On 18 Mar 2013, at 21:02, John Mikes wrote:
friends:
don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please!
It is the religious mambo-jumbo put into the mind of the poor-
believers in ancient times to make them responsible for deeds the
powerful disliked - and consequently: make them punish
On 18.03.2013 21:02 John Mikes said the following:
friends: don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please! It is
the religious mambo-jumbo put into the mind of the poor-believers in
ancient times to make them responsible for deeds the powerful
disliked - and consequently: make them punish
On Monday, March 18, 2013 7:57:06 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/18/2013 1:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>
> friends:
> don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please!
>
>
> I'm not. That's why I was careful to distinguish freedom and the feeling
> of freedom from will and the feel
On 3/18/2013 1:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:
friends:
don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please!
I'm not. That's why I was careful to distinguish freedom and the feeling of freedom from
will and the feeling of resolve. We can have them together, but that doesn't make them
into one t
On Monday, March 18, 2013 4:02:51 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>
>
> friends:
> don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please!
> It is the religious mambo-jumbo put into the mind of the poor-believers in
> ancient times to make them responsible for deeds the powerful disliked -
> and consequ
friends:
don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please!
It is the religious mambo-jumbo put into the mind of the poor-believers in
ancient times to make them responsible for deeds the powerful disliked -
and consequently: make them punishable. Then it became a 'human treasure':
*"We are FRE
On Monday, March 18, 2013 12:25:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Mar 2013, at 18:22, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 3/15/2013 7:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> You're walking down a road and spot a fork in the road far ahead. You
> know of advantages and disadvantages to both paths so y
On 18 Mar 2013, at 14:26, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 6:01:18 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2013, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:47:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2013, at 03:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Satur
On 17 Mar 2013, at 18:40, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> So all "free will" means is that sometimes we can make correct
predictions about what we will do before we do it, and sometimes we
cannot, and in general beforehand there is no way to t
On 15 Mar 2013, at 18:07, meekerdb wrote:
Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics
because he thinks physics is different from what all those stupid
physicists think it is. They just don't know about his top-down
physics, which no one has observed but which he *di
On 15 Mar 2013, at 18:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/15/2013 7:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You're walking down a road and spot a fork in the road far ahead.
You know of advantages and disadvantages to both paths so you
arn't sure if you will go right or left, you haven't finished the
calculatio
On Monday, March 18, 2013 6:01:18 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Mar 2013, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:47:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 Mar 2013, at 03:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:15:43
On 17 Mar 2013, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:47:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2013, at 03:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Fri
John: you answered "YES" on questions not drawing it:
(see your post copied below)
1st YES: can you (yes) or can you not (yes?) see?
2nd YES: can you NOT control? Yes, I can, Yes I cannot.
I was glad not to see a third YES.
YES
John A Mikes
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:22 PM, John Clark wrot
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> So all "free will" means is that sometimes we can make correct
> predictions about what we will do before we do it, and sometimes we cannot,
> and in general beforehand there is no way to tell which ones we can make
> good predictions for
On Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:47:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Mar 2013, at 03:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24
On 17 Mar 2013, at 03:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that you haven't understood it,
That's because
On 16 Mar 2013, at 23:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/16/2013 3:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that you haven't understood it,
That's because you are only working wit
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> No, I think that you haven't understood it,
>>
>
> That's because you are only working with a st
On 3/16/2013 3:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>> No, I think that you haven't understood it,
>>
>> That's because you are only working with a straw man of me. What is it
>>
On 15 Mar 2013, at 22:14, Terren Suydam wrote:
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Feynman
A great quote that admonishes us to never trust our beliefs 100%.
Very few people I have met have Feynman's humility.
Wonderful (and funny) quote.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/
On 15 Mar 2013, at 21:18, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> No that is the exact opposite of the truth, we cannot follow our
own self determination. If you tell me that a system is
deterministic you have added exactly zero information by telling m
On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that you haven't understood it,
That's because you are only working with a straw man of me. What is
it that you think that I don't understand? The legacy view is tha
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:41:27 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
> > So all "free will" means is that sometimes we can make correct
>> predictions about what we will do before we do it,
>>
>
That's what you say, not me. I gue
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:22:19 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 , Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
> >If someone sells you into slavery, or brainwashes you in a cult, can you
>> not see that you have lost something?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> > Can you not 'control' your lungs to a g
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> So all "free will" means is that sometimes we can make correct
> predictions about what we will do before we do it,
>
Then a Turing Machine has free will because it can correctly predict that
it will list all the factors of 128 and then sto
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 , Craig Weinberg wrote:
>If someone sells you into slavery, or brainwashes you in a cult, can you
> not see that you have lost something?
