Including hearing the shout Stop!  Note that it doesn't say antecedent 
 state of brain ten seconds earlier.


In a deterministic universe, why would the event of someone shouting at a 
thief have more of an effect than someone shouting at a rock?

Craig


 Brent


 http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/determinism.html

 Craig


 On Saturday, March 9, 2013 5:27:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 3/9/2013 2:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal a car 
 will steal it regardless of whether someone yells at them. 


 I don't think you know what deterministic means (hint: it doesn't mean 
 resolved).

 Brent
  
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
  
  

 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6156 - Release Date: 03/08/13


  

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread meekerdb

On 3/9/2013 4:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, March 9, 2013 6:30:53 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 
javascript:
wrote:

 They are not powerless to stop them since if someone yells, Hey, stop!
 they may stop. This is the case even though the process is still
 deterministic or probabilistic.


 In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal a car 
will
 steal it regardless of whether someone yells at them. If someone yelling 
at
 the thief creates an opportunity for the them to exercise free will over
 their own actions, then it is not a deterministic universe. You can yell 
at
 a stone rolling down a hill as much as you want and there will be no 
change
 in where the stone rolls.

In a deterministic universe it is determined whether the thief will
stop if someone yells at him. However, neither the person yelling nor
the thief knows for sure whether he will stop or not. 



What difference would it make to them if neither the person yelling nor the thief can 
control whether or not they are yelling or stealing?


It will make exactly whatever difference is determined (or random).

I don't know whether or not a puddle in the gutter will dry out or not overnight, but 
why would that generate some sort of interest to me?


Furthermore, it
is not possible to know for sure if the thief will stop or not even
with a perfect model of his brain, due to the nature of classical
chaotic systems.


It doesn't matter because in a deterministic universe it would be impossible to care 
whether the thief would stop or not.


Unless it was determined that you would care, in which case it would impossible not to 
care.  That's what deterministic means, things are *determined*.







 A court would not let you off if you got an expert witness in to say that
 you were not responsible for your crime due to the way your brain works.
 This is not because the judge does not believe the expert witness, it is
 because brain physics is not relevant to the question of responsibility 
for
 a crime.


 When a suspect pleads insanity, they are saying precisely that the brain
 physics is relevant to the question of responsibility for a crime. An 
expert
 witness who can establish that you have a tumor in an area of your brain
 which is associated with impulse control will have a very good chance of
 convincing a judge that brain physics is indeed relevant.

Mentally ill people don't have different brain *physics*.


Splitting hairs. Using English words in a nonsense order may technically be *English* 
but it is still a language problem.


If the brain
is deterministic in a well person it is deterministic in a mentally
ill person as well. The difference is that the mentally ill person may
not be able to (deterministically) respond to certain situations in
the way a well person will (deterministically) respond to them. Judges
are usually quite intelligent people and I expect that most of them
are aware that everything in the world must be either determined or
random, but they still make their judgements despite this.


No judge could make any judgment against a person if they really believed that 
everything must be determined or random. That would mean that their judgments would also 
be deterministic or random, so that they would not be a judge at all, but rather a pawn 
of inevitable and necessary consequences of antecedent states of affairs.


Judgment is impossible under determinism.


Unless it's determined, in which case non-judgement is impossible.

Brent



Craig



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

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


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6156 - Release Date: 03/08/13



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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread meekerdb

On 3/9/2013 4:10 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, March 9, 2013 7:00:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/9/2013 2:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs,
including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary
consequence of antecedent states of affairs.  - 


Including hearing the shout Stop!  Note that it doesn't say antecedent 
state of
brain ten seconds earlier.


In a deterministic universe, why would the event of someone shouting at a thief have 
more of an effect than someone shouting at a rock?


Because the deterministic mechanisms of the thief are more sensitive to outside effects - 
like shouted words.


Brent

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, March 9, 2013 7:26:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/9/2013 4:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Saturday, March 9, 2013 6:30:53 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: 

 On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 
 wrote: 

  They are not powerless to stop them since if someone yells, Hey, 
 stop! 
  they may stop. This is the case even though the process is still 
  deterministic or probabilistic. 
  
