I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your use of the word "construct".
Ok, let's back up. Where does free-will occur?
In humans, free-will occurs in the mind, which occurs in the brain, which occurs in the body, which occurs in the environment.
In the mind? But the mind doesn't cause free-will, so what does?
The existence of the mind makes free-will possible. What causes free-will is your recognition of yourself and of me and of everything around you as a distinct object. That recognition is a direct effect of the mind's construction. Furthermore, that recognition and that construction allows you to examine the inputs into your mind and evaluate them using reason.
In humans, free-will occurs in the mind, which occurs in the brain, which occurs in the body, which occurs in the environment.
The existence of the mind makes free-will possible. What causes free-will is your recognition of yourself and of me and of everything around you as a distinct object. That recognition is a direct effect of the mind's construction. Furthermore, that recognition and that construction allows you to examine the inputs into your mind and evaluate them using reason.
Exactly!
Environment -> Genetics -> Body <-> Brain <-> Mind
<-> Consciousness <-> Free-will
Where -> is one-way and <-> is two-way.
Also Environment <-> Body and Environment -> Brain
That's our cause and effect model, Correct?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
And how would they do that, without the ability to freely choose? And why would they do that, without any moral standard?
They would or wouldn't do it based on my suggestion and their determination of it. However, they are less likely to gather that input without my suggestion or otherwise becoming aware of it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Environment -> Genetics -> Body <-> Brain <-> Mind
<-> Consciousness <-> Free-will
Where -> is one-way and <-> is two-way.
Also Environment <-> Body and Environment -> Brain
That's our cause and effect model, Correct?
No. First, you should have no one-way paths there. A receding path from choice, action, will, consciousness, mind, brain and body can affect either genetics or your environment. Secondly, you're trying to boil every relationship down to cause and effect which makes no sense because all relationships are not defined in a causal manner. As I said before, a building is not the "effect" of the ground it's built on. For example, consciousness is certainly an effect of the mind. But mind is not necessarily an effect of the brain. Something could arguably be self-aware without a human brain.
No. First, you should have no one-way paths there. A receding path from choice, action, will, consciousness, mind, brain and body can affect either genetics or your environment. Secondly, you're trying to boil every relationship down to cause and effect which makes no sense because all relationships are not defined in a causal manner. As I said before, a building is not the "effect" of the ground it's built on. For example, consciousness is certainly an effect of the mind. But mind is not necessarily an effect of the brain. Something could arguably be self-aware without a human brain.
Can something be self-aware without a mammalian brain or a device designed to allow for self-awareness?
As you said "a building is not the "effect" of the ground it's built on"
A building is in part an effect of the ground it is built on. It's not a sufficient cause, but a required one. A sufficient cause would be ground, material, motion, something driving the motion, like a person and the reason for it.
What is sufficient cause for free-will? Consciousness? What is sufficient cause for Consciousness?
Please try to explain the construct. Nothing exists simply because it exists. If a building exists it is because someone built it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Are you sure? It seems like they're less likely after you said something, considering the responses you've seen.
Now, how about addressing the why in my post? I'm going to get really bored with this if you keep ignoring the majority of my posts.
I'm sorry, what why?
I'm trying to quantify will with you. The rest of the topic is quite irrelevant if we can't determine where free-will comes from.
If free-will is a construct of the brain, then the brain determines what free-will is. The brain is a machine with various determinants. These determinants when perturbed alter free-will and consciousness. Therefor free-will and consciousness are sufficiently caused by their neural a biochemical correlates. Whatever determines those determines how they cause free-will and consciousness.
Are you trying to say that a will, brain, consciousness interaction is self-determinant?
E.g. X = Y = Z = X?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Can something be self-aware without a mammalian brain or a device designed to allow for self-awareness?
To the former, yes. To the latter, doubtful. It's certainly possible for a computer to be self-aware using the constructs of a processor and memory. I'm not sure it would be possible for something to be self-aware without an underlying construct, however. I don't believe in God, nor do I believe that Nature has a will. But neither can necessarily be disproven.
As you said "a building is not the "effect" of the ground it's built on"
A building is in part an effect of the ground it is built on. It's not a sufficient cause, but a required one. A sufficient cause would be ground, material, motion, something driving the motion, like a person and the reason for it.
Good.
