Free Will in the Atlantic
Locked
12345
... 7
12345
... 7
 
|
Localizing water to the molecule and then abstracting it to its objective
form is to bracket all that might be interesting about the fate of the thing localized, the abstraction being an abstraction from the universes unfolding. I wouldn't conclude that H20 has a will, but for me, it would be because we removed vitality from the description. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: Free Will in the Atlantic
|
Jon writes:
< Localizing water to the molecule and then abstracting it to its objective form is to bracket all that might be interesting about the fate of the thing localized, the abstraction being an abstraction from the universes unfolding. I wouldn't conclude that H20 has a will, but for me, it would be because we removed vitality from the description. > Glen writes: < I think it's incomplete to say "perception" or "experience". It's loopy perception, feedbacks. And that implies that its calculation would involve some estimation of limits, convergence, fixed points, etc. And that's computationally distinct from the non-loopy percolation of water through soil. > Ok, a Tesla in full autopilot mode? Does it have free will? Marcus -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 10:30 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic Localizing water to the molecule and then abstracting it to its objective form is to bracket all that might be interesting about the fate of the thing localized, the abstraction being an abstraction from the universes unfolding. I wouldn't conclude that H20 has a will, but for me, it would be because we removed vitality from the description. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
Probably, in the same sense Pieter mentioned earlier.
On 4/2/21 10:33 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Jon writes: > > < Localizing water to the molecule and then abstracting it to its objective form is to bracket all that might be interesting about the fate of the thing localized, the abstraction being an abstraction from the universes unfolding. I wouldn't conclude that H20 has a will, but for me, it would be because we removed vitality from the description. > > > Glen writes: > > < I think it's incomplete to say "perception" or "experience". It's loopy perception, feedbacks. And that implies that its calculation would involve some estimation of limits, convergence, fixed points, etc. And that's computationally distinct from the non-loopy percolation of water through soil. > > > Ok, a Tesla in full autopilot mode? Does it have free will? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Free Will in the Atlantic
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Evolution gave us our utility function. Natural selection gave it to us On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 18:45, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: Free Will in the Atlantic
|
|
More functions. Keep turning over the rocks and tell me when you find magic. From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of
Pieter Steenekamp Evolution gave us our utility function. Natural selection gave it to us On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 18:45, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: Free Will in the Atlantic
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I guess garages can be fashioned into a prison cells. It all seems kind of stupid to me, but whatever makes people feel safer is what we will do!
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 10:36 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic Probably, in the same sense Pieter mentioned earlier. On 4/2/21 10:33 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Jon writes: > > < Localizing water to the molecule and then abstracting it to its > objective form is to bracket all that might be interesting about the > fate of the thing localized, the abstraction being an abstraction from > the universes unfolding. I wouldn't conclude that H20 has a will, but > for me, it would be because we removed vitality from the description. > > > > Glen writes: > > < I think it's incomplete to say "perception" or "experience". It's > loopy perception, feedbacks. And that implies that its calculation > would involve some estimation of limits, convergence, fixed points, > etc. And that's computationally distinct from the non-loopy > percolation of water through soil. > > > Ok, a Tesla in full autopilot mode? Does it have free will? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
The magic lies in the interoception, measuring one's self. Surely you'll admit that a recursive function is different, even if only slightly, from a non-recursive function. And if you allow that difference, then you might allow that mixed-[co]domain functions are different from single-[co]domain functions ... maybe we could call them "hyperfunctions" to follow along with EricS' recent use of hypergraphs?
While I can't claim to be able to identify exactly a class of hyperfunctions that constitute a subjective feeling of agency (or an objective coherence that warrants legal/social *blame*), I think that's where the magic lies. I suppose it's akin to (Edelman &) Tononi's IIT ... where some collections of functions are more interoceptive and mutally intertwined than others. A self-driving Tesla might be more likely to have free will than a CD player. On 4/2/21 10:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > More functions. Keep turning over the rocks and tell me when you find magic. > > > > *From:* Friam <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp > *Sent:* Friday, April 2, 2021 10:37 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic > > > > Evolution gave us our utility function. Natural selection gave it to us -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Functions beget functions, but without cartesian closedness, the functions
remain metaphysical. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
The implications of CCC mystify me, especially w.r.t. how/why the symmetric monoidal category gets us to linear logic. Pfft. I'm too stupid for category theory. But essentially, I feel there's *something* like this going on with anything like consciousness or free will.
