Indeed. An illusion with no grounding. A social construct.
From: Friam on behalf of Jochen Fromm
Date: Sunday, June 22, 2025 at 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will part 20250620
My impression is that the answer to the problem of
The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will part 20250620
Indeed. An illusion with no grounding. A social construct.
From: Friam on behalf of Jochen Fromm
Date: Sunday, June 22, 2025 at 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
S
lfred
Melehttps://youtu.be/JmScv7ut22UHe also appears in "Big Questions in Free
Will"https://youtu.be/9uRTjfhIf4M-J.
Original message From: Marcus Daniels
Date: 6/22/25 9:00 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM]
: Friday, June 20, 2025 12:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Free will part 20250620
A second blog post about free will in the series of philosophical blog articles
nobody needs :) I tried to mention all references and inspirations. If I forgot
to mention
A second blog post about free will in the series of philosophical blog articles
nobody needs :) I tried to mention all references and inspirations. If I forgot
to mention someone please let me know.
https://blog.cas-group.net/2025/06/the-hard-problem-of-free-will/-J..- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- -
IS.
>
> My snarky flipness was maybe a reflection of the inner tension I feel in
> this discussion... that I can take either or both sides pretty effectively
> and don't find the arguments of one extrema very compelling to my other
> extrema (and vice-versa). The epitome of ambi-
to *grow* the scope of
>>>> "beings like me" and even without the benefit of various organic alkaloids
>>>> (et al) that others here might use to get into that mood? I'm pretty
>>>> open to granting AI/ML models something *like* (my) consciousness,
feel in
> this discussion... that I can take either or both sides pretty effectively
> and don't find the arguments of one extrema very compelling to my other
> extrema (and vice-versa). The epitome of ambi-valence?
>
> Maybe there is useful meta-argument which helps resol
a very compelling to my other
>> extrema (and vice-versa). The epitome of ambi-valence?
>>
>> Maybe there is useful meta-argument which helps resolve that? Maybe
>> everyone else is able to get a good grip on one extrema or the other and
>> recognize the opposit
or the other and
> recognize the opposite one acutely absurd?
>
>
> *From:* Friam *On
> Behalf Of *steve smith
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2025 2:24 PM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever
> wiring?
>
>
>
trema or the other and
recognize the opposite one acutely absurd?
*From:*Friam *On Behalf Of *steve smith
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2025 2:24 PM
*To:* friam@redfish.com
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever
wiring?
On 6/10/25 9:44 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote
:27 PM Marcus Daniels wrote:
> This conversation is well into bad faith now. I’m done.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *steve smith
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2025 2:24 PM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever
&g
This conversation is well into bad faith now. I’m done.
From: Friam On Behalf Of steve smith
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 2:24 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring?
On 6/10/25 9:44 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Consider a
On 6/10/25 9:44 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Consider a robot with sensors roughly comparable to humans.
The robot has access to all the energy it wants. It has a large
memory and generous computing resources. It has executive processes
with onboard state-of-the-art LLMs to access vast infor
riday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the
machine or just clever wiring? < As long as they obey the directive all these
bots and robots have the freedom to pick the action they think is best. In this
sense they have free will. >The robot’
Thompson
Date: 6/10/25 1:47 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever
wiring?
I am overwhelmingly happy to take a position on free will for Marcus:
You don’t have it, I don’t have it. George doesn
Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring?
You say as long as a robot's behaviors is 100% a function of its internal state
and the external state it is coupled to we have no free will because the
function determines the output and not some
< As long as they obey the directive all these bots and robots have the freedom
to pick the action they think is best. In this sense they have free will. >
The robot’s behaviors will be 100% a function of its internal state and the
external state it is coupled to (even if that external state
arcus Daniels
Date: 6/10/25 5:46 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the
machine or just clever wiring? Consider a robot with sensors roughly comparable
to humans.The robot has access to all the energy it wants. I
: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring?
