Free will
in [Lisp]
|
From: Bob Felts on 27 May 2010 16:14 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > In article <1jj5hmz.y920qf1ts5pjiN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > > > I never said that intelligence was a simple binary property. Are you > > > > intelligent? Is Ron? > > > > > > Are those yes-or-no questions? > > > > > > > For you and Ron, I would have thought yes. > > > > You're the fourth person I've asked this question, and I'm 4 for 4 on > > not getting an answer. > > (http://stablecross.com/files/category-dialogs.html) > > > > This is just absolutely fascinating. One would think that you wouldn't > > hesitate a bit in answering "yes" to the question "are you intelligent?" > > And yet we do. So clearly your theory of how the world works needs > revision. Not really. I think the lack of the obvious (that a being who is intelligent, and knows him/herself to be intelligent, would answer "yes" to the question "are you intelligent") reveals a deeper issue. In the cases I published, I have a theory as to what it is. If I reveal my guess, and you don't agree with it, will you reveal your actual reason(s)?
From: Bob Felts on 27 May 2010 16:31 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > In article <1jj5o1o.zxe1og1o73kdaN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > What provides that creative spark and (apparently limitless) state > > space? What determines what you imagine? > > It is instructive here to do some math. How many bits does it take you to imagine a google (10^100)? How many bits does it take you to imagine a naked Douglas Adams, painted blue, riding a pink unicorn on a tightrope? How many bits do illusions need for things, anyway?
From: RG on 27 May 2010 16:36 In article <1jj5rgp.yjnm1m10ffufwN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > > > In article <1jj5hmz.y920qf1ts5pjiN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > > > > > I never said that intelligence was a simple binary property. Are you > > > > > intelligent? Is Ron? > > > > > > > > Are those yes-or-no questions? > > > > > > > > > > For you and Ron, I would have thought yes. > > > > > > You're the fourth person I've asked this question, and I'm 4 for 4 on > > > not getting an answer. > > > (http://stablecross.com/files/category-dialogs.html) > > > > > > This is just absolutely fascinating. One would think that you wouldn't > > > hesitate a bit in answering "yes" to the question "are you intelligent?" > > > > And yet we do. So clearly your theory of how the world works needs > > revision. > > Not really. Yes, really. > I think the lack of the obvious (that a being who is > intelligent, and knows him/herself to be intelligent, would answer "yes" > to the question "are you intelligent") reveals a deeper issue. Of course it does. It reveals that your world model is wrong. > In the > cases I published, I have a theory as to what it is. If I reveal my > guess, and you don't agree with it, will you reveal your actual > reason(s)? My actual reasons for what? For not answering your question? No, I will not reveal my reason as part of some silly quid pro quo. If you really want to know, I suggest you try just asking. rg
From: Bob Felts on 27 May 2010 17:31 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > In article <1jj5rgp.yjnm1m10ffufwN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <1jj5hmz.y920qf1ts5pjiN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > > > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > > > > > > > I never said that intelligence was a simple binary property. > > > > > > Are you intelligent? Is Ron? > > > > > > > > > > Are those yes-or-no questions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > For you and Ron, I would have thought yes. > > > > > > > > You're the fourth person I've asked this question, and I'm 4 for 4 on > > > > not getting an answer. > > > > (http://stablecross.com/files/category-dialogs.html) > > > > > > > > This is just absolutely fascinating. One would think that you wouldn't > > > > hesitate a bit in answering "yes" to the question "are you intelligent?" > > > > > > And yet we do. So clearly your theory of how the world works needs > > > revision. > > > > Not really. > > Yes, really. > You're confusing "is" and "ought" I think you "ought" to answer yes. I know that you don't and I think I know why your "ought" is different from my "ought". After all, my theory of how the world works includes multiple, contradictory, oughts in the minds of beings with creative power. > > I think the lack of the obvious (that a being who is intelligent, and > > knows him/herself to be intelligent, would answer "yes" to the question > > "are you intelligent") reveals a deeper issue. > > Of course it does. It reveals that your world model is wrong. > Really? What's the standard model of "ought" that I ought to use? > > In the cases I published, I have a theory as to what it is. If I reveal > > my guess, and you don't agree with it, will you reveal your actual > > reason(s)? > > My actual reasons for what? For not answering your question? No, I > will not reveal my reason as part of some silly quid pro quo. If you > really want to know, I suggest you try just asking. Well, Don is the one who didn't answer the question, not you. But, thanks. I'll ask. Are you intelligent? If you didn't answer "yes", why not? If you did answer yes: 1) Is this a scientific statement? If so, what scientific definition of intelligence did you use and what scientific test did you use? 2) If this isn't a scientific statement, is this and example of true knowledge that is outside of the scope of science, or do you think it's an example of "science-of-the-gaps"?
From: RG on 27 May 2010 19:07
In article <1jj5uz7.y9xgjy16pu4nxN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > Are you intelligent? Mu. > If you didn't answer "yes", why not? Because it's a stupid question. You might as well ask me if I'm good looking or if I have good taste in art. (I am and I do, by the way.) rg |