What is sufficient cause for free-will? Consciousness? What is sufficient cause for Consciousness?
The sufficient cause for Consciousness is an evolutionary need for an animal to make self-aware choices as opposed to instinctual reactions, along with all the concomittant genetic modifications to get there.
Please try to explain the construct. Nothing exists simply because it exists. If a building exists it is because someone built it.
Something certainly built your will. That something is millions of years of evolution, dictated by the path of nature. It's a big part of why you're here to have this discussion.
And how would they do that, without the ability to freely choose? And why would they do that, without any moral standard?
I'm trying to quantify will with you. The rest of the topic is quite irrelevant if we can't determine where free-will comes from.
We already have determined where free-will comes from. It comes from your mind.
If free-will is a construct of the brain, then the brain determines what free-will is.
Yes, it determines the attributes of what free-will is. It does not, however, determine everything free-will does.
The brain is a machine with various determinants. These determinants when perturbed alter free-will and consciousness. Therefor free-will and consciousness are sufficiently caused by their neural a biochemical correlates. Whatever determines those determines how they cause free-will and consciousness.
Yes. Now, why are you ignoring that those perturberations can be self-contained, meaning that they happen only in your own brain, interpreted in your own mind, without additional external stimuli?
Are you trying to say that a will, brain, consciousness interaction is self-determinant?
The purpose of your consciousness is self-examination through reason. So if you mean "self-determinant" as a situation wherein an individual's will determines an individual's actions, yes, that is what I'm saying. However, if you're still trying to make the unseen leap from these relationships to a point wherein the will has no option to take multiple paths for the direction of self, no, that's not what I'm saying.
Your mind is a collection of tools, no different than a computer. Your mind, however, makes today's computers look very rudimentary. Progress will largely change that.
Yes, a computer still has to be programmed. So does a person, however.
A program is nothing more than a logical construct. Your consciousness is also nothing more than a logical construct. Today, the functions of your inputs and the flexibility of your construct are far superior to the average computer. But there is nothing indefineable about them.
Life is not magic. The lines between the organic and the synthetic will continue to blur to the point that the terms will become rather irrelevant. That's nothing to be afraid of, by default.
i find it interesting that the other day you seemed appalled that i considered humans to be little different from animals, yet here you are saying that there is no meaningful difference between humans and computers. once computers reach this stage, are we not allowed to treat them like animals and worse? will i still be allowed to toss out or get rid of an old one to buy a new one? or will i have to consider its feelings and put up with it, like i would a parent? for that matter, will we even be allowed to buy them? wouldn't that be akin to slavery?
this is a strange vision you have of the future.
im not afraid of it per se. it's just a strange thought to me and it seems impractical and possibly even unattainable.
The purpose of your consciousness is self-examination through reason. So if you mean "self-determinant" as a situation wherein an individual's will determines an individual's actions, yes, that is what I'm saying. However, if you're still trying to make the unseen leap from these relationships to a point wherein the will has no option to take multiple paths for the direction of self, no, that's not what I'm saying.
Ok, suppose I agree that the conscious self is for self-examination and perhaps even long term planning, filing of information and so on. Free-will comes from as you say evolution over millions of years and I deffinately agree there. Then it's been determined. Does genetics alone explain the variability of free-will?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So if you mean "self-determinant" as a situation wherein an individual's will determines an individual's actions, yes, that is what I'm saying.
No, I mean self-determinant in that will determines it's self.
If you agree that everything has a cause and agree that will is variable. In that, some people make different decisions than others. The what causes will to vary?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If I understand what you are saying Farfromglorified. You are saying the free-will varies because people have different genetics and experiences. Then ultimately free-will is the effect caused by genetics and experience. And is there for determined, since determined is synonymous with caused. Then it's not a far stretch to being beyond the control of free-will invariably from person to person. If free-will is a mechanism for performing specific functions, then it's dependent on input and memory for variability. Can you understand how this means our selves are determined by causes external to us?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i find it interesting that the other day you seemed appalled that i considered humans to be little different from animals, yet here you are saying that there is no meaningful difference between humans and computers.
There are many meaningful differences between humans and computers. I would have no qualms unplugging a self-aware computer.
once computers reach this stage, are we not allowed to treat them like animals and worse?
