Re: The free will function

On 2/14/2012 2:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Feb 2012, at 18:53, 1Z wrote: On Feb 13, 5:17 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: Digital substitution is not a local symmetry. hence flight simulators do not fly. That's very funny, Peter. That reminds us of a quite good typical comp exercise

Re: The free will function

On 2/14/2012 1:35 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 Stephen P. King > wrote: > To actually implement digital substitution, we would have to not only match the functionally of the module internally but also match the interactions of that module

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z wrote: > > You seem to be runnign off a theory of concept-formation > > whereby concepts are only ever recongnitions of percerived > > realities. > > Not perceived realities, but ontological possibilities. We can't > imagine a

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 10:01 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 14, 10:37 am, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > That's what being dumb is - not being able to figure out how to do > > > anything else than what you already do. > > > Then no AI is fully dumb, since all are ada

Re: The free will function

On 2/14/2012 1:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: How could any belief be possible under determinism? Belief implies a voluntary epistemological investment. To be a believer is to choose to believe. Is it? Can you choose believe you are floating in the air? Can you believe you're not reading this?

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer > > > > of interest. > > > > That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously. > > > Why would your subjective concerns matter to me? I tak

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 6:48 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012  1Z wrote: > > > Free Will is defined as "the power or ability to rationally choose > > If its rational then there is a reason for it and thus it's deterministic. False, because causes need not be reasons, and reasons need not be cau

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 6:35 pm, John Clark wrote: > Silicon does not have the same chemical properties as the element germanium > either (although they are in the same column in the periodic table as is > carbon) and yet you can make transistors out of both and in fact the first > transistors were germaniu

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 3:41 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 14 Feb 2012, at 20:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will > > run >

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 2:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The comp answer is "yes you can be made wet by a virtual typhoon, but > you have to virtualize yourself, or more precisely you need only to > virtualize your skin-interfaces with the virtual typhoon. > > Stephen, do you agree with this? Do you agree that

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 10:37 am, 1Z wrote: > On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > That's what being dumb is - not being able to figure out how to do > > anything else than what you already do. > > Then no AI is fully dumb, since all are adaptive to some extent. It doesn't adapt intentionally, it

Re: The free will function

On 2/14/2012 1:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: We can conceive of non-existence because things can cease to exist. If there were no light, then nothing could be imagined to be lacking light. It would be no more possible than it is for us to conceive of Non-Gromwalschedness in our universe. So you

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer > > > of interest. > > > That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously. > > Why would your subjective concerns matter to me? I take *my* > subjectivity as seriously as anything! You don't

Re: The free will function

On 14 Feb 2012, at 20:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will run the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do that. It's not be

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >>> All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will > >>> run > >>> the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do that. > > >> It's not because you can program's them to

Re: The free will function

On 2/14/2012 10:48 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 1Z mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com>> wrote: > Free Will is defined as "the power or ability to rationally choose If its rational then there is a reason for it and thus it's deterministic. Except that game theory shows that th

Re: The free will function

On 14 Feb 2012, at 18:53, 1Z wrote: On Feb 13, 5:17 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: Digital substitution is not a local symmetry. hence flight simulators do not fly. That's very funny, Peter. That reminds us of a quite good typical comp exercise: can a virtual typhoon makes you wet? Rel

Re: The free will function

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 1Z wrote: > Free Will is defined as "the power or ability to rationally choose If its rational then there is a reason for it and thus it's deterministic. > > and consciously perform actions, at least some of which are not brought > about necessarily and inevitably by ext

Re: The free will function

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 Stephen P. King wrote: > To actually implement digital substitution, we would have to not only > match the functionally of the module internally but also match the > interactions of that module with the environment. > No, you'd only have to match he interactions with the e

Re: The free will function

On Feb 9, 4:43 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 1Z wrote: > > It [being free] means your actions are not determined by external forces > > So a external force like light that has reflected off a wall does not > effect your actions and you crash into the wall. If that's what being fre

Re: The free will function

On Feb 13, 5:17 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: > Digital substitution > is not a local symmetry. hence flight simulators do not fly. -- 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@google

Re: The free will function

On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2012/2/11 Craig Weinberg > > > > All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will run > > > the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do that. > > > It's not because y

Re: The free will function

On Feb 9, 2:45 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 8, 10:14 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer > > of interest. > > That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously. Why would your subjective concerns matter to me? I take *my* subjectivity as

Re: The free will function

On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/2/11 Craig Weinberg All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will run the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do that. It's not because you can prog