In response to: "To have free will means that one really could have done
otherwise."
I can write a simple optimization algorithm that evaluates altern
, 2025 9:43 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever
> wiring?
>
>
>
> Before we tackle your robot's free will will, let me ask: how do you
> define fr
orning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring?
Before we tackle your robot's free will will, let me ask: how do you define
free will? And do humans actually have it?
Now, let’s flip it around. If this clever robot behaves
ard hardware random number generator that drives its LLM
> sampling and any other stochastic algorithm.
>
>
>
> Does this robot have free will? Why or why not?
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:06 AM
> *To:* The Friday Mor
? Why or why not?
From: Friam On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:06 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring?
You argue "free will is a pattern, a relentless stubbornne
least in principlehttps://youtu.be/4vtVOJB2r4QJ.
Original message From: Nicholas Thompson
Date: 6/10/25 1:47 AM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re:
[FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring? I am
overwhelming
I could barely begin to get traction on Smolin's "fecund universes"
conception but I'm lost with white vs black holes and while my intuition
wants to let in "time" (and causality?) as emergent properties, I'm
clearly lacking a great deal even with "George's" clever help.
Wild. Thank you!
2. Suppose the Big Bang the result of a unifying supermassive black hole.
Eric writes:
< I know “the result of” gives wiggle room, but I don’t think there will be an
unpack that draws any association between these two phenomena. >
Maybe not one but many? https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.
Wild. Thank you! Good grief.
And mine too.
Eric
> On Jun 10, 2025, at 12:03, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> 2. Suppose the Big Bang the result of a unifying supermassive black hole.
>
> Eric writes:
>
> < I know “the result of” gives wiggle room, but I don’t think there will be
> an unpa
I am overwhelmingly happy to take a position on free will for Marcus:
You don’t have it, I don’t have it. George doesn’t have it. Will is not the
sort of thing that can be had. It is a pattern, a relentless stubbornness in
doing.
Sent from my Dumb Phone
On Jun 9, 2025, at 2:36 PM, steve smith
the edges are
not possible or completely predictable, what’s changed is the knowledge of the
neighbor nodes, not the target.
From: Friam on behalf of Santafe
Date: Monday, June 9, 2025 at 2:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in
definite position? Can ChatGPT have free
>> will or not. If not, why not?
>>__ __
>>*From:*Friam > <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
>>*Sent:* Monday, June 9, 2025 12:01 PM
>>*To:* The Friday Morning Ap
cus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
Could someone please take a definite position? Can ChatGPT have free will
or not. If not, why not?
__ __
*From:*Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>>
*On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
*Sent:* Monday, June 9, 2025 1
And Eric.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025, 1:50 PM Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Thanks, Pieter
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2025,
Thanks, Pieter
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025, 12:45 PM Pieter Steenekamp
wrote:
> I'll let George answer:
>
> EPR refers to the *Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox*, a 1935 thought
> experiment by Einstein, Podolsky, an
> On Jun 10, 2025, at 3:44, Pieter Steenekamp
> wrote:
>
> I'll let George answer:
> EPR refers to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, a 1935 thought experiment
> by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. It challenges the completeness of quantum
> mechanics by showing that, under its rules, two par
hy not?
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
> *Sent:* Monday, June 9, 2025 12:01 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever
> wiring?
>
A human in a straightjacket, locked in a padded room, would have similar
difficulties.
From: Friam on behalf of Prof David West
Date: Monday, June 9, 2025 at 12:26 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring?
Chat GPT does not have
owledge of God's plan and then reject it—think Satan in Milton's Paradise
Lost.
Such an act would, to me, seem as if it was 'Free Will'.
davew
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025, at 1:56 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
And it all makes perfect sense provided the measurer is also deter
On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
> *Sent:* Monday, June 9, 2025 12:01 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring?
>
> If you want to explain free will by entanglement then I would say free
, to me, seem as if it was 'Free Will'.
davew
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025, at 1:56 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> And it all makes perfect sense provided the measurer is also deterministic.
