On 19 Jun 2012, at 19:02, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 13 Jun 2012, at 10:44, R AM wrote:
I know that you and Bruno are compatibilists. I'm not attacking
your notion of free will. I agree that free will is a social
construct. I'm
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Jun 2012, at 10:44, R AM wrote:
I know that you and Bruno are compatibilists. I'm not attacking your
notion of free will. I agree that free will is a social construct. I'm
going even further: free will doesn't
On 12 Jun 2012, at 21:21, R AM wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
No. But the gangster does not know this determination. So although
at that level he could not do otherwise, from his perspective, it
still can make genuine sense that he
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:08 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/12/2012 1:06 PM, R AM wrote:
Isn't that randomness?
No, it's unpredictablity - something we may fruitfully model by a
mathematical theory of randomness even though the dynamics are perfectly
deterministic, when we
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Yes, but for the sake of the argument, I wanted you to consider the case
where you are pretty certain about eating spaghetti. Defenders of free will
would say that free will is active whenever you make a decision,
On 13 Jun 2012, at 10:44, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:08 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/12/2012 1:06 PM, R AM wrote:
Isn't that randomness?
No, it's unpredictablity - something we may fruitfully model by a
mathematical theory of randomness even though the
On 13 Jun 2012, at 15:14, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Yes, but for the sake of the argument, I wanted you to consider the
case where you are pretty certain about eating spaghetti. Defenders
of free will would say that free
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/11/2012 8:45 AM, R AM wrote:
But what I'm saying here is not ontological determinism but in fact,
about the subjective experience. I'm defending that we cannot imagine
ourselves in exactly the same subjective
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:18 AM, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
I'm assuming you mean by exactly the same situation, every atom in it's
exact same physical state.
Not really. I mean the same conscious or subjective situation. From the
free will point of view, decisions are conscious
On 11 Jun 2012, at 17:45, R AM wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
OK, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that you ate
spaghetti because that's what you liked at
On 6/12/2012 1:31 AM, R AM wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/11/2012 8:45 AM, R AM wrote:
But what I'm saying here is not ontological determinism but in fact,
about the
subjective experience.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Well then it seems to come down to a question of timing. If this 'same
conscious state' is before the action, then I can certainly imagine
changing my mind.
Yes, but why would you do that? You didn't change your mind in
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
No. But the gangster does not know this determination. So although at that
level he could not do otherwise, from his perspective, it still can make
genuine sense that he could have done otherwise, from our embedded pov
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Why not. That's the compatibilist view of 'free will' and that's
apparently why Sam Harris disagrees with compatibilism: he defines 'free
will' to be *conscious* authorship of decisions.
I think that is what is meant by
On 6/12/2012 11:42 AM, R AM wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Well then it seems to come down to a question of timing. If this 'same
conscious
state' is before the action, then I can certainly imagine changing
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I means that, in retrospect, I can't trace back to external (to me)
causes, a deterministic sequence that inevitably led me to do that.
Isn't that randomness?
Conceivably we could make an intelligent machine that
On 6/12/2012 1:06 PM, R AM wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I means that, in retrospect, I can't trace back to external (to me) causes,
a
deterministic sequence that inevitably led me to do that.
Isn't that
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
OK, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that you ate spaghetti
because that's what you liked at that moment. Do you think you could have
done
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The answer must be relative to our (imperfect) knowledge. Since that
knowledge is not sufficient to predict what he would do, we say Yes, he
could have done otherwise. In the same way we may say, I know him well
and he's
On Monday, June 11, 2012 10:45:16 AM UTC-5, RAM wrote:
But what I'm saying here is not ontological determinism but in fact,
about the subjective experience. I'm defending that we cannot imagine
ourselves in exactly the same subjective situation and still think that we
could have done
On 06 Jun 2012, at 19:43, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think people make choices from among available options many times
every day and that is why the concept in question
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree free-will is silly if it is defined like that. So let us try a
less silly definition. So instead of was exactly the same in your
definition, we can use was exactly the same from the subject point of
view.
OK.