Re: The free will function

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > We've only changed the name from God's Will to > evolution/mechanism/probability > A good theory explains how something simple can produce something more complex and is very explicit about the details. A bad theory describes how something

Re: The free will function

On Feb 13, 3:51 pm, meekerdb wrote: > Well humans aren't made of DNA, and there are good reasons they are made of > carbon > compounds (mostly) instead of silicon ones.  But the question is about > consciousness, not > evolution. I'm using DNA as an example that physical properties are influen

Re: The free will function

On 2/13/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 13, 2:04 pm, meekerdb wrote: On 2/13/2012 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 13, 12:29 pm, meekerdbwrote: I'm aware of that. It doesn't follow though that you must match every interaction (e.g. cross-section for cosmic gamma rays)

Re: The free will function

On Feb 13, 2:04 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/13/2012 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Feb 13, 12:29 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > > >> I'm aware of that.  It doesn't follow though that you must match every > >> interaction (e.g. > >> cross-section for cosmic gamma rays) or that every match is equa

Re: The free will function

On 2/13/2012 11:36 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 13, 12:05 pm, meekerdb wrote: It doesn't apply to us because we exist in an environment (where there are spades and soil). It doesn't apply to the Chinese room either, because there is a world outside the room in which Chinese is spoken an

Re: The free will function

On Feb 13, 12:05 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > It doesn't apply to us because we exist in an environment (where there are > spades and > soil).  It doesn't apply to the Chinese room either, because there is a world > outside the > room in which Chinese is spoken and children are taught Chinese ostens

Re: The free will function

On 2/13/2012 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 13, 12:29 pm, meekerdb wrote: I'm aware of that. It doesn't follow though that you must match every interaction (e.g. cross-section for cosmic gamma rays) or that every match is equally important. I've already speculated that a silicon ba

Re: The free will function

On Feb 13, 12:29 pm, meekerdb wrote: > I'm aware of that.  It doesn't follow though that you must match every > interaction (e.g. > cross-section for cosmic gamma rays) or that every match is equally > important.  I've > already speculated that a silicon based substitute might produce subtle or

Re: The free will function

On 2/13/2012 12:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/13/2012 9:17 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/13/2012 12:05 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/13/2012 8:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: Hi Craig, Great post! Check this out!http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/

Re: The free will function

On 2/13/2012 9:17 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/13/2012 12:05 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/13/2012 8:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: Hi Craig, Great post! Check this out!http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/2009/02/symbol-grounding-problem.html O

Re: The free will function

On 2/13/2012 12:05 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/13/2012 8:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: Hi Craig, Great post! Check this out!http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/2009/02/symbol-grounding-problem.html Onward! Stephen Thanks Stephen, That's a gre

Re: The free will function

On 2/13/2012 8:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: Hi Craig, Great post! Check this out!http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/2009/02/symbol-grounding-problem.html Onward! Stephen Thanks Stephen, That's a great one. It does a better job saying wha

Re: The free will function

On Feb 12, 11:03 pm, Terren Suydam wrote: >patterns that emerge from the way the world >perturbs its boundaries Yes, or as I call it..."sense". It need not be cognitive or higher animal, I think semantic grounding is innate in all material systems as experiential qualia. We get confused however

Re: The free will function

On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: > > Hi Craig, > >      Great post! Check this > out!http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/2009/02/symbol-grounding-problem.html > > Onward! > > Stephen Thanks Stephen, That's a great one. It does a better job saying what I'm trying to say on this than

Re: The free will function

Stephen, In my mind, autopoeitic cognitive systems (advanced enough to use symbols to do cognition) do not have a symbol grounding problem. In these organizationally-closed systems, symbols can only be grounded in internal patterns - patterns that emerge from the way the world perturbs its boundar

Re: The free will function

On 2/12/2012 7:56 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 12, 12:55 pm, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Craig Weinbergwrote: Apparently what's next is imagining that machines are people and people are machines. I certainly hope so. In the last 3 or 4 centuries we have gradually (

Re: The free will function

On Feb 12, 12:55 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > Apparently what's next is imagining that machines are people and people > > are machines. > > I certainly hope so. In the last 3 or 4 centuries we have gradually (too > gradually for my taste) got

Re: The free will function

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Apparently what's next is imagining that machines are people and people > are machines. I certainly hope so. In the last 3 or 4 centuries we have gradually (too gradually for my taste) gotten away from the idea that things happened because

Re: The free will function

On Feb 12, 7:14 am, 1Z wrote: > And not of you don't.. We have made a little progress here. You think > computers are dumb because you think in terms of the hardware, > and not in terms of the software, despite the fact that the latter can > be of any degree of complexity. Complexity isn't intel

