Here it is again. And note that I'm not committed to *anything* in this. I'd simply like to talk about something relatively concrete. Feel free to come up with your own constructive MECHANISM for what we call "free will". Simply denying it's existence is inadequate, gets us nowhere.
On 6/16/20 5:35 AM, glen∉ℂ wrote: > As usual, I am below arguing a position that I don't necessarily believe. > This is a game, a temporary hypothesis. Precede every assertion with "Let's > say that ..." > > 1) There's no need for two of you. You are a steady mesh of choices in > parallel, from the tiniest cellular process to picking up the cranberry. And > I agree, there's no need for free will there. > > 2) The "two behavioral tendencies" are not *two*. They are a loose collection > of many behaviors that *might* group, ungroup, and regroup. The compositional > machinery that does the grouping does NOT pit one group of behaviors against > another group of behaviors. It mixes and matches behaviors to arrive at a > grouping that (kinda-sorta) optimizes for least effort. > > 3) The "first person sense" is the perception of irreversibility. It is the > mesh of you clipping the tree of possibilities. In a different post, you > asked "freedom from what?" The answer I'm proposing here is: freedom from > evaluating/realizing every POSSIBLE next event. At any given instant, there's > a (composite) probability distribution for everything that *could* happen in > the next instant. Some events are vanishingly unlikely. Other events are > overwhelmingly likely. The interesting stuff is somewhere in between, like > 50% likely to happen. Within some ε of 50% are the things you > sense/feel/perceive. And as the options fall away, you feel/realize the lost > opportunity. That is the first person perspective you talk about. Again, no > free will is required. > > 4) When you feel that lost opportunity, i.e. when you sense that you've now > gone down an irreversible path, for a little while, you can ask "what if I'd > taken that path and not this one?" Again, no free will is required, only the > ability to *perceive* that there were other paths your mesh/machine could > have taken if the universe had been different. > > 5) That cohesive sensing is identical to the compositional machinery in (2) > above. There's a storage/memory to that compositional machinery that can > remember the historical trace the mesh took ... the "choices" made by the > mesh. So, the NEXT time your mesh is on a similar trajectory, your > compositional machinery will be slightly biased by your history. > > That memory of lost opportunities is what we call free will. On 6/17/20 12:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: > I am still trying to extract Glen’s model from the splatter. GEEZUZ it’s > difficult, even with nabble on my side. -- ☣ 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 archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
