DonAtreides

Members
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DonAtreides

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Cthulhu
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

DonAtreides's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Sorry for the delayed response. No, I don't.
  2. A thought experiment isn't supposed to be true to reality - that's the "thought" part of it. My point is this - even if we are brains in jars, we'll never know so what does it matter? Determinism is the same. Regardless of whether we have free will or not, we have to act as though we do to go about our lives. That said, I think it does matter in terms of intellectual integrity. Many people believe in free will, not for a rational reason, but because they "want to". That's intellectually dishonest. The are good reasons (that I ultimately object to) to believe in free will. But many people believe in free will because it makes them feel as though they're somehow "above" physics, chemistry, and biology - in the same way and for the same reasons that people "object" to Evolution. ("I'm not a monkey!") Again, it's about intellectual integrity.
  3. . I'll say! At least it was an interesting detour. I suppose I do start with causality and deductive logic as axiomatic. I think causality is safe to assume above the quantum level. Below the quantum level, I'd probably need a lot more knowledge of physics to make that call.
  4. Good question. I don't think that a machine can ever do anything beyond it's programming. It could conceivably do something we wouldn't expect, but even if it becomes sentient it's still bound by physics. Indeed, even a machine that could reprogram itself could only do so based on it's original programming.
  5. Sometimes it is. ;) But I agree with your other sentiments.
  6. Thanks Selene. If there was a god, I would. ;) Indeed, if you (the general "you") believe that there is an omniscient, omnipotent being that guides things, then by definition s/he knows all the decisions, moral and otherwise, that you will make before you are born. Indeed, a creator would make you what you are - sinner or saint. Computers can't do things we don't tell them to do. Sometimes they do things we don't expect because we're not omniscient - but I can assure you, they can only do what we tell them.
  7. It follows logically that strict causality doesn't somehow lead to free will. How could it? That's like saying that when enough human cells get together a ghosty soul magically appears for no reason. Or that rats are generated by piles of dirty rags. It doesn't follow. Even supposing we allow that it could, the burden of evidence is on the believer to prove it. So far, I've seen no evidence of free will that isn't better explained by a perception of free will. In fact, neuroscience has found that our decisions are made by the subconscious brain before we're even consciously aware of the choice. The theory is that the conscious brain "catches up" to the decision that has already been made. I'll post a link when I have some time to hunt it down.
  8. Then, you realize that "we" are only just aspects of your own imagination. No one else exists. Then it occurs to you based on the summations of all the inputs you have received that it is not electrodes in a jar, but the collective smells of an insect hive and you are their Idea. And it still would not make any difference. And then you feel a shaking and suddenly you wake up! And your mother says, "Wake up. You were having a nightmare." And you focus your eyes and see that your mother is the Queen of the Hive and you are a Worker. And you get out of bed to attend the eggs, but when you exit the door, you find yourself on a carnival merry-go-round and you realize that you are an octopus ... I hope that your software works better than your philosophy. By the way, here on Objectivist Living is Stuart Hayashi's "Argument from Arbitrary Metaphysics." You're missing the point. Brains in jars, bee hives, never-ending dream - it doesn't matter if the person can never wake up. The consequences are real regardless. If you were predetermined to murder someone, you still go to jail. From your link, we're all Oedipus except that we have no idea what fate holds. The point is that, even if the universe is determined we might as well act as though it isn't because it's so impossible to predict. Do we have free will? No. But we might as well pretend that we do so we can get on with the process of living. Incidentally, that reminds me of Bertrand Russell's solipsist joke: "As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me." - Bertrand Russell
  9. I must admit, Brant, I don't follow most of what you're saying. Let me say this then in the hopes of clarifying my position: I accept that I do not have free will any more than bacteria does. There's nothing special about my growth in the womb that caused free will to spring forth into my body. Self-awareness is demonstrable, but free will - no. I'm still bound by the same physics, the same causality, as rocks, trees, and sunshine. Whether I like it or not is inconsequential - it's what reason dictates. If it conflicts with a philosophy then I must alter or reject that philosophy. I am a pure rationalist. To be honest, I find it hard to understand how someone could be otherwise. (<- Not accusatory.)
  10. True. It's not as though it could have been otherwise. ;)
  11. I think that people see patterns of behavior and, rather than attribute that to natural tendencies in human nature, they assume a malignant force behind it. It's understandable - people similarly see the world and assume a creator. There's no reason (generally) to assume malevolence when ignorance will suffice. Of course, "ignorance" didn't kill JFK - that was the Federal Reserve. ;)
  12. I would have "liked" this comment however it appears I've hit my "like" quota for the day - topping out at 0 likes. Apparently I'm unable to appreciate anything - no wonder I'm so curmudgeonly!
  13. I'll consider myself thought-provoking then. On further consideration of the pretentious charge, I stand by my denial. However with outside counsel I will accept the mantle of "conceited". Being truly gracious as I am though, I'd like to blame my conceitedness on the shortcomings of others: If everyone else was better, I wouldn't be so conceited! ;)