Chris
How do you explain the experience of “free will” then?
You'll have noticed that I don't even try to explain it.
Our experience of free will, of having executive decisional power within our
own selves is a distinct, high fidelity, consistently reproducible, experience
in us
No
I also agree that the notions of free will and qualia are two different
things.
Yes, they are two very different things; one is gibberish and the other is
not.
*to argue that “free will”, “self-awareness” etc. are just noise [...] *
Only a fool would say self-awareness is just noise, and
This is what gives philosophers a bad name! In just one day people have
sent the following philosophical gems to the list, enough hot air to
signifacantly contribute to global warming,
* I also do not “KNOW” whether or not I really do have “free will”. But if
I do [blah blah]
* How do you
You cannot say you meditate on choices and make decisions and then in
the next breath say that we are deterministic.
Why the hell not?!
Either we are programs – in which case given a knowledge of our
algorithms our behavior and outcomes should be predictable based on a
knowledge of some
Hi Roger, and people,
On 05 Sep 2013, at 00:32, Roger Clough wrote:
Kant's disproof of materialism and empiricism
Materialists argue that in essence we are no more than our bodies.
Empiricists such as Hume ruled out the possible influence of
anything transcendental
in our perception of
Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm.
Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into
them. I cannot resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.
Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and
their
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:31 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/5/2013 8:34 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
I don't think that having different concepts or perspectives means that
people don't know what they are talking about. Free will is a concept which
is so fundamental that it is literally necessary to have free will before
you can ask the question of what it is. I think that it is the claim that
On 9/6/2013 1:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm.
Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into them. I cannot
resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.
Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify
Bruno,
A simple question. Lucid dreams are such that you are awake in your dream.
So my question is whether a lucid qualifies as 1. being awake or 2. in a
dream, or a third state.
I suggest that the third state may be in the realm of the afterlife, along
with all dreams,
except that you may be
I don't agree that philosophers do have a bad name, save that they
don't employ falsifiability. Falsifying was a term invented by a
philosopher. I forget his name. Kark Popper! That's it! Also, many
scientists by nature are logical positivists, even though this is a
philosophical concept from
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Falsifying was a term invented by a philosopher. I forget his name.
Understandable, philosophers are not very memorable. And no philosopher
invented falsifiability, some just made a big deal about something rather
obvious that had already been in
12 matches
Mail list logo