Re: The free will function

On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2012/2/11 Craig Weinberg > > > All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will run > > the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do that. > > It's not because you can program's them to being slavingly dumb to do a >

Re: The free will function

On Feb 11, 8:33 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 11, 12:01 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 11, 1:24 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm brilliant, I'm explaining > > > why the popular ideas and conventional wisdom of the moment are > > > misguided. > > > Y

Re: The free will function

On Feb 11, 12:01 pm, 1Z wrote: > On Feb 11, 1:24 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm brilliant, I'm explaining > > why the popular ideas and conventional wisdom of the moment are > > misguided. > > You need to explain, non-question-beggingly.. I have been a

Re: The free will function

On Feb 11, 1:24 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm brilliant, I'm explaining > why the popular ideas and conventional wisdom of the moment are > misguided. You need to explain, non-question-beggingly.. > What a computer does is arithmetic to us, but to the

Re: The free will function

On 2/10/2012 8:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 10, 4:16 pm, John Clark wrote: On Feb 10, 4:06 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Why simulated neurons couldn't have opinions at that same point ? Vitalism ? Yes, the only way Craig could be right is if vitalism is true, and its pretty sad that we

Re: The free will function

On Feb 10, 4:16 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Feb 10, 4:06 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Why simulated neurons couldn't have opinions at that same point ? > > Vitalism ? > > Yes, the only way Craig could be right is if vitalism is true, and its > pretty sad that well into the 21'st century some s

Re: The free will function

On Feb 10, 4:06 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Why simulated neurons couldn't have opinions at that same point ? > Vitalism ? > Yes, the only way Craig could be right is if vitalism is true, and its pretty sad that well into the 21'st century some still believe in that crap. What's next, bring bac

Re: The free will function

On Feb 10, 9:08 am, "Stephen P. King" wrote: >      No. Craig can be considered to be exploring the implications of > Chalmer's claim that consciousness is a fundamental property of the > physical, like mass, spin and charge, i.e. it is not emergent from > matter. His concept of "sense" is not mu

Re: The free will function

On Feb 10, 8:17 am, "Stephen P. King" wrote: > >     Hi, > > >         How would your reasoning work for a virus? Is it "alive"? I > >     think that the notion of "being alive" is not a property of the > >     parts but of the whole. > > > Is it a question directed to craig or to me ? > > Hi, >

Re: The free will function

2012/2/10 Craig Weinberg > On Feb 10, 7:25 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2012/2/10 Craig Weinberg > > > > > > > > > > > > How does a gear or lever have an opinion? > > > > > > > > > > The problems with gears and levers is dumbness. > > > > > > > > > Does putting a billion gears and levers toge

Re: The free will function

On Feb 10, 7:25 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2012/2/10 Craig Weinberg > > > > > > > > > How does a gear or lever have an opinion? > > > > > > > > The problems with gears and levers is dumbness. > > > > > > > Does putting a billion gears and levers together in an arrangement > > > > > > make them

Re: The free will function

On 2/10/2012 9:24 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 10 February 2012 14:08, Stephen P. King wrote: No. Craig can be considered to be exploring the implications of Chalmer's claim that consciousness is a fundamental property of the physical, like mass, spin and charge, i.e. it is not emergent from matt

Re: The free will function

On 10 February 2012 14:08, Stephen P. King wrote: > No. Craig can be considered to be exploring the implications of > Chalmer's claim that consciousness is a fundamental property of the > physical, like mass, spin and charge, i.e. it is not emergent from matter. > His concept of "sense" is not mu

Re: The free will function

On 2/10/2012 8:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2012, at 13:47, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/10/2012 7:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/2/10 Craig Weinberg > On Feb 10, 4:06 am, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: > 2012/2/9 Craig

Re: The free will function

On 10 Feb 2012, at 13:47, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/10/2012 7:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/2/10 Craig Weinberg On Feb 10, 4:06 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg > > > On Feb 9, 9:49 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg > > > > > > > How do

Re: The free will function

On 2/10/2012 7:49 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/2/10 Stephen P. King > On 2/10/2012 7:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/2/10 Craig Weinberg mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> On Feb 10, 4:06 am, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote

Re: The free will function

On 2/10/2012 7:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/2/10 Craig Weinberg > On Feb 10, 4:06 am, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: > 2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> > > > On Feb 9, 9:49 am, Quentin Anciaux mailto

Re: The free will function

On Feb 10, 4:06 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg > > > On Feb 9, 9:49 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg > > > > > > > How does a gear or lever have an opinion? > > > > > > The problems with gears and levers is dumbness. > > > > > Does putting a billion

Re: The free will function

On Feb 9, 5:03 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > But free-will is often just meaning will, in some context of freedom. > It is a generalization of responsibility. Yes. > > I guess you understand the difference between a premeditated crime and > an non premeditated crime. A lawyer cannot defend someone

Re: The free will function

On Feb 9, 9:49 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg > > > > How does a gear or lever have an opinion? > > > > The problems with gears and levers is dumbness. > > > Does putting a billion gears and levers together in an arrangement > > make them less dumb? Does it start having opi

Re: The free will function

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 1Z wrote: > It [being free] means your actions are not determined by external forces > So a external force like light that has reflected off a wall does not effect your actions and you crash into the wall. If that's what being free means then I don't want to be free. > What

Re: The free will function

2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg > On Feb 8, 10:14 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer > > of interest. > > That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously. > > > > > > > > If I am very cold and I walk > > > > > into a room temperature room, to me the

Re: The free will function

On Feb 8, 10:14 pm, 1Z wrote: > Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer > of interest. That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously. > > > > > If I am very cold and I walk > > > > into a room temperature room, to me the room feels warm. That isn't > > > > right o

Re: The free will function

On 08 Feb 2012, at 17:27, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 wrote: > Since it is predictable, it is deterministic Yes. > since it is determiniistic it is no free. Cannot comment because your definition of free will was nonsensical and the problem seems to be more with the "free" par

Re: The free will function

On Feb 8, 8:31 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 8, 2:32 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 6:41 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 11:01 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 2:07 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It depends if you consider biology metaphysical. F

Re: The free will function

On Feb 8, 2:32 pm, 1Z wrote: > On Feb 8, 6:41 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 11:01 am, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 2:07 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > It depends if you consider biology metaphysical. Free will is a > > > > > > > > capacity which we associat

Re: The free will function

On Feb 8, 6:41 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 8, 11:01 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2:07 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > It depends if you consider biology metaphysical. Free will is a > > > > > > > capacity which we associate with living organisms, > > > > > > >

Re: The free will function

On 2/8/2012 7:45 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote: > If it were completely dependent though, there would no experience of decision at all. I don't understand why people insist on infusing great mystery and significa

Re: The free will function

On Feb 8, 4:27 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012   wrote: > > Since it is predictable, it is deterministic > > Yes. > > > since it is determiniistic it is no free. > > Cannot comment because your definition of free will was nonsensical and the > problem seems to be more with the "free"

Re: The free will function

On Feb 8, 11:01 am, 1Z wrote: > On Feb 8, 2:07 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > It depends if you consider biology metaphysical. Free will is a > > > > > > capacity which we associate with living organisms, > > > > > > rightly or wrongly > > > > > There may not be a rightly or wrongly. > >

Re: The free will function

On Feb 8, 10:45 am, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > If it were completely dependent though, there would no experience of > > decision at all. > > I don't understand why people insist on infusing great mystery and > significance and resort to mystical

Re: The free will function

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 wrote: > Since it is predictable, it is deterministic > Yes. > since it is determiniistic it is no free. > Cannot comment because your definition of free will was nonsensical and the problem seems to be more with the "free" part than the "will" part. I have no problem with

Re: The free will function

On Feb 8, 2:07 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 8, 6:45 am, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 12:52 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > It depends if you consider biology metaphysical. Free will is a > > > > > capacity which we associate with living organisms, > > > > > rightly or wrongly > > > > Th

Re: The free will function

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > If it were completely dependent though, there would no experience of > decision at all. > I don't understand why people insist on infusing great mystery and significance and resort to mystical crap like "free floating glow" to explain the co

Re: The free will function

On Feb 8, 6:45 am, 1Z wrote: > On Feb 7, 12:52 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > It depends if you consider biology metaphysical. Free will is a > > > > capacity which we associate with living organisms, > > > > rightly or wrongly > > > There may not be a rightly or wrongly. > > Neither rightly

Re: The free will function

On Feb 7, 12:52 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 7, 12:01 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 9:48 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Feb 6, 7:12 am, ronaldheld wrote: > > > > > arXiv:1202.0720v1 [physics.hist-ph] > > > > > Abstract > > > > It is argued that it is possible to gi

Re: The free will function

On Feb 7, 5:54 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012   wrote: > > > But then why wouldn;t agents have knowledge of each others FW functions. > > I can't answer that question because I don't know what "FW functions" are, > and forget functions I don't even know what you mean by "FW". I w

Re: The free will function

On Feb 7, 8:15 pm, "L.W. Sterritt" wrote: > A properly "trained" neural network does pattern recognition; why not pattern > creation?  I don't see artistic genius as requiring the notion of free will.   > Scientific genius is just more pattern recognition, isn't it? I don't know that neural netw

Re: The free will function

Inevitable result? A neural network is a complex statistical processor (as opposed to being tasked to sequentially process and execute). The brain may be partitioned but it's all neurons. Given stochastic processes in the brain, not much is an inevitable result - just probable results. "Invi

Re: The free will function

A properly "trained" neural network does pattern recognition; why not pattern creation? I don't see artistic genius as requiring the notion of free will. Scientific genius is just more pattern recognition, isn't it? Gandalph On Feb 7, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 7, 6:31 p

Re: The free will function

On Feb 7, 7:11 pm, "L.W. Sterritt" wrote: > Isn't a "decision" just the result / output of a probably subconscious > computation in the neural network,  given some exogenous and endogenous > inputs ? No, that's not a decision, it's an inevitable result. Our hypothalamus does that kind of comput

Re: The free will function

On Feb 7, 6:31 pm, John Mikes wrote: > I wrote it several times before and write it again: there is NO SUCH THING > as a FREE WILL in a world of total interconnectedness and continual change. > The term has been invented by religious potentates to keep gulligible > people under their thumb for FEA

Re: The free will function

On 2/7/2012 4:11 PM, L.W. Sterritt wrote: Isn't a "decision" just the result / output of a probably subconscious computation in the neural network, given some exogenous and endogenous inputs ? Indeed the neural net must do what it can with incomplete information, being mostly what there is. T

Re: The free will function

Isn't a "decision" just the result / output of a probably subconscious computation in the neural network, given some exogenous and endogenous inputs ? Indeed the neural net must do what it can with incomplete information, being mostly what there is. That is, the nature of reality is unknown.

Re: The free will function

I wrote it several times before and write it again: there is NO SUCH THING as a FREE WILL in a world of total interconnectedness and continual change. The term has been invented by religious potentates to keep gulligible people under their thumb for FEAR of repraisals if they committ "CRIMES" (as t

Re: The free will function

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012wrote: > But then why wouldn;t agents have knowledge of each others FW functions. > I can't answer that question because I don't know what "FW functions" are, and forget functions I don't even know what you mean by "FW". > Your action can be free as far as the outside worl

Re: The free will function

On Feb 7, 12:01 am, 1Z wrote: > On Feb 6, 9:48 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Feb 6, 7:12 am, ronaldheld wrote: > > > > arXiv:1202.0720v1 [physics.hist-ph] > > > > Abstract > > > It is argued that it is possible to give operational meaning to free > > > will and > > > the process of making a

Re: The free will function

On 06 Feb 2012, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:12 AM, ronaldheld wrote: > An agent in possession of free will is able to perform an action that was possible to predict by nobody but the agent itself. There are a number of things wrong with this: 1) In theory there

Re: The free will function

On Feb 6, 9:48 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 6, 7:12 am, ronaldheld wrote: > > > arXiv:1202.0720v1 [physics.hist-ph] > > > Abstract > > It is argued that it is possible to give operational meaning to free > > will and > > the process of making a choice without employing metaphysics. > > >

Re: The free will function

On Feb 6, 7:12 am, ronaldheld wrote: > arXiv:1202.0720v1 [physics.hist-ph] > > Abstract > It is argued that it is possible to give operational meaning to free > will and > the process of making a choice without employing metaphysics. > > comments? It depends if you consider biology metaphysical.

Re: The free will function

On 2/6/2012 4:12 AM, ronaldheld wrote: arXiv:1202.0720v1 [physics.hist-ph] Abstract It is argued that it is possible to give operational meaning to free will and the process of making a choice without employing metaphysics. comments? Ronald Whether it is oper

Re: The free will function

On Feb 6, 6:39 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:12 AM, ronaldheld wrote: > > An agent in possession of free will is able to perform an action that was > > possible to predict by nobody but the agent itself. > > There are a number of things wrong with this: > > 1) In theory there

Re: The free will function

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:12 AM, ronaldheld wrote: > An agent in possession of free will is able to perform an action that was > possible to predict by nobody but the agent itself. > There are a number of things wrong with this: 1) In theory there is no reason to think that the agent would be be

Re: The free will function

On Feb 6, 12:12 pm, ronaldheld wrote: > arXiv:1202.0720v1 [physics.hist-ph] > > Abstract > It is argued that it is possible to give operational meaning to free > will and > the process of making a choice without employing metaphysics. > > comments? >                                 Ronald I am

<    1   2