On 4/2/21 10:52 AM, jon zingale wrote: > Functions beget functions, but without cartesian closedness, the functions > remain metaphysical. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Free Will in the Atlantic
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Not magic. We can still reason about what a recursive or even probabilistic recursive function must do. We can reason about intertwined functions, or, even functions with entangled states if meat bags had such things. I can imagine implementing an executive process for a robot that would result in something one might call agency. This all works fine within the bounds of purely deterministic things. It is just another computer program.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 10:51 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic The magic lies in the interoception, measuring one's self. Surely you'll admit that a recursive function is different, even if only slightly, from a non-recursive function. And if you allow that difference, then you might allow that mixed-[co]domain functions are different from single-[co]domain functions ... maybe we could call them "hyperfunctions" to follow along with EricS' recent use of hypergraphs? While I can't claim to be able to identify exactly a class of hyperfunctions that constitute a subjective feeling of agency (or an objective coherence that warrants legal/social *blame*), I think that's where the magic lies. I suppose it's akin to (Edelman &) Tononi's IIT ... where some collections of functions are more interoceptive and mutally intertwined than others. A self-driving Tesla might be more likely to have free will than a CD player. On 4/2/21 10:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > More functions. Keep turning over the rocks and tell me when you find magic. > > > > *From:* Friam <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter > Steenekamp > *Sent:* Friday, April 2, 2021 10:37 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic > > > > Evolution gave us our utility function. Natural selection gave it to > us -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
Exactly. So what are you disagreeing with? What we call "free will" is a possibly deterministic self-perceptive feedback.
On 4/2/21 11:05 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Not magic. We can still reason about what a recursive or even probabilistic recursive function must do. We can reason about intertwined functions, or, even functions with entangled states if meat bags had such things. I can imagine implementing an executive process for a robot that would result in something one might call agency. This all works fine within the bounds of purely deterministic things. It is just another computer program. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Free Will in the Atlantic
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
My opinion (for what it's worth) is that we will one day "grow" emergent complexity like consciousness in software using ABM and as humans we won't really understand the outcome. Exactly as we'll never "understand" human consciousness and perceived free will, etc. The only difference is it will be silicon not carbon. There's already applications, like traffic modelling where the emergent behavior of the ABM matches reality much more accurately than any human understanding On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 20:08, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: Not magic. We can still reason about what a recursive or even probabilistic recursive function must do. We can reason about intertwined functions, or, even functions with entangled states if meat bags had such things. I can imagine implementing an executive process for a robot that would result in something one might call agency. This all works fine within the bounds of purely deterministic things. It is just another computer program. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: Free Will in the Atlantic
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I'm objecting to the idea that recursion could result in anything but the distributions that drove it. (Yes, even recognizing most of the inputs won't be measurable or precise.) The process is not free. It is a specific set of functions that could be written down by an oracle, and to say that some other function "should" have been there is just meaningless. The use of the term of "free will" can be noted as a sign of magical thinking, not recast into "Oh they really mean Some Sort of Reasonable Thing", when they clearly do not.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 11:19 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic Exactly. So what are you disagreeing with? What we call "free will" is a possibly deterministic self-perceptive feedback. On 4/2/21 11:05 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Not magic. We can still reason about what a recursive or even probabilistic recursive function must do. We can reason about intertwined functions, or, even functions with entangled states if meat bags had such things. I can imagine implementing an executive process for a robot that would result in something one might call agency. This all works fine within the bounds of purely deterministic things. It is just another computer program. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
Yeah, OK. I sympathize. But language doesn't work that way. There is a "thing" we call "free will". If the name bothers you so much, call it pooba or whatever. Who cares what we call it? We can all point at it ... like porn or being alive. So, if we can all point at something, then *what* are we pointing at? I couldn't care less about telling people who believe in crystal powers, or acupuncture, or God that they're wrong. But I do care to find out what they're pointing at when they use those words ... even if they don't understand what they're pointing at.