>
Yes.
> > Can you not 'control' your lungs to a greater extent than you can
> control your heartbeat?
>
Yes
> How do you define this
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:26:24 AM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> This has to be my last response on this for a while. I will just say,
> about consciousness arising from other premises: It is not the material
> itself that is important, but the organization of it.
>
I understand that p
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> The scientific conception of neurons is that *nothing* in them happens
>> without a physical reason, ever.
>
>
> Which is why we those scientists have no idea what consciousness is.
> Physical is a meaningless term. Whatever happens is ph
This has to be my last response on this for a while. I will just say, about
consciousness arising from other premises: It is not the material itself
that is important, but the organization of it. Consciousness *might* be
what happens when certain kinds of organization arise. The human brain
might r
On Friday, March 15, 2013 5:14:16 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:11:32 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>
On
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:11:32 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that yo
On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:18:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal
> > wrote:
>
>> >> No that is the exact opposite of the truth, we cannot follow our own
>> self determination. If you tell me that a system is deterministic you have
>> added exact
On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:11:32 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>
>>> No, I think that you haven't understood it,
>>>
>>
>> That's because you are o
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> No that is the exact opposite of the truth, we cannot follow our own
> self determination. If you tell me that a system is deterministic you have
> added exactly zero information by telling me that the system also has "free
> will", thus
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> No, I think that you haven't understood it,
>>
>
> That's because you are only working with a straw man of me. What is it
> that you think that I don't understand? Th
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> No, I think that you haven't understood it,
>
That's because you are only working with a straw man of me. What is it that
you think that I don't understand? The legacy view is that if you have many
molecular systems working
No, I think that you haven't understood it, due to whatever biases have led
you to invest so much in your theory - a theory which is AFAICT completely
unfalsifiable and predicts nothing.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:55:26 PM UTC-4, Ter
On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:55:26 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Exactly. It is interesting also in that it seems to be like one of those
>> ambiguous images, in that as long as people are focused on one fixed idea
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> Exactly. It is interesting also in that it seems to be like one of those
> ambiguous images, in that as long as people are focused on one fixed idea
> of reality, they are honestly incapable of seeing any other, even if they
> themselves a
On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:28:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 3/15/2013 1:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
> >>
> >> Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics
> >> because he thinks physi
On 3/15/2013 1:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>> Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics
>> because he thinks physics is different from what all those stupid
>> physicists think it is. They just don't kn
On 3/15/2013 7:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You're walking down a road and spot a fork in the road far ahead. You know of
advantages and disadvantages to both paths so you arn't sure if you will go right or
left, you haven't finished the calculation yet, you haven't decided yet. Once you get
to
On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics
> because he thinks physics is different from what all those stupid
> physicists think it is. They just don't know about his top-down physics,
> which no one has obs
Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics because he thinks
physics is different from what all those stupid physicists think it is. They just don't
know about his top-down physics, which no one has observed but which he *directly
experiences* and therefore *just knows he
On 15 Mar 2013, at 04:19, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> Because both dragons and God are well defined concepts, just
concepts that don’t happen to have the attribute of existence. In
contrast “free will” is not only incoherently defined it is e
On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Mar 2013, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:59:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM
On Friday, March 15, 2013 6:59:42 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I didn't say that. I said "When five billion of them jump to attention
> at
> > once, it is **often** because of something that the person is
> experiencing
>
On 14 Mar 2013, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:59:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg
> wrote:
>
>>> Who are you to say that natural phenomena are superfluou
On Friday, March 15, 2013 12:23:42 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
> > A wheel is just [...] a mouse trap does not [...] it doesn't care
>> about [...] it doesn't matter to [...]
>>
>
> This is really getting tedious. Again and
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I didn't say that. I said "When five billion of them jump to attention at
> once, it is **often** because of something that the person is experiencing
> intentionally,". Biochemistry, among other things, can cause billions of
> neurons to
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> A wheel is just [...] a mouse trap does not [...] it doesn't care about
> [...] it doesn't matter to [...]