On 07 Jun 2012, at 10:00, R AM wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I agree free-will is silly if it is defined like that. So let us try
a less silly definition. So instead of was exactly the same in
your definition, we can use was exactly the
I have started reading Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics and I see
one definition that seems to be pertinent to this discussion.
p. 27 Def. 4. To assume it to suppose by an act of free choice.
A person who 'makes an assumption' is making a supposition about which
he is aware that he might
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Because he remembers that he was hesitating. Yesterday I have eaten
spaghetti, but I could have decide otherwise, I hesitated a lot.
OK, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that you ate spaghetti
because that's
On 07 Jun 2012, at 14:15, R AM wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Because he remembers that he was hesitating. Yesterday I have eaten
spaghetti, but I could have decide otherwise, I hesitated a lot.
OK, for the sake of the argument, let's
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If he axed you because he has a brain tumor that caused him to see you
as an alien monster, we wouldn't hold him culpable.
What's with this we business, speak for yourself I certainly would hold
him culpable, I don't understand why
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no meaningful difference between will and free will.
The will is in the state it is in for a reason or for no reason, but
according to Craig Weinberg your free will is in the state it is in for no
reason and isn't in the
On 6/7/2012 5:15 AM, R AM wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Because he remembers that he was hesitating. Yesterday I have eaten
spaghetti, but I
could have decide otherwise, I hesitated a lot.
OK, for the sake
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your
preferences most of the time.
And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will
eventually stop or not, but not all of the time.
The feeling
I will exercise my *insert gibberish here* by disagreeing.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your
preferences most of the time.
Speaking of the legal aspect,
Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to
kill the Jews.
IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in
that they had no choice but to commit crime? Seems unfair to punish anyone
under those circumstances.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of the legal aspect,
Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to
kill the Jews.
IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable
in that they had no choice
I think people make choices from among available options many times every
day and that is why the concept in question exists.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of the legal aspect,
On 6/6/2012 9:08 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Speaking of the legal aspect,
Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill
the Jews.
IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they
had no choice but to commit crime? Seems
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
I think people make choices from among available options many times every
day and that is why the concept in question exists.
I agree that people make choices. I dont't think it is free will.
You said that people would
On 6/6/2012 9:08 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Speaking of the legal aspect,
Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill
the Jews.
IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they
had no choice but to commit crime? Seems
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to
commit crime?
It just mystifies me that someone would even ask a question like that. If
you're chasing me with a bloody ax I don't care if you had a choice
On 6/6/2012 9:30 AM, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
I think people make choices from among available options many times every
day and
that is why the concept in question exists.
I agree that people make
On Jun 6, 12:23 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's that idea of fairness or justice that seems to connect the idea of 'free
will' to
social policy. But is it really needed to make the connection? Why not look
at as just
rule utilitarianism, e.g. punishment will be a deterrent
On Jun 6, 12:37 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to
commit crime?
It just mystifies me that someone would even ask a question like that. If
you're
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
It's not possible to punish something that doesn't have free will.
I can't say anything directly about that because neither you nor I know
what the hell free will means, but I do know what will means and if
something
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
I think people make choices from among available options many times every
day and that is why the concept in question exists.
Deep down, free will is the
On 06 Jun 2012, at 18:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/6/2012 9:08 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Speaking of the legal aspect,
Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued
orders to kill the Jews.
IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals
culpable in that they
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Punishment only works if something 1. cares whether or not it's
experience is unpleasant
Yes.
2. has causally efficacious motive to alter their behavior,
No, although if the criminal's actions are
On 6/6/2012 9:37 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime?
It just mystifies me that someone would even ask a question like that. If
On 6/6/2012 10:43 AM, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, R AM ramra...@gmail.com
mailto:ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
I think people make choices from among available options
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/6/2012 9:30 AM, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
I think people make choices from among available options many times every
day and that is why the concept in
On 6/6/2012 10:56 AM, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/6/2012 9:30 AM, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
I think
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Contral-causal, I guess. What I'm defending is that the belief in
free-will is, in part, a social construct, useful from the social/legal
point of view, as you say. We are educated to believe it.
