: Consciousness and free will
m.a. and Bruno:
*BETTER OUTCOME???*
better for whom? better than what?
Judging human?
JohnM
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 05-déc.-08, à 14:26, M.A. a écrit :
Bruno,
Is it possible that as all my copies
and yourself or
things like that.
Bruno
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will
On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I'm quoting your response
]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will
On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I'm quoting your response to an older post because I
have a residual question. If I improve my ability to select the
best future outcomes
Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will
On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I'm quoting your response to an older post
because I
have a residual
On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I'm quoting your response to an older post because I
have a residual question. If I improve my ability to select the
best future outcomes, don't I also choose the worst ones according
to MWI and the rule of
.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will
On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I'm quoting your response to an older post because I have
Bruno:
I am aware of Everett's many worlds universe, which is predicted on
the wavefunction not collapsing. So far, that seems to be
experientally so.
Not many Physicists take consciousness into account, althought there
is a paper I just found today you may be interested in:http://
Ronald, Bruno, and others:
I am the 'old naive commonsesicle guy' who considers 'everything' as
'everything'. Not curtailed into mathematical, physical, or other human
invented topical restrictions, not even into the possible as WE think
about it today.
I go with Hal Ruhl in washing away the
Bruno:
We may be talking different thing but the TOE for Physics does not
exist yet. I would think it would be QM and General Relativity and
other things we do not know.
Could this program be running an evolving mathematical structure
or maybe you prefer evolving block universe/multiverse?
Hi Ronald,
(Please let me quickly say something to Abram and Jason:
Abram, Jason, I will have to go. I will comment your posts tomorrow)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno:
We may be talking different thing but the TOE for Physics does not
exist yet.
I agree. But there are interesting
Hi Bruno,
I'm quoting your response to an older post because I have a
residual question. If I improve my ability to select the best future
outcomes, don't I also choose the worst ones according to MWI and the rule of
sum-over-histories? I seem to be competing against myself.
]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will
On 30 Nov 2008, at 20:21, M.A. wrote:
Bruno,
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the detailed explanations.
I'll post my responses in an interlinear manner using color to differentiate
Hi John,
Bruno,
I wanted to submit some reflections to M.A. but you did it better.
Two words, however, I picked out:
1. bifurcate
I consider it a human narrowness to expect anything to split in TWO
(only) - Nature (the existence?) does not 'count'.
It has unlimited varants and the
Hi, Bruno; you wrote (see below):
Doesn't amoebas split in two?
I did not expect from you to quote 1 (ONE) case that does not comply with a
general statement as 'evidence', especially when this 1 case is a figmentous
conclusion from the physical world's reductionist science.
(- Even 78
On 01 Dec 2008, at 17:26, John Mikes wrote:
That does not make a logical sense to me:
self-determinism is based on the content of one's personal
experience (colored by genetic dissposition) and concerning
relational input.
To call it deterministic is IMO OK, but not free will at all.
:* Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:49 PM
*Subject:* Re: Consciousness and free will
On 29 Nov 2008, at 16:45, M.A. wrote:
*(Assuming MEC/Comp.and MWI) If the computational universe which I
experience*
Assuming MEC I would say
Dear Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To call it deterministic is IMO OK, but not free will at all. Self
or not self: it is a consequence.
Then we should make all criminals free, because they all just obeys
Schroedinger equation. (Free)-will exists because we cannot known all
No of
Hello M.A.,
* Mine dwells on bad actions. (Jewish guilt perhaps.) *
Maybe this post is of interest for you? (it is good)
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/tsuyoku_naritai.html
The whole of Nietzsche's
philosophy is a monument dedicated to gainsay that error.
*Yet most of his
Bruno,
I wanted to submit some reflections to M.A. but you did it better.
Two words, however, I picked out:
*1. bifurcate*
I consider it a human narrowness to expect anything *to split in
TWO*(only) - Nature (the existence?) does not 'count'.
It has unlimited varants and the choices come under
:49 PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will
On 29 Nov 2008, at 16:45, M.A. wrote:
(Assuming MEC/Comp.and MWI) If the computational universe which I experience
Assuming MEC I would say *you* experience an infinity of computational
histories
On 01/12/2008, at 6:21 AM, M.A. wrote:
Is it the connotation of schizophrenic that you don't like?
The term schizophrenic is an incredibly misused/misunderstood
adjective. It specifically DOES NOT mean multiple personality
(disorder) which is the common coin usage (ie not in a medico-
On 29 Nov 2008, at 16:45, M.A. wrote:
(Assuming MEC/Comp.and MWI) If the computational universe which I
experience
Assuming MEC I would say *you* experience an infinity of computational
histories. The term universe is far too ambiguous (now).
is a single instance of a vast array of
22 matches
Mail list logo
