alternative response
Locked
1234567
... 9
1234567
... 9
 
|
Glen writes:
"And, sure, by making my proposition, I'm being lazy and parasitic, relying on *your* creativity to make my stupid idea work. But that's not news. >8^D" Faith in a nutshell. Marcus - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
Yes! Faith is a truncation. The important distinction being that you can't choose to have faith or not have faith. It seems innate, though maybe you can *program* some people to be more inclined to faith-based truncation. For my part, I'm inherently lazy. I don't take action unless there are forces pressuring me to do so. In general, I believe some automatable process should be done manually first, then (and only then) am I "allowed" to write a script to do it. I think this tendency was programmed into me from a) writing scripts that I (later) realized I only used once or twice and b) a bullshit detector I learned from hearing too many people refer to "thick" descriptions and big words that, when pursued, they couldn't reconstruct. A turning point was my 1st analysis course (after changing majors from EE into math). Jeff, my prof, posted on his door a paper of his proving the existence of some structure or another and that pushed me, unwillingly, into intuitionism.
Faith is simply an optimization method for avoiding work you may not need to do. If it's very hard to do the manual labor, then write the script (or build the robot, whatever). If it's very hard to write the script but you know how to sample the space a bit, then do that and work on the script later, if you have to. So, when a Jesus freak says "You have to have faith", I hear "I'm too lazy to do the work right now." And that's cool, as long as you don't pretend to have done work you haven't done. On 6/15/20 9:58 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Faith in a nutshell. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
< So, when a Jesus freak says "You have to have faith", I hear "I'm too lazy to do the work right now." And that's cool, as long as you don't pretend to have done work you haven't done. >
It is not cool to expect people to structure the world around some random person's laziness. Should they join a lazy club in order to get more political clout, then it is even more contemptible. On 6/15/20, 10:24 AM, "Friam on behalf of glen∉ℂ" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Yes! Faith is a truncation. The important distinction being that you can't choose to have faith or not have faith. It seems innate, though maybe you can *program* some people to be more inclined to faith-based truncation. For my part, I'm inherently lazy. I don't take action unless there are forces pressuring me to do so. In general, I believe some automatable process should be done manually first, then (and only then) am I "allowed" to write a script to do it. I think this tendency was programmed into me from a) writing scripts that I (later) realized I only used once or twice and b) a bullshit detector I learned from hearing too many people refer to "thick" descriptions and big words that, when pursued, they couldn't reconstruct. A turning point was my 1st analysis course (after changing majors from EE into math). Jeff, my prof, posted on his door a paper of his proving the existence of some structure or another and that pushed me, unwillingly, into intuitionism. Faith is simply an optimization method for avoiding work you may not need to do. If it's very hard to do the manual labor, then write the script (or build the robot, whatever). If it's very hard to write the script but you know how to sample the space a bit, then do that and work on the script later, if you have to. So, when a Jesus freak says "You have to have faith", I hear "I'm too lazy to do the work right now." And that's cool, as long as you don't pretend to have done work you haven't done. On 6/15/20 9:58 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Faith in a nutshell. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Well, maybe not. But we all do it. We can't help it because we are truncating machines. Even the most fastidious of us will succumb sporadically and truncate others according to our own limitations. We're all just cookie cutters slicing up the world arbitrarily. But I agree that we should be pressured into making our cookies larger ... and maybe with better designs. There are too many round cookies. Who, in their right mind, tiles a rectangular pan with circles?