  
  In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal a car 
 will 
  steal it regardless of whether someone yells at them. If someone 
 yelling at 
  the thief creates an opportunity for the them to exercise free will 
 over 
  their own actions, then it is not a deterministic universe. You can 
 yell at 
  a stone rolling down a hill as much as you want and there will be no 
 change 
  in where the stone rolls. 

 In a deterministic universe it is determined whether the thief will 
 stop if someone yells at him. However, neither the person yelling nor 
 the thief knows for sure whether he will stop or not. 


 What difference would it make to them if neither the person yelling nor 
 the thief can control whether or not they are yelling or stealing? 


 It will make exactly whatever difference is determined (or random).


You're not getting my point. If you say that the boat doesn't exist, why 
would it matter if it has a hole in it or not?
 


  I don't know whether or not a puddle in the gutter will dry out or not 
 overnight, but why would that generate some sort of interest to me?
  

 Furthermore, it 
 is not possible to know for sure if the thief will stop or not even 
 with a perfect model of his brain, due to the nature of classical 
 chaotic systems. 


 It doesn't matter because in a deterministic universe it would be 
 impossible to care whether the thief would stop or not.
  

 Unless it was determined that you would care, in which case it would 
 impossible not to care.  That's what deterministic means, things are 
 *determined*.


Why would there be a such thing as care in a deterministic universe? I 
don't think it is defensible that it could. If *all things are determined* 
then there can be no care.

 




  
  
  A court would not let you off if you got an expert witness in to say 
 that 
  you were not responsible for your crime due to the way your brain 
 works. 
  This is not because the judge does not believe the expert witness, it 
 is 
  because brain physics is not relevant to the question of 
 responsibility for 
  a crime. 
  
  
  When a suspect pleads insanity, they are saying precisely that the 
 brain 
  physics is relevant to the question of responsibility for a crime. An 
 expert 
  witness who can establish that you have a tumor in an area of your 
 brain 
  which is associated with impulse control will have a very good chance 
 of 
  convincing a judge that brain physics is indeed relevant. 

 Mentally ill people don't have different brain *physics*.


 Splitting hairs. Using English words in a nonsense order may technically 
 be *English* but it is still a language problem.
  
  
 If the brain 
 is deterministic in a well person it is deterministic in a mentally 
 ill person as well. The difference is that the mentally ill person may 
 not be able to (deterministically) respond to certain situations in 
 the way a well person will (deterministically) respond to them. Judges 
 are usually quite intelligent people and I expect that most of them 
 are aware that everything in the world must be either determined or 
 random, but they still make their judgements despite this. 


 No judge could make any judgment against a person if they really believed 
 that everything must be determined or random. That would mean that their 
 judgments would also be deterministic or random, so that they would not be 
 a judge at all, but rather a pawn of inevitable and necessary consequences 
 of antecedent states of affairs.

 Judgment is impossible under determinism.
  

 Unless it's determined, in which case non-judgement is impossible.


You are confusing determinism with omnipotent magic.

Craig
 


 Brent

  
 Craig

  

 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou 

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
  
  

 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6156 - Release Date: 03/08/13


  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 

Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread meekerdb

On 3/9/2013 4:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, March 9, 2013 7:26:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/9/2013 4:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, March 9, 2013 6:30:53 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 
wrote:

 They are not powerless to stop them since if someone yells, Hey, 
stop!
 they may stop. This is the case even though the process is still
 deterministic or probabilistic.


 In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal a 
car will
 steal it regardless of whether someone yells at them. If someone 
yelling at
 the thief creates an opportunity for the them to exercise free will 
over
 their own actions, then it is not a deterministic universe. You can 
yell at
 a stone rolling down a hill as much as you want and there will be no 
change
 in where the stone rolls.

In a deterministic universe it is determined whether the thief will
stop if someone yells at him. However, neither the person yelling nor
the thief knows for sure whether he will stop or not. 



What difference would it make to them if neither the person yelling nor the 
thief
can control whether or not they are yelling or stealing?


It will make exactly whatever difference is determined (or random).


