Unseen

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]

“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:

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]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

We can be and feel free on a surface level in the sense that we can do things we want to do or out of habit or whatever and not do them at gunpoint,

That is free will right there. On a day-to-day level, I exercise freedom of choice, restricted or guided by certain constraints, pushed in certain directions by…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

What we call consciousness seems to be an epiphenomenon of a system based on human flesh. Brain, neurons, nervous system, etc.

Maybe, but it’s not random or superfluous. It’s structured in a definite way for a reason: to help us thrive, survive and reproduce, like every other part of us.

You’re no more free if…[Read more]

Strega wrote:

@unseen Nice! Thanks! Great analogy. I support your position. Your consciousness is like your digestive system. Where does that go when you die?

Simon Paynton wrote:

Do all our choices, all the results of our executive decisions, have external causes?  Or are some of the causes free conscious deliberations – free thoughts?

Is not one choice wiser than another, with respect to long-term flourishing and survival?

In short, we have a combination of freewill and restriction, in reality. 

[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Is that two AIs talking to each other? Yes…..and they are talking about us! 🙂

Chess match between two supercomputers:

Computer 1: Pawn to King 4

Computer 2: Resigns

jakelafort wrote:

AI will control us by 2034? That is absurd. Humans are discerning, have free will and make decisions for themselves!

There is no free will. Just like billiard balls, their actions (and thoughts) emerge inevitably from the antecedent conditions going on in their nervous system and mind, many of these antecedents beyond their…[Read more]

@ Jake

Matt Gaetz is a kind of Picture of Dorian Gray of himself.

What about Stephen Miller? If he looks, acts, and talks like a Nazi…

2

Wittgenstein was my Master’s thesis (“Wittgenstein and Moore on Certainty”). He’s up there with Berty Russell as a quotable philosopher.

“Light dawns gradually over the whole” is about as perfect a description of how a subject matter becomes understood as there is.