Free will
in [Lisp]
|
From: Bob Felts on 27 May 2010 19:18 Bob Felts <wrf3(a)stablecross.com> wrote: > 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? To add a bit of levity, after I wrote this I remembered this old joke: Bob and Ron decide to prove their manhood by naming the biggest number they can imagine. Ron goes first and thinks and thinks and thinks. After about three hours, sweat starts streaming off his forehead. Finally, with much effort, he announces 3. To which Bob replies, "You win!" More seriously, http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html, shows that there are numbers that we can imagine that aren't computable. So Ron's question isn't appropriate.
From: RG on 27 May 2010 19:34 In article <1jj5ywl.1m4nlfb1bs3my6N%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > Bob Felts <wrf3(a)stablecross.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > To add a bit of levity, after I wrote this I remembered this old joke: > > Bob and Ron decide to prove their manhood by naming the biggest number > they can imagine. Ron goes first and thinks and thinks and thinks. > After about three hours, sweat starts streaming off his forehead. > Finally, with much effort, he announces 3. > > To which Bob replies, "You win!" > > More seriously, http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html, > shows that there are numbers that we can imagine that aren't computable. > So Ron's question isn't appropriate. Wow, you have so completely missed the point. Did you actually do the exercise? The point is not that the number you end up with is huge. rg
From: Bob Felts on 27 May 2010 19:38 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > 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.) I see. You have no problem stating that you're good looking or that you have good taste in art; but you won't directly answer whether or not you're intelligent. Note what you've done. You've gone and made your notion of good and evil the basis as to whether or not you'll answer a question. You claim it's a "stupid" (i.e. "bad") question. I claim it's not. In fact, I would answer "yes" (to both "are you intelligent" and "is Ron intelligent") and give reasons for why I answered the way I do. I might be wrong. Might make for an interesting discussion. Nevertheless, so much for cooperation and niceness as evolutionary strategies. What you really mean is "I'll cooperate with you only as long as it suits my desires" and "I'll be nice to you only when it suits me". All you've done is show that man is inherently selfish and, from an evolutionary standpoint, altruistic behavior really isn't.
From: Bob Felts on 27 May 2010 19:41 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > In article <1jj5ywl.1m4nlfb1bs3my6N%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > Bob Felts <wrf3(a)stablecross.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > To add a bit of levity, after I wrote this I remembered this old joke: > > > > Bob and Ron decide to prove their manhood by naming the biggest number > > they can imagine. Ron goes first and thinks and thinks and thinks. > > After about three hours, sweat starts streaming off his forehead. > > Finally, with much effort, he announces 3. > > > > To which Bob replies, "You win!" > > > > More seriously, http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html, > > shows that there are numbers that we can imagine that aren't computable. > > So Ron's question isn't appropriate. > > Wow, you have so completely missed the point. Did you actually do the > exercise? The point is not that the number you end up with is huge. I really want to spend some time working on my reply to Don. So why don't you just make your point?
From: RG on 27 May 2010 21:50
In article <1jj60bw.13lq2yv1m1pfb4N%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > > > 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.) > > I see. You have no problem stating that you're good looking or that you > have good taste in art; but you won't directly answer whether or not > you're intelligent. That's right. > Note what you've done. You've gone and made your notion of good and > evil the basis as to whether or not you'll answer a question. Good and evil? Dude, this is about being funny. Sing with me now: Oh lord, it's hard to be humble When you're perfect in every way I can't wait to look in the mirror 'cause I get better lookin' each day To know me is to love me I must be a hell of a man Oh lord, it's hard to be humble But I'm doin' the best that I can rg |