Pieter's assertion that we'll eventually grow things that exhibit what we call "free will" or pooba, is the right attitude. And being about to construct it (even if with an opaque algorithm) is the minimum requirement for understanding it (following Feynman's "What I can't create, I don't understand."). On 4/2/21 11:31 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I'm objecting to the idea that recursion could result in anything but the distributions that drove it. (Yes, even recognizing most of the inputs won't be measurable or precise.) The process is not free. It is a specific set of functions that could be written down by an oracle, and to say that some other function "should" have been there is just meaningless. The use of the term of "free will" can be noted as a sign of magical thinking, not recast into "Oh they really mean Some Sort of Reasonable Thing", when they clearly do not. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Free Will in the Atlantic
|
|
This video that has been making the rounds in my world. That look on his face when he tries to explain the thing he knows is Really Important.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7qH27g5Zoc Anyway, people point at things as Really Important all the time, and on closer inspection they aren't pointing at anything. They found some people to groove with, and that's all there is to it. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 11:42 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic Yeah, OK. I sympathize. But language doesn't work that way. There is a "thing" we call "free will". If the name bothers you so much, call it pooba or whatever. Who cares what we call it? We can all point at it ... like porn or being alive. So, if we can all point at something, then *what* are we pointing at? I couldn't care less about telling people who believe in crystal powers, or acupuncture, or God that they're wrong. But I do care to find out what they're pointing at when they use those words ... even if they don't understand what they're pointing at. Pieter's assertion that we'll eventually grow things that exhibit what we call "free will" or pooba, is the right attitude. And being about to construct it (even if with an opaque algorithm) is the minimum requirement for understanding it (following Feynman's "What I can't create, I don't understand."). On 4/2/21 11:31 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I'm objecting to the idea that recursion could result in anything but the distributions that drove it. (Yes, even recognizing most of the inputs won't be measurable or precise.) The process is not free. It is a specific set of functions that could be written down by an oracle, and to say that some other function "should" have been there is just meaningless. The use of the term of "free will" can be noted as a sign of magical thinking, not recast into "Oh they really mean Some Sort of Reasonable Thing", when they clearly do not. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
Hilarious video! But I have to disagree with your flattening of "people to groove with". It's entirely plausible that what people are pointing at in some cases is reflective, another kind of loop. E.g. when my friend says they LOOOVVVVEEEEDDD "The Tao of Physics" and it helped her understand her cancer and how having a good attitude helped her recover, what she's pointing at is not a thing purely outside herself. She's pointing at a social process of which she's a component.
Free will may have a similar social element. I don't know. But it wouldn't imply there was no object to go along with the sign just because the sign points to itself as the object. Graph nodes with self-self edges are not necessarily degenerate. On 4/2/21 11:59 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > This video that has been making the rounds in my world. That look on his face when he tries to explain the thing he knows is Really Important. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7qH27g5Zoc > > Anyway, people point at things as Really Important all the time, and on closer inspection they aren't pointing at anything. They found some people to groove with, and that's all there is to it. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Free Will in the Atlantic
|
|
The Atlantic article explains very well the social component. The belief that if we just shut our eyes to reason, that we'll behave better and it will be for the greater good. Like religion. But our behavior will be whatever it will be.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 12:10 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic Hilarious video! But I have to disagree with your flattening of "people to groove with". It's entirely plausible that what people are pointing at in some cases is reflective, another kind of loop. E.g. when my friend says they LOOOVVVVEEEEDDD "The Tao of Physics" and it helped her understand her cancer and how having a good attitude helped her recover, what she's pointing at is not a thing purely outside herself. She's pointing at a social process of which she's a component. Free will may have a similar social element. I don't know. But it wouldn't imply there was no object to go along with the sign just because the sign points to itself as the object. Graph nodes with self-self edges are not necessarily degenerate. On 4/2/21 11:59 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > This video that has been making the rounds in my world. That look on his face when he tries to explain the thing he knows is Really Important. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7qH27g5Zoc > > Anyway, people point at things as Really Important all the time, and on closer inspection they aren't pointing at anything. They found some people to groove with, and that's all there is to it. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
I would say no if you can provide me the function.
-- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: Free Will in the Atlantic
|
|
In what acceptable scenario is the behavior not describable in principle? The scenario that comes to mind is in the non-science magical thinking scenario.
I doubt that Tesla navigation systems are written in a purely functional language, but surely there is more to this condition than whether I have access to that source code and can send you the million lines in purely functional form? If something is inscrutable, it might exhibit free will? -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 12:26 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic I would say no if you can provide me the function. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
Dave West wrote:
nahhh... it just looks like you (and the Swamis) can modify
your autonomic functions and your brain waves... the fact is,
given who you/they are in those circumstances, you *had* to, you
couldn't have chosen to do otherwise! In fact you can't help but
*believe* you had free will and exercised it, just like *I* who am
sure you *don't* have free will have no choice but to believe
*that*. Anything else is *inconceivable* ! ("there's that
word again" -Inigio Martinez) Or at least *that* is what I choose to believe today. I wonder
if I will have a choice about what I feel about all this today?
Or after some more limp-noodle-beatings of the topic here? Arg, - Smarg PS... Don't free Willy in the Atlantic, his entire pod is in the
Pacific. Was that a Trump-administration rule, that
unaccompanied minor Orcas stuck in Seaworld can only be released
in an ocean other than that of their origin! Happy onecet of
April!
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |