Do you believe in free will??
The materialist Christopher Hitchins who died very recently was asked the following question (ref source Richard Dawkins/Radio Four). Do you believe in free will? Yes, I have no choice! The following is a somewhat long bio on CH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
I have argued that the answer is ultimately yes: http://www.realitysandwich.com/super_free_will -Paul On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:34 AM, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
The materialist Christopher Hitchins who died very recently was asked the following question (ref source Richard Dawkins/Radio Four).
Do you believe in free will?
Yes, I have no choice!
The following is a somewhat long bio on CH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- (~*~)
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:34 AM, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
The materialist Christopher Hitchins who died very recently was asked the following question (ref source Richard Dawkins/Radio Four).
Do you believe in free will?
Yes, I have no choice!
The following is a somewhat long bio on CH
On 29 December 2011 19:58, Paul Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:
I have argued that the answer is ultimately yes:
FYI: The Strong Free Will Theorem "[...] our theorem asserts that if experimenters have a certain freedom, then particles have exactly the same kind of freedom. Indeed, it is natural to suppose that this latter freedom is the ultimate explanation of our own. [...] It may well be true that classically stochastic processes such as tossing a (true) coin do not help in explaining free will, but [...] adding randomness also does not explain the quantum mechanical effects described in our theorem. It is precisely the “semi-free” nature of twinned particles, and more generally of entanglement, that shows that something very different from classical stochasticism is at play here. Although the FWT [Free Will Theorem] suggests to us that determinism is not a viable option, it nevertheless enables us to agree with Einstein that “God does not play dice with the Universe.” In the present state of knowledge, it is certainly beyond our capabilities to understand the connection between the free decisions of particles and humans, but the free will of neither of these is accounted for by mere randomness. [...] determinism may formally be shown to be consistent, there is no longer any evidence that supports it, in view of the fact that classical physics has been superseded by quantum mechanics, a non-deterministic theory. The import of the free will theorem is that it is not only current quantum theory, but the world itself that is non-deterministic, so that no future theory can return us to a clockwork universe." http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf Cf. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Math_Trek__Do_subatom... P.
My old kheper article might be of amusement though a more advanced one is in the pipeline, and this "new" presentation which is also more complex will be known as the Eleutherian Theory. http://www.kheper.net/essays/A_Certain_Ethical_Problem_in_Esotericism.html ________________________________ From: Peter Mazsa <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 29 December 2011, 22:19 Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Do you believe in free will??
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:34 AM, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
The materialist Christopher Hitchins who died very recently was asked the following question (ref source Richard Dawkins/Radio Four).
Do you believe in free will?
Yes, I have no choice!
The following is a somewhat long bio on CH
On 29 December 2011 19:58, Paul Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:
I have argued that the answer is ultimately yes:
FYI: The Strong Free Will Theorem "[...] our theorem asserts that if experimenters have a certain freedom, then particles have exactly the same kind of freedom. Indeed, it is natural to suppose that this latter freedom is the ultimate explanation of our own. [...] It may well be true that classically stochastic processes such as tossing a (true) coin do not help in explaining free will, but [...] adding randomness also does not explain the quantum mechanical effects described in our theorem. It is precisely the “semi-free” nature of twinned particles, and more generally of entanglement, that shows that something very different from classical stochasticism is at play here. Although the FWT [Free Will Theorem] suggests to us that determinism is not a viable option, it nevertheless enables us to agree with Einstein that “God does not play dice with the Universe.” In the present state of knowledge, it is certainly beyond our capabilities to understand the connection between the free decisions of particles and humans, but the free will of neither of these is accounted for by mere randomness. [...] determinism may formally be shown to be consistent, there is no longer any evidence that supports it, in view of the fact that classical physics has been superseded by quantum mechanics, a non-deterministic theory. The import of the free will theorem is that it is not only current quantum theory, but the world itself that is non-deterministic, so that no future theory can return us to a clockwork universe." http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf Cf. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Math_Trek__Do_subatom... P.
