On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
where someone asked Who pushes who around inside the brain?, meaning is it
On Nov 28, 11:36 pm, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Hi Rex and Bruno,
I think that you are both missing an important point by taking an from
infinity view. The fact that the world is not given to us in terms where
these is one and only one option given some condition
Hi 1Z,
-Original Message-
From: 1Z
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:38 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Compatibilism
On Nov 28, 11:36 pm, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Hi Rex and Bruno,
I think that you are both missing an important point by taking
On 28 Nov 2010, at 23:49, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
With your definition of free will, it does not exist. I think we
agree.
Very good. So what we are really arguing about here is whether your
definition or my definition is
On Nov 27, 8:17 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:17 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:01 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
So Agrippa's Trilemma revolves around the question of how we can
justify our beliefs.
It seems to
On Nov 27, 8:53 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:44 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:31 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Any defense of free will must allow for ultimate responsibility for
actions.
Mine does
Random
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
With your definition of free will, it does not exist. I think we agree.
Very good. So what we are really arguing about here is whether your
definition or my definition is closer to what is generally meant when
people use
this conundrum!
We are not Omniscient, we are not Omnipresent and we most certainly are
not Omnipotent. Deal with it.
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Rex Allen
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 5:49 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Compatibilism
On Fri, Nov 26
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 11/27/2010 12:53 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Free will = ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused
This is a false dichotomy. If a deterministic algorithm evaluates the
probability of success for three
Rex,
You're mention of whose definition was closer to that of the common person
intrigued me. I decided to look up what some dictionaries said on the
matter:
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will
dictionary.com
–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took
On 26 Nov 2010, at 22:55, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/26/2010 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Nov 2010, at 22:38, Rex Allen wrote:
How does ignorance of what choice you will make lead to ultimate
responsibility for that choice?
Because I can have a pretty good pictures of the
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:17 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:01 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
So Agrippa's Trilemma revolves around the question of how we can
justify our beliefs.
It seems to me that an entirely acceptable solution is just to accept
that we
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:44 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:31 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Any defense of free will must allow for ultimate responsibility for
actions.
Mine does
Random events don't qualify as free will.
A deterministic process doesn't
On 11/27/2010 12:53 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:44 AM, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:31 am, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Any defense of free will must allow for ultimate responsibility for actions.
Mine does
Random events
On Nov 26, 6:01 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:12 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 6:43 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
No-one is. They are just valid
On Nov 26, 6:31 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:20 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen
On 25 Nov 2010, at 22:38, Rex Allen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 19:47, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
But your reasoning does not apply to free will in the
On 11/26/2010 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Nov 2010, at 22:38, Rex Allen wrote:
How does ignorance of what choice you will make lead to ultimate
responsibility for that choice?
Because I can have a pretty good pictures of the alternatives. Usually
the conflict will be in
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 19:47, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But your reasoning does not apply to free will in the sense I gave: the
ability to choose among
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
But I also deny that mechanism can account for consciousness (except
by fiat declaration that it does).
Rex,
I am interested in your reasoning against mechanism. Assume there is were
an] mechanical brain composed of
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:12 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 6:43 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
No-one is. They are just valid descriptions. There is no argument
to the effect that logic is causal
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:20 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
If there is a reason, then the reason
On Nov 21, 6:43 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded
On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
My position is:
So either there is a reason for what I choose to do, or there isn't.
If there is
On 21 Nov 2010, at 19:47, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Nov 2010, at 07:31, Rex Allen wrote:
As for my definition of free will:
The ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused.
Obviously there is no such
On 11/22/2010 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 19:47, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Nov 2010, at 07:31, Rex Allen wrote:
As for my definition of free will:
The ability to make choices that are neither random
On 22 Nov 2010, at 20:47, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/22/2010 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 19:47, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Nov 2010, at 07:31, Rex Allen wrote:
As for my definition of free will:
It seems to me that there is no that much difference between Universes
with complete determinism and inherent randomness. Rex put it quite well
here
Intelligence and Nomologicalism Optionen
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/5ab5303cdb696ef5
From the viewpoint of
On 21 Nov 2010, at 09:11, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
It seems to me that there is no that much difference between
Universes with complete determinism and inherent randomness. Rex put
it quite well here
Intelligence and Nomologicalism Optionen
Dear Bruno,
Could you please recommend some reading about the mechanist assumption?
Especially that
then the observable reality cannot be a machine
Evgenii
on 21.11.2010 15:58 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 09:11, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
It seems to me that there is
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
My position is:
So either there is a reason for what I choose to do, or there isn't.
If there is a reason, then the reason determined the choice. No free will.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Nov 2010, at 07:31, Rex Allen wrote:
As for my definition of free will:
The ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused.
Obviously there is no such ability, since random and caused
exhaust the
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
where
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
Have I understood you correctly, that the current discussion has been
already predetermined by the initial conditions of the Universe?
Well...maybe. But I'm not overly concerned with the question of
whether the causal
On 11/21/2010 10:43 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Reschjasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex,
Your post
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 11/21/2010 10:43 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Therefore some other, sufficiently complex, robots have intentionality
Not proven.
Proof is for
This is exactly the model of free will I argue in favour for in my
book Theory of Nothing. Thanks 1Z - this is well put. Not that it will
convince the others who argue that free will is excluded by being
neither deterministic nor random. That debate will rage for
centuries...
Cheers
On Fri, Nov
The problem you're making is that, we can't choose (freely) under
deterministics rules and we can't choose (freely) under random rules...
Because the world is ruled (random or not). I think free will is compatible
to both views. As long as you defined it to be ignorance of the knowing
entities,
Well it would seem to me that ignorance is not free will. Ignorance
is ignorance.
Belief in free will is not free will. Belief in free will is
*belief* in free will.
Why do you want to define it in terms of ignorance? What motivates this?
And how does that fit with how the term is used with
on 19.11.2010 04:11 Rex Allen said the following:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Reschjasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the
source) where someone asked Who pushes who around inside the
brain?, meaning is it the matter that
On 11/20/2010 5:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 19.11.2010 04:11 Rex Allen said the following:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Reschjasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the
source) where someone asked Who pushes who around inside
On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 04:51, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
? Are you saying that it is obvious
On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
where someone asked Who pushes who around inside the brain?, meaning is it
On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:36, 1Z wrote:
We don't invoke thought and reason to explain the abilities and
behavior of chess playing computers
Sometimes we do...see Dennett;s intentional stance
key point, I agree. I would say we always do that. No one will explain
why a chess playing computers
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
where someone asked Who pushes who around inside the brain?, meaning is it
the matter that causes thought to move around a certain way, or is it the
opposite? The looped hierarchies described by Hofstadter, if present,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
where someone asked Who pushes who around inside the brain?, meaning is it
the matter that causes thought to move around a certain way, or is
46 matches
Mail list logo