The social/legal concept
On Jun 6, 1:48 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no meaningful difference between will and free will. Adding
'free' only emphasizes that the intention is your own and not
compelled by circumstances beyond your
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You try moving your arm with an explanation or a reason or with no
reason. Did it move?
That's like asking how long is a piece of string. It depends on if I wanted
to move my arm or not.
Now just move your arm.
This time I
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be
predictable. Apparently you never studied game theory.
I'm no world class expert but I've taken several college courses on game
theory and I know enough to understand that
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand what's odd about that, certainly we need retributive
punishment if we don't want to be murdered in our beds.
I don't understand why anyone could not see that as a glaring violation of
common sense, except
On 6/4/2012 10:07 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be predictable.
Apparently
you never studied game theory.
I'm no world class expert but I've taken
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to
be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined)
If it can be done then do so! Explain choose in a way that shows it is
not deterministic and
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Agent might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably
Without a reason.
but purposefully.
With a reason.
But both of those are a little fuzzy.
That's not fuzzy, it's idiotic. You can arrange the words free, decide,
choose,
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
oddly after spending 60 pages attacking free will as an illusion of an
illusion, Sam Harris seems to that we may need retributive punishment
anyway.
I don't understand what's odd about that, certainly we need retributive
On Jun 3, 12:38 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to
be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined)
If it can be done then do so!
On Jun 3, 1:00 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
oddly after spending 60 pages attacking free will as an illusion of an
illusion, Sam Harris seems to that we may need retributive punishment
anyway.
I don't
On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Look up 'teleology'.
Why? I already know it means things happen for a purpose, although it is never made
clear who's purpose were talking about or what his
On 6/3/2012 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Agent might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably
Without a reason.
but purposefully.
With a reason.
But both of those are a little fuzzy.
On 6/3/2012 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to
be able
(which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined)
If it can be done
OOPS. I hit send instead of delete.
Brent
On 6/3/2012 4:25 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/3/2012 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to
be able
On 01.06.2012 21:30 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and
neither do you.
John K Clark
Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but
that doesn't mean free will is a
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a
thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising really, confusion
is inevitable if you insist on trying to make sense out of gibberish.
So
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that
Free will is not meaningless. Free will has to mean something before
it can be attacked.
But I'm not saying free will does not exist, and I'm not attacking it
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Can existing practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis?
Yes.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to
be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) when (which
can be defined) presented (which can be defined) with a choice (which can
be defined).
Certainly not meaningless.
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM,
FREE means being *able *to choose *any *among a number of choices. You
want freedom of will to mean an agent can choose something beyond what the
given choices are? That would imply free will does not exist yet, in that
event, free will is still NOT meaningless.
Right now I am unconcerned with
The hard one to define with falling into circularity is agent which is often defined as
an entity with free will. To test something you need an operational definition. Agent
might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably but purposefully. But both of those
are a little fuzzy.
Brent
On 6/2/2012 11:45 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Did ANYBODY so far - among those ~100(+?) posts (so far erased in this discussion) *I D
E N T I F Y* */_free will_/*?
I've tried to identify two meanings: One, which I consider unproblematic, is the social
and legal attribute of decisions which are not
On 6/1/2012 11:25 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
The fuss is because the concept is thought to be fundamental to
jurisprudence and social policy (it's even cited in some Supreme
Court decisions). The concept of free will has been carried over from
past theological and philosophical ideas. But now the
How about define agent to be a type 4 agent as explained here:
http://cs.wallawalla.edu/~aabyan/Colloquia/Aware/aware2.html
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The hard one to define with falling into circularity is agent which is
often defined as an entity
I don't think any of us qualify since you have to believe and be aware of your belief of
every tautology which means all possible mathematical proofs.
Actually it seems to me that so much self awareness is contrary to the common notion of
'free will'. The feeling of 'free will' comes about
On Thu, May 31, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Look up 'teleology'.
Why? I already know it means things happen for a purpose, although it is
never made clear who's purpose were talking about or what his purpose is
supposed to be. One thing is clear, they had a purpose for a reason
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither
do you.
John K Clark
Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that
doesn't mean free will is a meaningless string. Freedom is defined by
the observer. I note the freedom I have in choosing
On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not, that my
'soul' or
'spirit' initiated the physical process without any determinative physical
antecedent.
A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a
On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither
do you.
John K Clark
Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that doesn't mean free
will is a meaningless string. Freedom is defined by
The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that Free
will is not meaningless. Free will has to mean something before it can
be attacked.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Cannot comment,
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
Freedom is defined by the observer.
Exactly! A man is walking down a road and spots a fork in the road far
ahead. He knows of advantages and disadvantages to both paths so he isn't
sure if he will go right or left, he hadn't decided.
On 01.06.2012 20:48 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not,
that
my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any
determinative physical antecedent.
A belief that was enormously
On Wed, May 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The axiom of choice just asserts that an arbitrary product of a family of
non empty set is non empty.
True, but my dictionary says arbitrary means based on a random choice or
personal whim.
There is no clue of direct relationship
Of course it doesn't, nothing real can have anything to do with free
will because free will is gibberish.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
Brian,
thanks for the excerpt from the Stanford Enc. It is the usual
'scientifically' diluted 'everything', yet includes some supprt for John's
quoted phrase.
May I add my contribution (not included in the Enc.-txt:
In -MY- belief system we are part of that infinite complexity we may call
world -
On 31 May 2012, at 17:03, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The axiom of choice just asserts that an arbitrary product of a
family of non empty set is non empty.
True, but my dictionary says arbitrary means based on a random
choice or
On 5/31/2012 10:24 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course it doesn't, nothing real can have anything to do with free
will
because free will is gibberish.
On 5/31/2012 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
it even has something to do with intelligence. When Alan Turing designed the first
stored program electronic digital computer, the Manchester Mark 1, he insisted it have
a hardware random number generator incorporated in it because he felt that
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If they are rational agents then it's rational and if it's rational
then there is a reason behind it and if there is a reason behind it then
it's deterministic.
That's not logically the case. People who believe in 'free
On 5/31/2012 12:39 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If they are rational agents then it's rational and if it's rational
then there
is a reason behind it and if there is a reason behind it then
On 5/29/2012 11:46 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Jesse,
Would it be correct to think of arbitrary as used here as
meaning some y subset Y identified by some function i
On 5/29/2012 11:52 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 8:11 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin wrote:
The original poster introduces what free will means.
1) Every choice which is allowed in physics is a random choice or a
determinate one.
2) If human free will choice exists, it is agreed that it is not
On 5/30/2012 12:06 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 8:47 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/29/2012 5:18 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin
aaloks...@gmail.com mailto:aaloks...@gmail.com wrote:
It is impossible to consider common properties of
On 5/30/2012 1:25 AM, Aleksandr Lokshin wrote:
5) If one uses mathematics, then one operates with a process which is
prohibited in physics.
Rubbish!
I insist on my statement which, unfortunately, is not understood. I
stop taking part in the discussion.
Best wishes
Ale
OK.
--
On 30 May 2012, at 08:12, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/30/2012 12:06 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 8:47 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/29/2012 5:18 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.com
wrote:
It is impossible to consider
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 5/29/2012 11:46 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jesse,
Would it be correct to think of arbitrary as used here as meaning
some
On 30 May 2012 04:16, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
I think that the word free means that it is unconstrained by a pre-given
or knowable function; it is not the result of a known computational process.
I'm sorry if my point was not clear. I simply meant that we can
define
On 30 May 2012 04:41, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Only David Nyman agreed as far as I can see
See my reply to Stephen.
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
On 5/30/2012 4:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 May 2012, at 08:12, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/30/2012 12:06 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 8:47 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/29/2012 5:18 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin
aaloks...@gmail.com
On Tue, May 29, 2012 Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.com wrote:
The original poster introduces what free will means.
Every choice which is allowed in physics is a random choice
OK, In other words it had no cause.
or a determinate one.
In other words it had a cause.
If human free
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