I remember reading a whole article in the xmas issue of new statesman while I was in europe this month, 3-4 pages of critique against free will, from richard dawkins or similar scientist (it could have been dennett) but then mysteriously concluding that though we don't have free will, we have 'choice' ... in other words, ending up in the same place On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:36 PM, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
My old kheper article might be of amusement though a more advanced one is in the pipeline, and this "new" presentation which is also more complex will be known as the Eleutherian Theory.
http://www.kheper.net/essays/A_Certain_Ethical_Problem_in_Esotericism.html
*From:* Peter Mazsa <[email protected]> *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] *Cc:* P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> *Sent:* Thursday, 29 December 2011, 22:19 *Subject:* Re: [P2P-F] Do you believe in free will??
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:34 AM, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
The materialist Christopher Hitchins who died very recently was asked
the
following question (ref source Richard Dawkins/Radio Four).
Do you believe in free will?
Yes, I have no choice!
The following is a somewhat long bio on CH
On 29 December 2011 19:58, Paul Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:
I have argued that the answer is ultimately yes:
FYI: The Strong Free Will Theorem
"[...] our theorem asserts that if experimenters have a certain freedom, then particles have exactly the same kind of freedom. Indeed, it is natural to suppose that this latter freedom is the ultimate explanation of our own. [...] It may well be true that classically stochastic processes such as tossing a (true) coin do not help in explaining free will, but [...] adding randomness also does not explain the quantum mechanical effects described in our theorem. It is precisely the “semi-free” nature of twinned particles, and more generally of entanglement, that shows that something very different from classical stochasticism is at play here. Although the FWT [Free Will Theorem] suggests to us that determinism is not a viable option, it nevertheless enables us to agree with Einstein that “God does not play dice with the Universe.” In the present state of knowledge, it is certainly beyond our capabilities to understand the connection between the free decisions of particles and humans, but the free will of neither of these is accounted for by mere randomness. [...] determinism may formally be shown to be consistent, there is no longer any evidence that supports it, in view of the fact that classical physics has been superseded by quantum mechanics, a non-deterministic theory. The import of the free will theorem is that it is not only current quantum theory, but the world itself that is non-deterministic, so that no future theory can return us to a clockwork universe."
http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf
Cf. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Math_Trek__Do_subatom... P.
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
...free will probably exists, but if it does, then it will be very difficult to achieve in the haze of pressures, distortions, illusions and confusions arising from societal and market pressures, family and friends, not to mention evolutionary encoding, habits and all the contrivances with which we surround ourselves. However, it seems to me that Western philosophers, as is common, are looking in the wrong places, and therefore won't find anything of use. Perhaps they lack free will and act much too much on institutional leanings. Were I to explore the concept of free will, I would start with an in-depth investigation of wu wei or the doctrine of non-action - if you know when *not* to act, that is if you are able to resist preprogramming, then you might be closer to freedom. I would complement that with studies of magic, i.e. "the art and science of causing changes in consciousness in accordance with will". On 30/12/11 10:56, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I remember reading a whole article in the xmas issue of new statesman while I was in europe this month, 3-4 pages of critique against free will, from richard dawkins or similar scientist (it could have been dennett) but then mysteriously concluding that though we don't have free will, we have 'choice' ... in other words, ending up in the same place
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:36 PM, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
My old kheper article might be of amusement though a more advanced one is in the pipeline, and this "new" presentation which is also more complex will be known as the Eleutherian Theory.
http://www.kheper.net/essays/A_Certain_Ethical_Problem_in_Esotericism.html
*From:* Peter Mazsa <[email protected]> *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] *Cc:* P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> *Sent:* Thursday, 29 December 2011, 22:19 *Subject:* Re: [P2P-F] Do you believe in free will??
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:34 AM, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
The materialist Christopher Hitchins who died very recently was asked
the
following question (ref source Richard Dawkins/Radio Four).
Do you believe in free will?
Yes, I have no choice!