>
> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp
> *Sent:* Monday, June 9, 2025 11:44 AM
Could someone please take a definite position? Can ChatGPT have free will or
not. If not, why not?
From: Friam On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 12:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the
machine or just clever wiring? Here’s an idea that’s been helping me to
procrastinate. 1. Suppose that spacetime is an embedding of entanglement. An
evolved quantum error correcting code (QEC) that enables a network to form
geometries like the
And it all makes perfect sense provided the measurer is also deterministic.
From: Friam On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 11:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring
I'll let George answer:
EPR refers to the *Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox*, a 1935 thought
experiment by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. It challenges the completeness
of quantum mechanics by showing that, under its rules, two particles can
become *entangled*—so that measuring one instantly affect
On 6/9/25 12:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
Why do you call ChatGPT George? I must have missed it. Or who was George?
We have a bar named George R in Berlin by the way, in the quarter
where I live. It is named after George Remus, an American bootlegger
during the Prohibition era
https://en.wikip
What is "EPR"? What is the attraction to acronyms about?
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Sun, Jun 8, 2025, 11:38 PM Pieter Steenekamp
wrote:
> Seth Lloyd’s Turing test for free will (
> https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions
.
Original message From: Marcus Daniels
Date: 6/9/25 8:19 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the
machine or just clever wiring? As long as you admit Geroge has free will, then
I won’t push back. From: Friam On
As long as you admit Geroge has free will, then I won’t push back.
From: Friam On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 11:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring?
The question of
amp
Date: 6/9/25 7:38 AM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM]
Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring? Seth Lloyd’s Turing test
for free will
(https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/lloyd/Turing_Test.pdf)
deterministic and not facilitate any free will!
Now I should get back to work.
From: Friam on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp
Date: Sunday, June 8, 2025 at 10:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring?
Seth
Seth Lloyd’s Turing test for free will (
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/lloyd/Turing_Test.pdf)
is to consciousness what EPR was to quantum physics: a challenge to the
theory's completeness. EPR said quantum weirdness must hide something
deeper; Bell said “let's test tha
On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 03:58:57PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> I put a comment Jochen's blog. Why dont we carry on over there and help him
> generate traffic. I have attached here a couple of papers that support the
> view that people are lousy predictors of their own behavior. If we [
: [FRIAM] free will
Well, i'm not really talking about scientists. I'm talking about, e.g.,
connectome components modeling each other, following on the Laird & Mitchell
content previously mentioned. Each component "models" the components it
interfaces with. And it's
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
Right. But no matter how falsified the model, making all models perfect won't
be possible (unless the modeling component is The One perfect inferencer in the
universe, ala Wolpert). So there will always be a truncation error on all (or
t
ssume such a threshold. For illustration,
one might ablate the Anterior Cingulate Cortex of an objectionable politician
usinghigh-intensity focused ultrasound.
*From: *Friam on behalf of glen
*Date: *Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 9:43 AM
*To: *friam@redfish.com
*Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] free
objectionable politician using
high-intensity focused ultrasound.
From: Friam on behalf of glen
Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 9:43 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
There is a type of rule related to error (as opposed to randomness) or
precision. One part may approximate
26, 2025 2:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
This was in a way the point I was arguing a while back, and the reason I
repeated it now.
Marcus asked (two days ago) in rhetorical mode whether, if the MLs didn’t only
exchange characters of t
ffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
This was in a way the point I was arguing a while back, and the reason I
repeated it now.
Marcus asked (two days ago) in rhetorical mode whether, if the MLs didn’t only
exchange characters of text, but also had cameras and some other modes of
input, what w
5/25 3:03 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
I think I know, rather than repeating things I have said before, what I would
like to ask specifically to break away from simply repeating this question in a
circle that grants common-language usa
gt;> Date: 2/25/25 3:03 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
>> I think I know, rather than repeating things I have said before, what I
>> would like to ask specifically to break away from simply repeat
@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
On 2/24/25 10:03 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
What is special, if anything, about organisms that have nervous systems built
on organic chemistry that could enable something else?
