Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 7, 5:52 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be > > seen also as a confusion of level. If I can emulate Einstein brain, > > "I" can answer all question you ask to Einstein, > > You're

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, 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 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 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, 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 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: Intelligence and consciousness

On 07 Feb 2012, at 18:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be seen also as a confusion of level. If I can emulate Einstein brain, "I" can answer all question you ask to Einstein, You're assumin

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 2/8/2012 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Feb 2012, at 18:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think Quentin has a theory here, that you might be stupid. Joseph Knight has another theory, which is that you are a troll. Umm, could one's theory of anoth

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 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, 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 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, 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: Information: a basic physical quantity or rather emergence/supervenience phenomenon

On 07.02.2012 23:06 Russell Standish said the following: On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 08:15:10PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Russell, This is circular - temperature is usually defined in terms of entropy: T^{-1} = dS/dE This is wrong. The temperature is defined according to the Zeroth Law. The

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: Information: a basic physical quantity or rather emergence/supervenience phenomenon

On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 08:32:16PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... > >It sounds to me like you are arguing for a shift back to how > >thermodynamics was before the Bolztmann's theoretical understanding. > >A "back-to-roots" movement, as it were. > > I would like rather to understand the meaning

Re: Information: a basic physical quantity or rather emergence/supervenience phenomenon

On Feb 7, 7:04 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > Let us take a closed vessel with oxygen and hydrogen at room > temperature. Then we open a platinum catalyst in the vessel and the > reaction starts. Will then the information in the vessel be conserved? > > Evgenii What's the difference between in

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: Information: a basic physical quantity or rather emergence/supervenience phenomenon

On 2/8/2012 1:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 08:32:16PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... It sounds to me like you are arguing for a shift back to how thermodynamics was before the Bolztmann's theoretical understanding. A "back-to-roots" movement, as it were. I would li