E

_Robert_ wrote:
Oh, damn, too late

JP has become a parody of himself.

I’m reminded of a quote Google can’t find so I’ll have to paraphrase it, but JP reminds me of it:

“There’s no difference between the avant-garde and a parody of the avant-garde.”

A parody of Jordan Peterson is indistinguishable from Jordan Peterson.

jakelafort wrote:
Simon, if i want a good story i’ll read Washington Irving. Ronald Reagan might have appreciated him. Tell me a story so i know what you mean. That was me channeling the dead guy. His son is an atheist so the apple defied gravity. Somebody asks you do you believe? Have the integrity to say yes or no. And if asked for an e…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
You talk about free will in a way that presupposes its existence. That’s what I accused you of in my prior post.

Maybe, but my point is, that there’s evidence for its existence. If I had no free will, I could not respond to contingent, random circumstances by deliberating and picking and choosing.

Is this “ev…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
Everything obeys rules, but that doesn’t in itself imply complete determinism.  My free will is constrained by rules: I will never be able to do exactly what I like.  As for the rest, I can employ free choice.

You talk about free will in a way that presupposes its existence. That’s what I accused you of in my prior pos…[Read more]

Belle Rose wrote:
@robert I wouldn’t classify JP as an atheist. I didn’t see the Sam Harris one I’ll have to watch that. I guess I view him completely differently because i watched his lectures so I understand the framework from where he’s coming and there are many things I took away from his lectures that I still use and remember to this day. I…

[Read more]

JP strikes me mostly as someone mostly trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame. To me he’s the “Hawk-Tua girl” of the identity wars.

He has no real answers for young men because that would alienate them away from him and his fame. So instead, it’s babble-talk-time when someone like Sam Harris calls him out. I don’t see why he climbed out of bed,…[Read more]

JP has a problem. His fan base are mostly disillusioned young males lost in the wake of female independence. So, they revert to the good old Christian days and ways. When even the least desirable young males could attract female attention. Trouble is, JP is an atheist. So, when he talks about god and the virtues of religion, it’s just a word salad…[Read more]

Here’s why emergence is bogus when used to defend free will.

In legitimate examples of emergence, the phenomenon preexists the explanation. The flocking of birds or schooling of fish are an emergent phenomenon. Emergence, based on a set of rules so simple even fish and small birds can obey them*, explains the behavior. Flocking and schooling was…[Read more]

Well, it (the squirrel) has to respond to real events in real time, so I’m guessing it has free will.

The squirrel does not respond as if it were giving careful consideration to its next move. It reacts to real events in real time. That reaction is entirely instinctive. That instinct is highly tuned and the reaction is faster than any c…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:
That decision may have been made before the critter knew it would jump. The squirrel’s conscience was informed at some point. Yeah, I’d say a squirrel has some level of self-awareness.

Well, it has to respond to real events in real time, so I’m guessing it has free will.

Doesn’t follow, overs…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

PopeBeanie wrote:
Must not the feeling of free will at least be a product of determinism? A legitimate product of evolution? And very useful, fortunately, if not more pleasurable than the feeling of having no control at all.

That’s the way I see it. Nature has endowed us with free will that we can use to navigate c…

[Read more]

It sure is easy to imagine how an ape brain could believe it has agency, even if it doesn’t, especially if you lean towards soft determinism (I’d also throw in some random particles that make it through the atmosphere and smash into our neural networks.)

Moral responsibility is a sideshow, unrelated to the mechanics of this question.

I’m starting to see “emergence” as a kind of “God of the gaps” type of argument. When all else fails in many disputes, they trot out “It’s an emergent property.”

In other words, as in the religious person who presupposes that God exists, and whose incredible shrinking proposition is running out of supportive arguments, who then resorts to “If I…[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Unseen wrote:
How do you account for free will in a way that rescues the “free” part of free will and attaches it to the “will” part of free will without violating the scientific laws of the universe?

Absolutely. Nothing new here, not sure, did I misuse the word emergence? Free will couldn’t emerge, except as a theoretic…

[Read more]

There is a difference between “cause and effect” and hard determinism. A cause can have many different effects, but there has to be at least one. The idea that the position, motion and energy of every single particle through space-time is predetermined at time = 0+ of the big bang is not compatible with quantum theory.

And of course, causality is…[Read more]

“Emergence” is defined as a property of a whole not present in its parts. So, emergence is an epiphenomenon, like a rainbow or mirror reflection.

Notice that rainbows and mirror reflections are, in a sense, not real and are accounted for in terms of sufficient conditions.  Conditions describable deterministically

In other words, you can explain…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:
We can start with intelligence or hair color and work our way into musical preferences. Throw any of that data on a chart and you will have a bell curve.

What does that have to do with free choice and consciousness?

Everything. Everything about us including “free choice” is governed by a probability function.

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
Nothing happens without sufficient conditions being met,

We think for a reason: to calculate what we have to do to achieve our goals, to thrive, survive and reproduce. There is therefore biological pressure to think. As for what direction this thinking takes, then within constraints and limits, and acted upon…

[Read more]