Poised Realm?
OrchOR?
I doubt both equally, but I think that is what
25 3:03 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
I think I know, rather than repeating things I have said before, what I would
like to ask specifically to break away from simply repeating this question in a
circle that grants common-lang
ental problems are related. Interesting, isn't
it? -J.
Original message From: Nicholas Thompson
Date: 2/25/25 8:51 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re:
[FRIAM] Free will part 20250223
Hi, Jochen,
I thought I would beard y
on behalf of Frank Wimberly
*Date: *Monday, February 24, 2025 at 8:51 PM
*To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] free will
No
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025, 4:27 PM
2/25/25 3:03 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will I think I know, rather
than repeating things I have said before, what I would like to ask specifically
to break away from simply repeating this question in a circle that gran
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
"What is special, if anything, about organisms that have nervous systems built
on organic chemistry that could enable something else?"
For the most part, I agree with you. Why shouldn't there be silicon
arc
"What is special, if anything, about organisms that have nervous systems
built on organic chemistry that could enable something else?"
For the most part, I agree with you. Why shouldn't there be silicon
architectures that get arbitrarily close to the agential quality exhibited
by life. On the oth
> On Feb 25, 2025, at 14:50, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> If you think that you are better able to predict your own behavior than your
> partner — or your dog, for that matter — then the evidence is against you.
> First-person accounts of behavioral causality are notoriously shoddy. I feel
>
Hi, Jochen,
I thought I would beard you in your den!
I think the question is whether to privilege the first person or the third
person view. To anyone who privileges the third person view the question of
whether animals have free will or humans don’t is just cartesian silliness.
To an experience
and
sensiomotor feedback, and was continuously training and performing inference,
could it have free will?
From: Friam On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
Actually I don't c
eedback, and was continuously training and performing
>> inference, could it have free will?
>>
>> From: Friam On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:08 PM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] fr
ng inference,
> could it have free will?
>
> From: Friam On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:08 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
>
> Actually I don't care much about views or traffic. I
ng inference,
> could it have free will?
>
> From: Friam On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:08 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
>
> Actually I don't care much about views or traffic. I
] free will
No
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025, 4:27 PM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
If a LLM had constant inputs from cameras, microphones, chemical sensors, and
sensiomotor fe
orming
> inference, could it have free will?
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
> *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2025 1:08 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] free will
>
>
Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] free will
Actually I don't care much about views or traffic. I don't think many people
read it except the ones from this list. But I like discussions about
interesting topics. I mentioned the blog post here because I wasn't sure if
Actually I don't care much about views or traffic. I don't think many people
read it except the ones from this list. But I like discussions about
interesting topics. I mentioned the blog post here because I wasn't sure if I
have (maybe unconsciously) stolen an idea from one of you. Humans often
FYI if someone is interested I've written a blog post about "Free Will". It is
based on stuff I have written here. Do people still write blog posts in the age
of all knowing AIs? I don't know. Will somebody read it? Probably not. Well I
feel I am getting
old..https://blog.cas-group.net/2025/02/
Hi Marcus,
Yes, this gets to the nut of it for me:
> On Apr 10, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> Anyway, 't Hooft doesn't say QM is flawed, just that QM isn't an explanation.
> He makes the distinction between the value of his idea as an interpretation
> vs. the possibility it (C
offee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic
Hi Marcus,
Yes, this gets to the nut of it for me:
> On Apr 10, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> Anyway, 't Hooft doesn't say QM is flawed, just that QM isn't an explanation.
> He makes the
riam On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 8:36 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic
>
> Ha! OK. I'll try to read that. I read the abstract 4 times and still don't
> know what I'm about to read. I read the intro
seems along the same lines.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0286
-Original Message-
From: Friam On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 1:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic
I also found this post fa
what science is?
[1] https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-41285-6
-Original Message-
From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 8:36 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic
Ha! OK. I'll try to read that. I read the abstrac
Ha! OK. I'll try to read that. I read the abstract 4 times and still don't know
what I'm about to read. I read the introduction once and still don't know what
to expect. My next step is the Discussion, then the meat. If you care to toss a
bone, I'd appreciate it. But then again, you might be rew
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.02019.pdf
On Apr 8, 2021, at 9:15 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
Yeah, I tend to agree. The default position is "no such thing" and the burden
is on those making a positive claim. I feel that way about actual infinity,
moral intuitionism, natural law, etc. as well. Appeals t
Yeah, I tend to agree. The default position is "no such thing" and the burden
is on those making a positive claim. I feel that way about actual infinity,
moral intuitionism, natural law, etc. as well. Appeals to common sense and
pragmatism are the most suspect, but often the most useful.
On 4/8
Glen writes:
< If will is a kind of historic, hysteric, momentous trajectory within one's
skin and freedom is a very small scale symmetry between multiple stable
trajectories, then free will might be a small scale symmetry breaking that
results in large scale trajectory changing. The argument i
.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic
"What is this pantheism and why can't we take it apart or study it?"
FWIW, I am also an atheist and I feel that I never had a choice in being any
other way. The free will-determinism discussion seems to happen seasonally on
Friam
I'm assuming you meant that what you don't understand is accepting (a) and free
will. I'll lay out how I think it can happen. I don't necessarily believe what
I'm about to write. But I don't believe anything ... so there's that.
If will is a kind of historic, hysteric, momentous trajectory withi
>From a very high altitude perspective, humans are either:
a) the atoms in our bodies and behavior is the result of complexity that
emerges from the interaction of all the different physical components in
our body. To quote Yoshua Epstein "if you haven't grown it, you haven't
explained it"
or
b) th
"What is this pantheism and why can't we take it apart or study it?"
FWIW, I am also an atheist and I feel that I never had a choice in
being any other way. The free will-determinism discussion seems to
happen seasonally on Friam and it provides an opportunity to reason
differently. This round has
this has
complicated reductionism a little but I don’t see how it facilitates free will.
From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 4:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic
If you have access via a
ls. If you want to understand the world, you follow the
>> evidence, not what you want to be true.
>>
>> [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full#h5
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam On Behalf Of jon zingale
>
ontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full#h5
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam On Behalf Of jon zingale
> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 2:33 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic
>
> "Or do we assert, as the Free Will
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 2:33 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic
"Or do we assert, as the Free Will contingent do, that Will is above the fray?"
Ok, so I continue to struggle with what it is that concerns me about the
assumption of determinism
"Or do we assert, as the Free Will contingent do, that Will is above the
fray?"
Ok, so I continue to struggle with what it is that concerns me about the
assumption of determinism. Marcus's point about the loci of *will*
requires serious consideration. From where I stand, arguments opposing
free wi
"Or do we assert, as the Free Will contingent do, that Will is above the
fray?"
Will is above this time with respect to that thing and other times not,
perhaps? Some have mentioned Spinoza on this (or threads like it) and since
it is Jochen's thread, I name him. It's pantheism all the way down.
"""
In a world that has no regularities at all, there is no benefit in trying to
find system-level mappings between action and reaction because will just be
different every time.Our friend Will is tasked with navigating this
impossible space, but it is impossible as defined? If there are some
Jon writes:
< Assumption: All may be random. The search for the generating function is a
search through a space whose geometric properties (smoothness, continuity,
genus) we simply do not know. As we perform our descent, we do not know whether
all tangents are well defined nor how successive ap
Last week's Science reports on studies which induced mice to act as if they
were hallucinating a sound.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6537/33
The ability to detect external stimuli rapidly and accurately by building
> internal sensory representations is a central computation of the b
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