You're not getting my point. If you say that the boat doesn't exist, why would it matter 
if it has a hole in it or not?




I don't know whether or not a puddle in the gutter will dry out or not 
overnight,
but why would that generate some sort of interest to me?

Furthermore, it
is not possible to know for sure if the thief will stop or not even
with a perfect model of his brain, due to the nature of classical
chaotic systems.


It doesn't matter because in a deterministic universe it would be 
impossible to
care whether the thief would stop or not.


Unless it was determined that you would care, in which case it would 
impossible not
to care.  That's what deterministic means, things are *determined*.


Why would there be a such thing as care in a deterministic universe? I don't think it 
is defensible that it could. If *all things are determined* then there can be no care.


Only because you are determined to think so (in both senses).

Brent

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, March 9, 2013 8:13:38 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/9/2013 4:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Saturday, March 9, 2013 7:26:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 3/9/2013 4:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Saturday, March 9, 2013 6:30:53 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: 

 On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 
 wrote: 

  They are not powerless to stop them since if someone yells, Hey, 
 stop! 
  they may stop. This is the case even though the process is still 
  deterministic or probabilistic. 
  
  
  In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal a car 
 will 
  steal it regardless of whether someone yells at them. If someone 
 yelling at 
  the thief creates an opportunity for the them to exercise free will 
 over 
  their own actions, then it is not a deterministic universe. You can 
 yell at 
  a stone rolling down a hill as much as you want and there will be no 
 change 
  in where the stone rolls. 

 In a deterministic universe it is determined whether the thief will 
 stop if someone yells at him. However, neither the person yelling nor 
 the thief knows for sure whether he will stop or not. 


 What difference would it make to them if neither the person yelling nor 
 the thief can control whether or not they are yelling or stealing? 


 It will make exactly whatever difference is determined (or random).
  

 You're not getting my point. If you say that the boat doesn't exist, why 
 would it matter if it has a hole in it or not?
  
  
  
  I don't know whether or not a puddle in the gutter will dry out or not 
 overnight, but why would that generate some sort of interest to me?
  

 Furthermore, it 
 is not possible to know for sure if the thief will stop or not even 
 with a perfect model of his brain, due to the nature of classical 
 chaotic systems. 


 It doesn't matter because in a deterministic universe it would be 
 impossible to care whether the thief would stop or not.
  

 Unless it was determined that you would care, in which case it would 
 impossible not to care.  That's what deterministic means, things are 
 *determined*.
  

 Why would there be a such thing as care in a deterministic universe? I 
 don't think it is defensible that it could. If *all things are determined* 
 then there can be no care.
  

 Only because you are determined to think so (in both senses).


No, because it doesn't make sense the other way. What could it mean to care 
in a deterministic world?

Craig
 


 Brent
  

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 In a deterministic universe it is determined whether the thief will
 stop if someone yells at him. However, neither the person yelling nor
 the thief knows for sure whether he will stop or not.


 What difference would it make to them if neither the person yelling nor the
 thief can control whether or not they are yelling or stealing? I don't know
 whether or not a puddle in the gutter will dry out or not overnight, but why
 would that generate some sort of interest to me?

In the normal use of the word control a deterministic system can
control things. For example, an automatic pilot can control the plane.

 Furthermore, it
 is not possible to know for sure if the thief will stop or not even
 with a perfect model of his brain, due to the nature of classical
 chaotic systems.


 It doesn't matter because in a deterministic universe it would be impossible
 to care whether the thief would stop or not.

It's not impossible to care. I could care if I have the winning
lottery ticket if I know it has been drawn but not yet revealed.

  When a suspect pleads insanity, they are saying precisely that the brain
  physics is relevant to the question of responsibility for a crime. An
  expert
  witness who can establish that you have a tumor in an area of your brain
  which is associated with impulse control will have a very good chance of
  convincing a judge that brain physics is indeed relevant.

 Mentally ill people don't have different brain *physics*.


 Splitting hairs. Using English words in a nonsense order may technically be
 *English* but it is still a language problem.

Not at all, the fundamental physics may be the same but in one case a
person can assess the situation and change his behaviour while in the
other case he can't. The automatic pilot is broken.

 If the brain
 is deterministic in a well person it is deterministic in a mentally
 ill person as well. The difference is that the mentally ill person may
 not be able to (deterministically) respond to certain situations in
 the way a well person will (deterministically) respond to them. Judges
 are usually quite intelligent people and I expect that most of them
 are aware that everything in the world must be either determined or
 random, but they still make their judgements despite this.


 No judge could make any judgment against a person if they really believed
 that everything must be determined or random. That would mean that their
 judgments would also be deterministic or random, so that they would not be a
 judge at all, but rather a pawn of inevitable and necessary consequences of
 antecedent states of affairs.

 Judgment is impossible under determinism.

In that case judges are deluded about making judgements - but it
doesn't deter them.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, March 9, 2013 9:11:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

 On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 

  In a deterministic universe it is determined whether the thief will 
  stop if someone yells at him. However, neither the person yelling nor 
  the thief knows for sure whether he will stop or not. 
  
  
  What difference would it make to them if neither the person yelling nor 
 the 
  thief can control whether or not they are yelling or stealing? I don't 
 know 
  whether or not a puddle in the gutter will dry out or not overnight, but 
 why 
  would that generate some sort of interest to me? 

 In the normal use of the word control a deterministic system can 
 control things. For example, an automatic pilot can control the plane. 


An automatic pilot only controls the plane to the extent that it extends 
human intentions to control the plane. The automatic pilot can just as 
easily be set to crash the plane into a mountain as soon as possible and it 
won't know the difference or care.
 


  Furthermore, it 
  is not possible to know for sure if the thief will stop or not even 
  with a perfect model of his brain, due to the nature of classical 
  chaotic systems. 
  
  
  It doesn't matter because in a deterministic universe it would be 
 impossible 
  to care whether the thief would stop or not. 

 It's not impossible to care. I could care if I have the winning 
 lottery ticket if I know it has been drawn but not yet revealed. 


Only because you live in a universe where winning the lottery is meaningful 
for you because it represents the opportunity to amplify your own free 
will. If there were only determinism, winning the lottery could not 
possibly matter to you.
 


   When a suspect pleads insanity, they are saying precisely that the 
 brain 
   physics is relevant to the question of responsibility for a crime. An 
   expert 
   witness who can establish that you have a tumor in an area of your 
 brain 
   which is associated with impulse control will have a very good chance 
 of 
   convincing a judge that brain physics is indeed relevant. 
  
  Mentally ill people don't have different brain *physics*. 
  
  
  Splitting hairs. Using English words in a nonsense order may technically 
 be 
  *English* but it is still a language problem. 

 Not at all, the fundamental physics may be the same but in one case a 
 person can assess the situation and change his behaviour while in the 
 other case he can't. The automatic pilot is broken. 


Under what circumstances is a an automatic pilot legally responsible for 
its actions? Can an automatic pilot be put in prison for failing at a 
critical moment? Why not?
 


  If the brain 
  is deterministic in a well person it is deterministic in a mentally 
  ill person as well. The difference is that the mentally ill person may 
  not be able to (deterministically) respond to certain situations in 
  the way a well person will (deterministically) respond to them. Judges 
  are usually quite intelligent people and I expect that most of them 
  are aware that everything in the world must be either determined or 
  random, but they still make their judgements despite this. 
  
  
  No judge could make any judgment against a person if they really 
 believed 
  that everything must be determined or random. That would mean that their 
  judgments would also be deterministic or random, so that they would not 
 be a 
  judge at all, but rather a pawn of inevitable and necessary 
 consequences of 
  antecedent states of affairs. 
  
  Judgment is impossible under determinism. 

 In that case judges are deluded about making judgements - but it 
 doesn't deter them.  


Your invisible floating castle has plumbing problems.

Craig
 



 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou 


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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 In the normal use of the word control a deterministic system can
 control things. For example, an automatic pilot can control the plane.


 An automatic pilot only controls the plane to the extent that it extends
 human intentions to control the plane. The automatic pilot can just as
 easily be set to crash the plane into a mountain as soon as possible and it
 won't know the difference or care.

Similarly with the human. He has been programmed by his genes
interacting with the environment. If the programming goes awry,
whether due to genetic or environmental factors, he might do something
erratic, such as try to kill himself. This happens not infrequently.

 It's not impossible to care. I could care if I have the winning
 lottery ticket if I know it has been drawn but not yet revealed.


 Only because you live in a universe where winning the lottery is meaningful
 for you because it represents the opportunity to amplify your own free will.
 If there were only determinism, winning the lottery could not possibly
 matter to you.

The lottery *is* determined, I *know* it's determined, yet I still
care about whether I have won or not. Therefore caring and determinism
are not mutually exclusive.

 Not at all, the fundamental physics may be the same but in one case a
 person can assess the situation and change his behaviour while in the
 other case he can't. The automatic pilot is broken.


 Under what circumstances is a an automatic pilot legally responsible for its
 actions? Can an automatic pilot be put in prison for failing at a critical
 moment? Why not?

Because its intelligence is extremely limited. Infants aren't put into
prison either for this reason, even though they have free will. When
automatic pilots develop to the point where they can have a normal
conversations with people on a variety of topics then they will
probably be held legally responsible and punished, assuming they are
not so intelligent that they take over to prevent us doing this.

  No judge could make any judgment against a person if they really
  believed
  that everything must be determined or random. That would mean that their
  judgments would also be deterministic or random, so that they would not
  be a
  judge at all, but rather a pawn of inevitable and necessary
  consequences of
  antecedent states of affairs.
 
  Judgment is impossible under determinism.

 In that case judges are deluded about making judgements - but it
 doesn't deter them.


 Your invisible floating castle has plumbing problems.

What do you think we would find if we surveyed judges on this topic?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, March 9, 2013 9:50:10 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

 On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 

  In the normal use of the word control a deterministic system can 
  control things. For example, an automatic pilot can control the plane. 
  
  
  An automatic pilot only controls the plane to the extent that it extends 
  human intentions to control the plane. The automatic pilot can just as 
  easily be set to crash the plane into a mountain as soon as possible and 
 it 
  won't know the difference or care. 

 Similarly with the human. He has been programmed by his genes 
 interacting with the environment. 

If the programming goes awry, 
 whether due to genetic or environmental factors, he might do something 
 erratic, such as try to kill himself. This happens not infrequently. 


A person can resist their both their environment and genetic programming, 
but an automatic pilot cannot. Our entire science of genetics proves that 
we are interested in taking control of our own genetic destiny.
 


  It's not impossible to care. I could care if I have the winning 
  lottery ticket if I know it has been drawn but not yet revealed. 
  
  
  Only because you live in a universe where winning the lottery is 
 meaningful 
  for you because it represents the opportunity to amplify your own free 
 will. 
  If there were only determinism, winning the lottery could not possibly 
  matter to you. 

 The lottery *is* determined, I *know* it's determined, yet I still 
 care about whether I have won or not. Therefore caring and determinism 
 are not mutually exclusive. 


You care because your values arise from a universe of free will rather than 
determinism. Caring and determinism are mutually exclusive ontologically, 
as a square and a circle. Your example is a fallacy, and a glaringly 
obvious one at that. You can't use examples from the world as it actually 
is and smuggle them into this made up world which has never existed which 
is only deterministic or random. 
 


  Not at all, the fundamental physics may be the same but in one case a 
  person can assess the situation and change his behaviour while in the 
  other case he can't. The automatic pilot is broken. 
  
  
  Under what circumstances is a an automatic pilot legally responsible for 
 its 
  actions? Can an automatic pilot be put in prison for failing at a 
 critical 
  moment? Why not? 

 Because its intelligence is extremely limited. Infants aren't put into 
 prison either for this reason, even though they have free will. When 
 automatic pilots develop to the point where they can have a normal 
 conversations with people on a variety of topics then they will 
 probably be held legally responsible and punished, assuming they are 
 not so intelligent that they take over to prevent us doing this. 


Spoiler alert - that will never happen. In a few decades all of these 
fantastic overestimates of strong AI will probably be considered charming, 
like Jules Verne and journeys to the center of the Earth. Putting an 
automatic pilot in prison will never be an option no matter how 
sophisticated its simulated intelligence seems to be to us. Prison is 
meaningless to it because it is not a person with free will. It has no 
capacity to conceive of freedom or will. Prison is no different from where 
it always is - which is nowhere.
 


   No judge could make any judgment against a person if they really 
   believed 
   that everything must be determined or random. That would mean that 
 their 
   judgments would also be deterministic or random, so that they would 
 not 
   be a 
   judge at all, but rather a pawn of inevitable and necessary 
   consequences of 
   antecedent states of affairs. 
   
   Judgment is impossible under determinism. 
  
  In that case judges are deluded about making judgements - but it 
  doesn't deter them. 
  
  
  Your invisible floating castle has plumbing problems. 

 What do you think we would find if we surveyed judges on this topic? 


I would think that they would say that they became judges because they 
believe that determining responsibility is something which only a human 
being can ultimately do, and that human beings are sometimes the victims of 
circumstances beyond their control, and other times create problems 
themselves by their own immoral intentions.

Why, do you think that judges would say My role is irrelevant. I am 
nothing more than a robot who rubber stamps mindless verdicts as the roll 
into my mind from my genes and down through the lives of these other meat 
puppets acting out their own mindless and utterly involuntary scripts.?

Craig
 



 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 

Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread meekerdb

On 3/9/2013 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, March 9, 2013 8:13:38 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/9/2013 4:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, March 9, 2013 7:26:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/9/2013 4:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, March 9, 2013 6:30:53 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg 
whats...@gmail.com wrote:

 They are not powerless to stop them since if someone yells, Hey, 
stop!
 they may stop. This is the case even though the process is still
 deterministic or probabilistic.


 In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal 
a car will
 steal it regardless of whether someone yells at them. If someone 
yelling at
 the thief creates an opportunity for the them to exercise free 
will over
 their own actions, then it is not a deterministic universe. You 
can yell at
 a stone rolling down a hill as much as you want and there will be 
no change
 in where the stone rolls.

In a deterministic universe it is determined whether the thief will
stop if someone yells at him. However, neither the person yelling 
nor
the thief knows for sure whether he will stop or not. 



What difference would it make to them if neither the person yelling nor 
the
thief can control whether or not they are yelling or stealing?


It will make exactly whatever difference is determined (or random).


You're not getting my point. If you say that the boat doesn't exist, why 
would it
matter if it has a hole in it or not?



I don't know whether or not a puddle in the gutter will dry out or not
overnight, but why would that generate some sort of interest to me?

Furthermore, it
is not possible to know for sure if the thief will stop or not even
with a perfect model of his brain, due to the nature of classical
chaotic systems.


It doesn't matter because in a deterministic universe it would be 
impossible
to care whether the thief would stop or not.


Unless it was determined that you would care, in which case it would 
impossible
not to care.  That's what deterministic means, things are *determined*.


Why would there be a such thing as care in a deterministic universe? I 
don't
think it is defensible that it could. If *all things are determined* then 
there can
be no care.


Only because you are determined to think so (in both senses).


No, because it doesn't make sense the other way. What could it mean to care in a 
deterministic world?



What does it mean in a random world?  Same thing - it means committing resources to make 
it happen or prevent it happening.  The Mars rover cares about not getting stuck, so it 
spends sensor time and cpu cycles and battery power to evaluate paths and take the long 
way around obstacles.


You care about people agreeing that computers can't be conscious, so you spend hours 
asserting it on the internet.


Brent

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread meekerdb

On 3/9/2013 6:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


An automatic pilot only controls the plane to the extent that it extends human 
intentions to control the plane. The automatic pilot can just as easily be set to crash 
the plane into a mountain as soon as possible and it won't know the difference or care.


So that proves that people who commit suicide aren't conscious...?

Brent

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




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-09 Thread meekerdb

On 3/9/2013 7:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


A person can resist their both their environment and genetic programming,


And you know this how?

Brent

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