The following is a somewhat long bio on CH
On 29 December 2011 19:58, Paul Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:
I have argued that the answer is ultimately yes:
FYI: The Strong Free Will Theorem
"[...] our theorem asserts that if experimenters have a certain freedom, then particles have exactly the same kind of freedom. Indeed, it is natural to suppose that this latter freedom is the ultimate explanation of our own. [...] It may well be true that classically stochastic processes such as tossing a (true) coin do not help in explaining free will, but [...] adding randomness also does not explain the quantum mechanical effects described in our theorem. It is precisely the “semi-free” nature of twinned particles, and more generally of entanglement, that shows that something very different from classical stochasticism is at play here. Although the FWT [Free Will Theorem] suggests to us that determinism is not a viable option, it nevertheless enables us to agree with Einstein that “God does not play dice with the Universe.” In the present state of knowledge, it is certainly beyond our capabilities to understand the connection between the free decisions of particles and humans, but the free will of neither of these is accounted for by mere randomness. [...] determinism may formally be shown to be consistent, there is no longer any evidence that supports it, in view of the fact that classical physics has been superseded by quantum mechanics, a non-deterministic theory. The import of the free will theorem is that it is not only current quantum theory, but the world itself that is non-deterministic, so that no future theory can return us to a clockwork universe."
http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf
Cf. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Math_Trek__Do_subatom... P.
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
*interesting!* On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM, mp <[email protected]> wrote:
...free will probably exists, but if it does, then it will be very difficult to achieve in the haze of pressures, distortions, illusions and confusions arising from societal and market pressures, family and friends, not to mention evolutionary encoding, habits and all the contrivances with which we surround ourselves.
However, it seems to me that Western philosophers, as is common, are looking in the wrong places, and therefore won't find anything of use. Perhaps they lack free will and act much too much on institutional leanings.
Were I to explore the concept of free will, I would start with an in-depth investigation of wu wei or the doctrine of non-action - if you know when *not* to act, that is if you are able to resist preprogramming, then you might be closer to freedom. I would complement that with studies of magic, i.e. "the art and science of causing changes in consciousness in accordance with will".
On 30/12/11 10:56, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I remember reading a whole article in the xmas issue of new statesman while I was in europe this month, 3-4 pages of critique against free will, from richard dawkins or similar scientist (it could have been dennett) but then mysteriously concluding that though we don't have free will, we have 'choice' ... in other words, ending up in the same place
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:36 PM, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
My old kheper article might be of amusement though a more advanced one is in the pipeline, and this "new" presentation which is also more complex will be known as the Eleutherian Theory.
http://www.kheper.net/essays/A_Certain_Ethical_Problem_in_Esotericism.html
*From:* Peter Mazsa <[email protected]> *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] *Cc:* P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> *Sent:* Thursday, 29 December 2011, 22:19 *Subject:* Re: [P2P-F] Do you believe in free will??
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:34 AM, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
The materialist Christopher Hitchins who died very recently was asked
the
following question (ref source Richard Dawkins/Radio Four).
Do you believe in free will?
Yes, I have no choice!
The following is a somewhat long bio on CH
On 29 December 2011 19:58, Paul Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:
I have argued that the answer is ultimately yes:
FYI: The Strong Free Will Theorem
"[...] our theorem asserts that if experimenters have a certain freedom, then particles have exactly the same kind of freedom. Indeed, it is natural to suppose that this latter freedom is the ultimate explanation of our own. [...] It may well be true that classically stochastic processes such as tossing a (true) coin do not help in explaining free will, but [...] adding randomness also does not explain the quantum mechanical effects described in our theorem. It is precisely the “semi-free” nature of twinned particles, and more generally of entanglement, that shows that something very different from classical stochasticism is at play here. Although the FWT [Free Will Theorem] suggests to us that determinism is not a viable option, it nevertheless enables us to agree with Einstein that “God does not play dice with the Universe.” In the present state of knowledge, it is certainly beyond our capabilities to understand the connection between the free decisions of particles and humans, but the free will of neither of these is accounted for by mere randomness. [...] determinism may formally be shown to be consistent, there is no longer any evidence that supports it, in view of the fact that classical physics has been superseded by quantum mechanics, a non-deterministic theory. The import of the free will theorem is that it is not only current quantum theory, but the world itself that is non-deterministic, so that no future theory can return us to a clockwork universe."
http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf
Cf.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Math_Trek__Do_subatom...
P.
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
participants (5)
-
Michel Bauwens -
mp -
Paul Hughes -
Peter Mazsa -
robert searle