On 6/15/20 10:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > It is not cool to expect people to structure the world around some random person's laziness. Should they join a lazy club in order to get more political clout, then it is even more contemptible. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
An interesting definition: "psychology is the discipline that explores the contradictions between the first and the third person point of view". Why do think it makes sense? Is it because the personality can be found at the places where both perspectives meet? Examples which define this personality spectrum would be Donald Trump who sees everything and everybody from the (selfish) first person point of view vs the Dalai Lama who considers everybody from the (selfless) third person point of view in the light of compassion. -J. -------- Original message -------- From: [hidden email] Date: 6/14/20 23:43 (GMT+01:00) To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response Somebody once said that Psychology is the discipline that explores the contradictions between the first and the third person point of view. I can see that. However, if I am to decide which side of the contradiction to privilege, I would choose the third person point of view. After all, there billions of you and only one of me. N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Would you ask a Facebook image labeling algorithm how it converts a picture into a name? If I were to try to write a set of bots to reproduce FRIAM conversations, I’d probably do it with an agent-based approach, and dump my mental model of each person into a program, and then run the programs together, like a sort of core-war game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_War I think the dynamics of this game would be predictable sometimes, and other times it would have long transients. Other times idiosyncratic word associations would redirect the conversation in unexpected directions. I’m not sure what you are asking. It seems like you see the reflection on behavior as different from behavior. To me it is all just behavior based on different inputs and types of outputs. From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> Marcus, That's a very fancy description. How did you come up with it? And how did you find the words to express it? -- Russ Abbott On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 1:12 PM Jon Zingale <[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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
It seems that the subject of free will is completely bound up in the subject of moral responsibility (especially historically), and often more narrowly bound up with the concept of good-evil dualism. While it may have been a useful tool, in ancient times for developing ideas like a criminal justice system, today it seems to me that more sophisticated frames for generative ethics exist. Historically, there have also been questions connecting free will to indeterminism and Aristotle's prime mover. Investigations here seem misaligned for investigating questions of moral responsibility. It really does not matter whether there is some phase space with cusps, singularities, or any other symmetrically breakable property. This seems to be where sciencey discussions move to speak about things below the Planck scale or something else equally stultifying and decidedly less useful. Why do we want to import the technology of free will, and to what application do we find it useful? Like god, free will is a strikingly unnecessary idea that is arguably responsible for the punish-reward perspective that many of us use to naively understand ideas of justice. A criminal justice system designed around free will constrains interpretation to focus on who does good or who does evil, in other frames we may not care whether or not Charles Manson is evil, but rather whether or not we want him running about with whatever agency the rest of us enjoy. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
I don't think free will is bound with (naive) morality at all. It's all about selection functions. Do I turn this way or that. Do I eat some food, go for a run, or read a book. So, I don't see it as "importing" anything. Free will is all about which things are bound and which things are free (and which things are partially bound ... constrained).
On 6/15/20 2:21 PM, Jon Zingale wrote: > It seems that the subject of free will is completely bound > up in the subject of moral responsibility (especially > historically), and often more narrowly bound up with the > concept of /good-evil/ dualism. [...] Why do we want to import the technology of free > will, and to what application do we find it useful? - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen says:
I don't think free will is bound with (naive) morality at all. It's all about selection functions. Do I turn this way or that. Do I eat some food, go for a run, or read a book. So, I don't see it as "importing" anything. Free will is all about which things are bound and which things are free (and which things are partially bound ... constrained). I would have to disagree. While I think that *will* more generally has to do with the agency you mention, conversations of *free will* are a kind of pathology that happens in the limit. When we discuss whether or not I have this choice or that, the most trivial philosophical cases are those of selection functions and don't require the full import of FREE will. Again, the discussion of free will is for the benefit of whom? Outside of conversations where we go back and forth about determinism and the degree to which biology is or is not able to exploit indeterminism, the motivating impetus for discussing free will is one of assigning responsibility. -- 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Does water vapor have more free will than ice?