>
This is really getting tedious. Again and again you are decreeing what is
and what is not so but you're not even attempting to g
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:29:09 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> > What law of physics makes my will decide to get my house painted in
> >> > exactly
> >> > 30 days? Does electromagnetism have some 30 day cycle that is
>
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Because both dragons and God are well defined concepts, just concepts
> that don’t happen to have the attribute of existence. In contrast “free
> will” is not only incoherently defined it is every bit as self
> contradictory as the larges
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> > What law of physics makes my will decide to get my house painted in
>> > exactly
>> > 30 days? Does electromagnetism have some 30 day cycle that is predicted
>> > by
>> > gravity for me and nobody else?
>>
>> What laws of physics will m
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:42:10 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> And what is determining your personal will is your brain, which
> >> follows the laws of physics.
> >
> >
> > What law of physics makes my will decide to ge
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> And what is determining your personal will is your brain, which
>> follows the laws of physics.
>
>
> What law of physics makes my will decide to get my house painted in exactly
> 30 days? Does electromagnetism have some 30 day cycle that
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:27:17 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
> > The color white is not red, but since white cannot be made without using
>> red wavelengths, then it can't be said that it is not not red either.
>>
>
> If that's true, and you'r
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> The color white is not red, but since white cannot be made without using
> red wavelengths, then it can't be said that it is not not red either.
>
If that's true, and you're the one who keeps telling me that the qualia
color has nothing to do with wav
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:59:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>> Who are you to say that natural phenomena are superfluous?
> >>
> >>
> >> Who are yo
On 14 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
Who are you to say that natural phenomena are superfluous?
Who are you to say that they aren't?
The natural world is as it is. It's not my place to say the the Great
Red Spot of
On 13 Mar 2013, at 17:32, John Clark wrote:
Because both dragons and God are well defined concepts, just
concepts that don’t happen to have the attribute of existence. In
contrast “free will” is not only incoherently defined it is every
bit as self contradictory as the largest prime number
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:12:37 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/13/2013 10:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> The last one is especially cool. As you can see, the brain's behavior
> reflects massive, simultaneous, spontaneously formed patterns that have
> nothing whatsoever to do with phys
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:37:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> Who are you to say that natural phenomena are superfluous?
> >
> >
> > Who are you to say that they aren't?
>
> The natural world is as it is.
I agree,
On 3/13/2013 10:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The last one is especially cool. As you can see, the brain's behavior reflects massive,
simultaneous, spontaneously formed patterns that have nothing whatsoever to do with
physical laws. The same physical laws are in place whether the subject has medi
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:13:47 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> I may not be able to predict what your brain will do 30 days from now,
> >> but that does not necessarily mean your brain is not deterministic.
> >>
> >> A
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> Who are you to say that natural phenomena are superfluous?
>
>
> Who are you to say that they aren't?
The natural world is as it is. It's not my place to say the the Great
Red Spot of Jupiter is superfluous, that the electron is superfluo
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> I may not be able to predict what your brain will do 30 days from now,
>> but that does not necessarily mean your brain is not deterministic.
>>
>> And it certainly doesn't mean your brain is neither deterministic nor
>> probabilistic.
>
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:51:20 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> > So you have experiences which you can't deny, and which you can't
> explain as
> > being necessary or sensible for a computer to have in any way. Why would
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> So you have experiences which you can't deny, and which you can't explain as
> being necessary or sensible for a computer to have in any way. Why would you
> decide to infer that computers have superfluous phenomena attached to their
> com
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/13/2013 4:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:38:24 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 3/13/2013 3:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:00:27 PM UTC-4, Brent
On 3/13/2013 4:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:38:24 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/13/2013 3:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:00:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/13/2013 3:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> The c
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:53:23 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> If you can't demonstrate that one carbon atom is intelligent or
> conscious
> >> does that mean that trillions of them together can't be either?
> >
> >
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> If you can't demonstrate that one carbon atom is intelligent or conscious
>> does that mean that trillions of them together can't be either?
>
>
> If your model of physics doesn't include intelligence then it can't
> interpret any behavio
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:38:24 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/13/2013 3:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:00:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 3/13/2013 3:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> > The computer as a whole is
>> > >not a computer at al
On 3/13/2013 3:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:00:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/13/2013 3:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> The computer as a whole is
> >not a computer at all, it is an animal, a being. In reality, it only
looks
> >like a compu
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:00:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/13/2013 3:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > The computer as a whole is
> > >not a computer at all, it is an animal, a being. In reality, it only
> looks
> > >like a computer on the lower levels because it is too distan
On 3/13/2013 3:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The computer as a whole is
>not a computer at all, it is an animal, a being. In reality, it only looks
>like a computer on the lower levels because it is too distant from our
>personal experience to relate to personally.
At last Craig admits th
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:36:36 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> >> There is no reason to think that a deterministic universe universe had
>>> to have a beginning, or a non-deterministic one either for that matter.
>>>
>>
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:32:34 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
> >> the phrase "dragons exist" or "God exists" is not gibberish just wrong,
>>> and "free will" is not even wrong. I'm saying that if "free will" doesn't
>>> exist and “free w
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >> There is no reason to think that a deterministic universe universe had
>> to have a beginning, or a non-deterministic one either for that matter.
>>
>
> > Then determinism, having no prior cause, violates determinism.
>
No, every state
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:51:56 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> But physics does describe how high you will decide to throw the ball,
> >> since physics describes the movement of the ball and the movement of
> >> the mat
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:56:00 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/03/2013, at 12:30 AM, Craig Weinberg >
> wrote:
>
> > No, it doesn't make sense to me that there would be a highly valued
> qualia of free will (and highly charged qualia of responsibility) if our
> participation did
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:45:10 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On 13/03/2013, at 4:53 AM, Craig Weinberg >
> wrote:
>
> > We're talking about the basic principle of determinism though. We should
> use a basic example of it. What special ingredient does complexity add
> which changes th
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> But physics does describe how high you will decide to throw the ball,
>> since physics describes the movement of the ball and the movement of
>> the matter in your body. If you don't accept this then you believe
>> that your body will beh
On 12/03/2013, at 12:30 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> No, it doesn't make sense to me that there would be a highly valued qualia of
> free will (and highly charged qualia of responsibility) if our participation
> did not actually contribute causally in determining the universe. A free
> specta
On 13/03/2013, at 4:53 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> We're talking about the basic principle of determinism though. We should use
> a basic example of it. What special ingredient does complexity add which
> changes the nature of determinism? One stone rolling or a trillion digital
> stones rol
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:41:05 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
> > a deterministic universe always begins with a miracle that is never
>> allowed to happen again.
>>
>
> There is no reason to think that a deterministic universe universe had to
>
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53:24 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Mar 2013, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:20:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11 Mar 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>> What does it mean to contribute caus
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Free will is not an illusion. It is real.
>
Unless declared a integer.
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 fr
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> a deterministic universe always begins with a miracle that is never
> allowed to happen again.
>
There is no reason to think that a deterministic universe universe had to
have a beginning, or a non-deterministic one either for that matter.
John K C
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM, wrote:
> Question- I also thought determinism mean't that you could predict where
> and when, a particle could move.
>
No, determinism and predictability are two different things. In
adeterministic system its
future state depends entirely on its past state, but
On 12 Mar 2013, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:20:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What does it mean to contribute causally to a deterministic process
though? What contribution does the stone make to its rolli
On 12 Mar 2013, at 00:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/11/2013 6:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 22:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/10/2013 1:08 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Question- I also thought determinism mean't that you could
predict where and when, a particle could move. But tha
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:20:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Mar 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 11, 2013 1:27:57 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11 Mar 2013, at 14:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, March 11, 2013 8:43:03 A
On 11 Mar 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 1:27:57 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2013, at 14:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 8:43:03 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 15:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:56:58 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> And it would be easy to show that physics was incomplete by
> >> demonstrating biological systems operate contrary to physics.
> >
> >
> > If I pickup a bas
On 11 Mar 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 10:01:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2013, at 00:57, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 10, 2013 5:51:35 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/10/2013 1:08 PM, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Question- I also though
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> And it would be easy to show that physics was incomplete by
>> demonstrating biological systems operate contrary to physics.
>
>
> If I pickup a basketball and throw it up in the air, that result is not
> contrary to physics, but neither
On 3/11/2013 6:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 22:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/10/2013 1:08 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Question- I also thought determinism mean't that you could predict where and when, a
particle could move. But that Werner Heisenberg, said that you could deter
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
