[P2P-F] Do you believe in free will??

Fri Dec 30 15:02:18 CET 2011

*interesting!*

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM, mp <mp at aktivix.org> 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 <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
> 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 <peter.mazsa at theunitedpersons.org>
> >> *To:* dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk; psidoc at gmail.com
> >> *Cc:* P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation at lists.ourproject.org>
> >> *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 <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> On 29 December 2011 19:58, Paul Hughes <psidoc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I have argued that the answer is ultimately yes:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.realitysandwich.com/super_free_will
> >>
> >> 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_subatomic_particles_have_free_will
> >> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20111230/59ab889c/attachment.htm 