On 6/15/20, 2:42 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen∉ℂ" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: I don't think free will is bound with (naive) morality at all. It's all about selection functions. Do I turn this way or that. Do I eat some food, go for a run, or read a book. So, I don't see it as "importing" anything. Free will is all about which things are bound and which things are free (and which things are partially bound ... constrained). On 6/15/20 2:21 PM, Jon Zingale wrote: > It seems that the subject of free will is completely bound > up in the subject of moral responsibility (especially > historically), and often more narrowly bound up with the > concept of /good-evil/ dualism. [...] Why do we want to import the technology of free > will, and to what application do we find it useful? - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
Jon, Glen,
As a matter of historical fact, I think Jon is right. But for me the most interesting cases of free will occur in the most trivial and banal situations. Let it be the case that I drop a dried cranberry on the floor: Am I going to bend down and pick it up? Or am I going to slip it into the toe space under the cupboard. I used to ask myself, as if I were in charge, Which shall I do? Now I just wait to see what I do. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 3:56 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response Glen says: I don't think free will is bound with (naive) morality at all. It's all about selection functions. Do I turn this way or that. Do I eat some food, go for a run, or read a book. So, I don't see it as "importing" anything. Free will is all about which things are bound and which things are free (and which things are partially bound ... constrained). I would have to disagree. While I think that *will* more generally has to do with the agency you mention, conversations of *free will* are a kind of pathology that happens in the limit. When we discuss whether or not I have this choice or that, the most trivial philosophical cases are those of selection functions and don't require the full import of FREE will. Again, the discussion of free will is for the benefit of whom? Outside of conversations where we go back and forth about determinism and the degree to which biology is or is not able to exploit indeterminism, the motivating impetus for discussing free will is one of assigning responsibility. -- 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
I don't think either of them have anything like what we call free will. But if pressed, I'd argue that ice has more free will than water vapor because whatever randomness happens inside either process will matter more in the case of ice than vapor.
On 6/15/20 2:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Does water vapor have more free will than ice? - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
Yes. To be hogtied by ancient philosophers' "science" would be irritating. What's most interesting about the concept is where selection happens and the scope of its impact.
On 6/15/20 3:04 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > But for me the most interesting cases of free will occur in the most trivial > and banal situations. Let it be the case that I drop a dried cranberry on > the floor: Am I going to bend down and pick it up? Or am I going to slip it > into the toe space under the cupboard. I used to ask myself, as if I were > in charge, Which shall I do? Now I just wait to see what I do. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Ok, I can make an ABM of that. Surely such an ABM does not display free will.
On 6/15/20, 2:42 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen∉ℂ" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: I don't think free will is bound with (naive) morality at all. It's all about selection functions. Do I turn this way or that. Do I eat some food, go for a run, or read a book. So, I don't see it as "importing" anything. Free will is all about which things are bound and which things are free (and which things are partially bound ... constrained). On 6/15/20 2:21 PM, Jon Zingale wrote: > It seems that the subject of free will is completely bound > up in the subject of moral responsibility (especially > historically), and often more narrowly bound up with the > concept of /good-evil/ dualism. [...] Why do we want to import the technology of free > will, and to what application do we find it useful? - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen: What's most interesting about the concept is where selection happens
and the scope of its impact. I hesitate to call this free will (except maybe to steal it away from deists as SteveG wishes to do with his notion of god), though I do appreciate your allusions to free and bound variables. To reiterate once more, before I drop the point, *free will* is a limiting notion that became *all the rage* for enlightenment thinkers. Much like SteveG sometimes plays a function which takes a thing and asks about its opposite, these enlightenment thinkers would take a concept, iterate, and ask about the limit. If we agree that a discussion of *will* is a discussion of scope (bound versus free) then fine, I also see this as useful. *Free will* on the other hand is (at best) another unnecessary proxy and (possibly at worst) an unfounded generalization. If we scope the conversation to ask to what degree can I choose to go to the store, or that frog can choose to jump, or that thermostat can choose to regulate, then I feel we are operating within meaningful bounds. We can call it agency, or will, or whatever. But perhaps we should leave *free will* in a corner somewhere to talk to itself. Because *free will* has a meaningful part to play in the history of responsibility, the *leaving in a corner* is not so easy with respect to the progeny of moral responsibility. Our institutions still doff their hats to *free will* and therefore continue to treat it as a viable technology. I feel that what makes *free will* a relevant discussion today is that it clearly needs to be *deprecated*. The question for me becomes, with what should we replace it? -- 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Nah. I'm not redefining the term at all. The definition I'm using is in the dictionary. It's in the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. It's a common usage and I won't be deprecating it. Just because there's a large body of people talking about 1 tiny subdomain of the term doesn't mean the standard definition should be changed.
On 6/15/20 4:06 PM, Jon Zingale wrote: > I hesitate to call this free will (except maybe to steal it away from deists > as SteveG wishes to do with his notion of god), though I do appreciate your > allusions to free and bound variables. To reiterate once more, before I drop > the point, *free will* is a limiting notion that became *all the rage* for > enlightenment thinkers. Much like SteveG sometimes plays a function which > takes a thing and asks about its opposite, these enlightenment thinkers > would take a concept, iterate, and ask about the limit. If we agree that a > discussion of *will* is a discussion of scope (bound versus free) then fine, > I also see this as useful. *Free will* on the other hand is (at best) > another unnecessary proxy and (possibly at worst) an unfounded > generalization. If we scope the conversation to ask to what degree can I > choose to go to the store, or that frog can choose to jump, or that > thermostat can choose to regulate, then I feel we are operating within > meaningful bounds. We can call it agency, or will, or whatever. But perhaps > we should leave *free will* in a corner somewhere to talk to itself. > > Because *free will* has a meaningful part to play in the history of > responsibility, the *leaving in a corner* is not so easy with respect to the > progeny of moral responsibility. Our institutions still doff their hats to > *free will* and therefore continue to treat it as a viable technology. I > feel that what makes *free will* a relevant discussion today is that it > clearly needs to be *deprecated*. The question for me becomes, with what > should we replace it? - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
ha! ok, well at least read the article.
-- 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
This is how discussions about free will usually end, with someone deciding to define it in some narrow technical way that avoids the obvious problems Jon mentions. This avoids the issue and others carry on with their magical thinking.
On 6/15/20, 5:20 PM, "glen∉ℂ" <[hidden email]> wrote: Nah. I'm not redefining the term at all. The definition I'm using is in the dictionary. It's in the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. It's a common usage and I won't be deprecating it. Just because there's a large body of people talking about 1 tiny subdomain of the term doesn't mean the standard definition should be changed. On 6/15/20 4:06 PM, Jon Zingale wrote: > I hesitate to call this free will (except maybe to steal it away from deists > as SteveG wishes to do with his notion of god), though I do appreciate your > allusions to free and bound variables. To reiterate once more, before I drop > the point, *free will* is a limiting notion that became *all the rage* for > enlightenment thinkers. Much like SteveG sometimes plays a function which > takes a thing and asks about its opposite, these enlightenment thinkers > would take a concept, iterate, and ask about the limit. If we agree that a > discussion of *will* is a discussion of scope (bound versus free) then fine, > I also see this as useful. *Free will* on the other hand is (at best) > another unnecessary proxy and (possibly at worst) an unfounded > generalization. If we scope the conversation to ask to what degree can I > choose to go to the store, or that frog can choose to jump, or that > thermostat can choose to regulate, then I feel we are operating within > meaningful bounds. We can call it agency, or will, or whatever. But perhaps > we should leave *free will* in a corner somewhere to talk to itself. > > Because *free will* has a meaningful part to play in the history of > responsibility, the *leaving in a corner* is not so easy with respect to the > progeny of moral responsibility. Our institutions still doff their hats to > *free will* and therefore continue to treat it as a viable technology. I > feel that what makes *free will* a relevant discussion today is that it > clearly needs to be *deprecated*. The question for me becomes, with what > should we replace it? - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
I agree. I doubt it would display free will, too. But it's an interesting question whether it would or not. It's an even more interesting question whether it would *look* like it exhibited free will, which is the question RussA asked.
On 6/15/20 3:25 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Ok, I can make an ABM of that. Surely such an ABM does not display free will. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Anyone that says an ABM can display Free Will, running on what we conventionally call a serial computer, is certainly talking about a different concept.
On 6/15/20, 5:35 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen∉ℂ" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: I agree. I doubt it would display free will, too. But it's an interesting question whether it would or not. It's an even more interesting question whether it would *look* like it exhibited free will, which is the question RussA asked. On 6/15/20 3:25 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Ok, I can make an ABM of that. Surely such an ABM does not display free will. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Well, you only said you could write an ABM. You didn't mention "conventionally call a serial computer". Given where you work, you might have been hypothesizing that you could write an ABM on some other kind of computer. But whatever, I already agreed that it wouldn't. I'll repeat that what's more interesting is whether it would *look* like it did ... whether it could *simulate* free will, which is the topic at hand.
Again, I'm not talking about a different concept. I'm talking about this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freewill On 6/15/20 5:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Anyone that says an ABM can display Free Will, running on what we conventionally call a serial computer, is certainly talking about a different concept. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |