[Fis] What is “Agent”?

[Koichiro Matsuno]

On 19 Oct 2017 at 6:42 AM, Alex Hankey wrote:

 

the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe.

 

   This view is also supported by Conway-Kochen’s free will theorem (2006). If (a big IF, surely) we admit that our fellows can freely exercise their free will, it must be impossible to imagine that the atoms and molecules lack their share of the similar capacity. For our bodies eventually consist of those atoms and molecules. 

 

   Moreover, the exercise of free will on the part of the constituent atoms and molecules could come to implement the centripetality of Bob Ulanowicz at long last under the guise of chemical affinity unless the case would have to forcibly be dismissed.

 

   This has been my second post this week.

 

   Koichiro Matsuno

 

 

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Alex Hankey
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:42 AM
To: Arthur Wist <arthur.wist at gmail.com>; FIS Webinar <Fis at listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

 

David Chalmers's analysis made it clear that if agents exist, then they are as fundamental to the universe as electrons or gravitational mass. 

 

Certain kinds of physiological structure support 'agents' - those emphasized by complexity biology. But the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe. 

 

Alex 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20171019/a446a788/attachment.html>