tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post6125726463491298044..comments2024-03-27T19:47:13.475-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Defending electrons with free willRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-55157718150927633142016-01-29T06:35:03.529-08:002016-01-29T06:35:03.529-08:00Roger, this whole debate is confused by people con...Roger, this whole debate is confused by people conflating their subjective interpretations of free will with their objective interpretation of the universe. The universe is constrained by the laws of physics. Willpower is constrained by an inability to subjectively choose possible futures. Those possible futures only make sense relative to the subjective perspective of the human, not to the determinacy of the universe. It is incoherent to say that subjective free will is simultaneously constrained by a lack of control over the future and eliminated by the laws of nature. The subjective and objective definitions of "determined" are being conflated.<br /><br />It is much easier to think about this problem if you imagine what free will would be like for an artificially intelligent agent. You can quickly realize that the robot would necessarily maintain two separate descriptions of its own freedom of will - first, the subjective reference of willful action, and second, the objective phenomenon of willful action. Such an agent would have to understand that there is a sense in which it can control the future (the subjective sense) and there is a sense in which it cannot control the future (the objective sense). In the former sense, that control is relative to the subjective context, in the later sense, that control is relative to the objective, universal context. However, it was always an error to conflate subjective free will with the objective, universal context.<br /><br />And if you go ask the average person, their definition of free will is more in line with the subjective definition of free will, not this universalized definition of free will that is somehow noncontingent on correlated causes. Noncontingent free will is simply incoherent.johnmn3https://www.blogger.com/profile/15646982662329984779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-12082633269625738512016-01-19T16:00:38.813-08:002016-01-19T16:00:38.813-08:00"Physics books do not explain consciousness o..."Physics books do not explain consciousness or free will, and that is reasonable as there is very little relevant scientific data, but they ought to explain randomness. Many physicists apparently think that randomness implies a lack of free will, or the splitting of a parallel universe, or an intrinsic physical entity like energy or temperature, or even a superdeterministic illusion. Each of these four ideas is crazy."<br /><br />But they're crazy because they don't explain any of the strange objective phenomena we subjectively experience. Even cartoons, like Gravity Falls, mention the cryptic supernatural and scientists of the past recognized things mathematical physics never explained:<br />http://www.backwardations.blogspot.com/2016/01/dont-be-cipher-at-weirdmageddon.html<br />https://backwardations.blogspot.com/2015/10/western-sleepers-cant-read-between-lines.html<br />http://www.backwardations.blogspot.com/2016/01/911-daryl-updated.html<br />https://backwardations.blogspot.com/2016/01/battle-of-bookworms.html<br /><br />What is missing is the role of a greater will. This puts the entire "randomness" discussion into contention because we can't even define what we are talking about and inventing fictitious distributions obscures rather than illuminates the issue. We never leave room for God, besides chaotic sensitivity to initial conditions. Low-IQ people can't see the patterns. I consider most physicists brain-damaged and I'm entirely serious about that. They're clinically retarded when accounting for their right-hemisphere dysfunction. Let's put them in an MRI scanner and prove it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com