We're allowed to treat computers however we wish. The very act of creating them dictates as such.
will i still be allowed to toss out or get rid of an old one to buy a new one?
Of course! Why wouldn't you?
or will i have to consider its feelings and put up with it, like i would a parent?
Hehe...no, you wouldn't have to.
for that matter, will we even be allowed to buy them? wouldn't that be akin to slavery?
No.
this is a strange vision you have of the future.
Why?
im not afraid of it per se. it's just a strange thought to me and it seems impractical and possibly even unattainable.
Go ahead, dust off that abacus if it makes you feel better
If I understand what you are saying Farfromglorified. You are saying the free-will varies because people have different genetics and experiences. Then ultimately free-will is the effect caused by genetics and experience. And is there for determined, since determined is synonymous with caused. Then it's not a far stretch to being beyond the control of free-will invariably from person to person. If free-will is a mechanism for performing specific functions, then it's dependent on input and memory for variability. Can you understand how this means our selves are determined by causes external to us?
Hehe...free-will is structured to use "input and memory", and lots of its variability can be explained by the contents of those things, but it is in no way dependent on those things (though it makes little sense without them, particularly the input part). For some reason, you're just ignoring what it means to be self-aware -- the construct that allows your brain to "see" yourself and the interactions you have with your environment, providing you with the means to project the affects of your actions and make choices accordingly. I guess you're just looking for someone to tell you that free-will is some kind of spectral mojo that exists in a vacuum without any limits or underlying foundation.
Ahnimus, you're trying to turn human existence into a game of pool. What you're ignoring is that human existence does involve choices. The foundation of a building does not dictate that building's specific uses, nor does the existence of a brain dictate the will's specific outcomes.
I'm not sure if you're trying to absolve yourself of bad choices you've made in the past or acting out of a desire to control the behavior of others or something else entirely, but I guess it would be very appropriate to wish you a hearty GOOD LUCK.
What qualities then would humans have separating them from self aware computers? The senses? Can those be programmed? How can you treat the computer any way you wish but not the human? Humans create other humans. Humans create computers. Are the computers feelings discounted because they don't exist naturally? Humans come from nature and they built the machines.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hehe...free-will is structured to use "input and memory", and lots of its variability can be explained by the contents of those things, but it is in no way dependent on those things (though it makes little sense without them, particularly the input part). For some reason, you're just ignoring what it means to be self-aware -- the construct that allows your brain to "see" yourself and the interactions you have with your environment, providing you with the means to project the affects of your actions and make choices accordingly. I guess you're just looking for someone to tell you that free-will is some kind of spectral mojo that exists in a vacuum without any limits or underlying foundation.
Ahnimus, you're trying to turn human existence into a game of pool. What you're ignoring is that human existence does involve choices. The foundation of a building does not dictate that building's specific uses, nor does the existence of a brain dictate the will's specific outcomes.
I'm not sure if you're trying to absolve yourself of bad choices you've made in the past or acting out of a desire to control the behavior of others or something else entirely, but I guess it would be very appropriate to wish you a hearty GOOD LUCK.
I'm not doing this for any personal gain outside of the effect it will have on humanity. I've done nothing I need to excuse myself for.
I'm simply being realistic. You are fully admitting that will does not exist simply as it is, that environment and genetics effect it. So then how can you say that it exists as something else? I'm not ignoring self-awareness, I'm trying to define it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
... you make me think of a guy who gets a new video game, and rather than playing it, he keeps breaking it down and trying to understand the programming code, down to each individual 1 and 0. There's certainly nothing wrong with trying to understand programming, that's a fine pursuit in and of itself, but the code will tell you nothing about the experience of actually playing the game.
Oh wow, great thread! Only half way through but.... I in fact have a friend of 25+ years that our relationship keeps taking a bender every 2-3 years over his "rational" reactions to my "emotional" responses or what not. That quote above, H-mom, sums him up in to a "T."
I've been working on a concept of "Honesty vs Rationality" and really struggling with it. Another friend tells me to "leave him out" of my figuring, or rather concentrate on why I feel so frustrated when the shit hits the fan with him... It's been good advice. (And mostly because I come to the conclusion he's a really good friend and I hate arguing with him...)
But then, part of my thought riff has been on the concept of "to rationalize" something, or project logical arguments for irrational behavior. He sticks to his rational guns, making point leading to point connecting to point and I just feel/intuit/sense that he's "rationalizing" or worse really, just not being honest with me about what we're arguing about....
It's almost like a parlor trick to him now, and he's damn good at it. Obstinate comes to mind...
Why or how is it that the rational response does not always lead to an honest response?
What qualities then would humans have separating them from self aware computers? The senses? Can those be programmed? How can you treat the computer any way you wish but not the human? Humans create other humans. Humans create computers. Are the computers feelings discounted because they don't exist naturally? Humans come from nature and they built the machines.
I'm definitely with soulsinging and yourself with these ethical questions. And a lot less with farfromglorified and his answers.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm not doing this for any personal gain outside of the effect it will have on humanity. I've done nothing I need to excuse myself for.
Ok. Let's stick with this very simple question (you can ignore the rest of my post here if you'd like or must):
1) What effect will it have on humanity?
I'm simply being realistic. You are fully admitting that will does not exist simply as it is, that environment and genetics effect it. So then how can you say that it exists as something else?
I'm not. I'm saying more that environment and genetics effect it. Otherwise, we're at instinct. Your identity, the recognition of self, is what primary effects it.
I'm not ignoring self-awareness, I'm trying to define it.
I have defined it. It's a construct in your mind wherein you recognize yourself as a distinct entity and, with it, others as distinct entities separate from yourself. It is made possible by the biological construction of your brain.
Ok. Let's stick with this very simple question (you can ignore the rest of my post here if you'd like or must):
1) What effect will it have on humanity?
That's another topic. I think it will end some of these viscous myths.
I'm not. I'm saying more that environment and genetics effect it. Otherwise, we're at instinct. Your identity, the recognition of self, is what primary effects it.
I have defined it. It's a construct in your mind wherein you recognize yourself as a distinct entity and, with it, others as distinct entities separate from yourself. It is made possible by the biological construction of your brain.
Ok so something determines will for us that is not within us to control?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What qualities then would humans have separating them from self aware computers?
An identity and morality independent of me or you, for starters.
The senses?
No, computers can have senses, just like you can.
Can those be programmed?
Well, a sense would be a combination of a program and a physical sensor, but yes.
How can you treat the computer any way you wish but not the human?
Think about this question you're asking.How can I do so?? The exact same way I could treat you any way I wish. The question you need to ask is why would I do so. And for that, I'll need you to answer this question:
Why can you not treat a human any way you wish?
Humans create other humans.
They do? How?
Humans create computers. Are the computers feelings discounted because they don't exist naturally?
No, you can't discount them. They exist. They should simply hold no relevance to your actions.
Humans come from nature and they built the machines.
Ok so something determines will for us that is not within us to control?
Why do you keep equating the "determination" of the will's construct with determination of its output? If I build you a hammer, have I determined what you'll build with it?
Why do you keep equating the "determination" of the will's construct with determination of its output? If I build you a hammer, have I determined what you'll build with it?
Ok, because you are saying that will is a construct of the brain. You make it sound like a computer we can put input into and it will run an algorithm and spit out output. That's exactly what I believe it is. But you are suggesting that giving it the same input twice would produce different results, without that being a function of the computer. Or that if we installed the same software into multiple computers and gave them the same input multiple times, each computer would repeatedly make the same choice but would be different from the choices of the other computers. I'm saying the same input into the brain will always produce the same choice, but that input includes everything, every experience, every chance occurrance, everything. If two people were born with the same genes and experienced everything the exact same, exactly the same, they would make the exact same choices every time. That means that choice is dependent on input.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Did you miss that health class in school--the one where they explain the birds and the bees?
The actual process of cell devision is so much more complicated.
How does one cell become two cells?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Think about this question you're asking.How can I do so?? The exact same way I could treat you any way I wish. The question you need to ask is why would I do so. And for that, I'll need you to answer this question:
Why can you not treat a human any way you wish?
Because I feel it is wrong to harm another, to discount their own emotions. I can't think of a need to harm another person that would outweigh the feelings of another besides self defense. Harmony and peace in this world are dependent of this.
No, you can't discount them. They exist. They should simply hold no relevance to your actions.
Why as opposed to the feelings of another human? Would these self aware computers not also object to being considered irrelevant and act out? Would it be ok to program humans to not have self defense as you could the computer? Wouldn't the computers feelings be just as real whether or not they acted out in self defense? So what you're basically saying is we program ourselves where as a machine is dependent upon outside programming?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Comments
In humans, free-will occurs in the mind, which occurs in the brain, which occurs in the body, which occurs in the environment.
The existence of the mind makes free-will possible. What causes free-will is your recognition of yourself and of me and of everything around you as a distinct object. That recognition is a direct effect of the mind's construction. Furthermore, that recognition and that construction allows you to examine the inputs into your mind and evaluate them using reason.
You suggested they make "better" "choices".
And how would they do that, without the ability to freely choose? And why would they do that, without any moral standard?
Exactly!
Environment -> Genetics -> Body <-> Brain <-> Mind
<-> Consciousness <-> Free-will
Where -> is one-way and <-> is two-way.
Also Environment <-> Body and Environment -> Brain
That's our cause and effect model, Correct?
They would or wouldn't do it based on my suggestion and their determination of it. However, they are less likely to gather that input without my suggestion or otherwise becoming aware of it.
No. First, you should have no one-way paths there. A receding path from choice, action, will, consciousness, mind, brain and body can affect either genetics or your environment. Secondly, you're trying to boil every relationship down to cause and effect which makes no sense because all relationships are not defined in a causal manner. As I said before, a building is not the "effect" of the ground it's built on. For example, consciousness is certainly an effect of the mind. But mind is not necessarily an effect of the brain. Something could arguably be self-aware without a human brain.
What determination?
Are you sure? It seems like they're less likely after you said something, considering the responses you've seen.
Now, how about addressing the why in my post? I'm going to get really bored with this if you keep ignoring the majority of my posts.
Can something be self-aware without a mammalian brain or a device designed to allow for self-awareness?
As you said "a building is not the "effect" of the ground it's built on"
A building is in part an effect of the ground it is built on. It's not a sufficient cause, but a required one. A sufficient cause would be ground, material, motion, something driving the motion, like a person and the reason for it.
What is sufficient cause for free-will? Consciousness? What is sufficient cause for Consciousness?
Please try to explain the construct. Nothing exists simply because it exists. If a building exists it is because someone built it.
I'm sorry, what why?
I'm trying to quantify will with you. The rest of the topic is quite irrelevant if we can't determine where free-will comes from.
If free-will is a construct of the brain, then the brain determines what free-will is. The brain is a machine with various determinants. These determinants when perturbed alter free-will and consciousness. Therefor free-will and consciousness are sufficiently caused by their neural a biochemical correlates. Whatever determines those determines how they cause free-will and consciousness.
Are you trying to say that a will, brain, consciousness interaction is self-determinant?
E.g. X = Y = Z = X?
To the former, yes. To the latter, doubtful. It's certainly possible for a computer to be self-aware using the constructs of a processor and memory. I'm not sure it would be possible for something to be self-aware without an underlying construct, however. I don't believe in God, nor do I believe that Nature has a will. But neither can necessarily be disproven.
Good.
The sufficient cause for Consciousness is an evolutionary need for an animal to make self-aware choices as opposed to instinctual reactions, along with all the concomittant genetic modifications to get there.
Something certainly built your will. That something is millions of years of evolution, dictated by the path of nature. It's a big part of why you're here to have this discussion.
You suggested they make "better" "choices".
And how would they do that, without the ability to freely choose? And why would they do that, without any moral standard?
We already have determined where free-will comes from. It comes from your mind.
Yes, it determines the attributes of what free-will is. It does not, however, determine everything free-will does.
Yes. Now, why are you ignoring that those perturberations can be self-contained, meaning that they happen only in your own brain, interpreted in your own mind, without additional external stimuli?
The purpose of your consciousness is self-examination through reason. So if you mean "self-determinant" as a situation wherein an individual's will determines an individual's actions, yes, that is what I'm saying. However, if you're still trying to make the unseen leap from these relationships to a point wherein the will has no option to take multiple paths for the direction of self, no, that's not what I'm saying.
i find it interesting that the other day you seemed appalled that i considered humans to be little different from animals, yet here you are saying that there is no meaningful difference between humans and computers. once computers reach this stage, are we not allowed to treat them like animals and worse? will i still be allowed to toss out or get rid of an old one to buy a new one? or will i have to consider its feelings and put up with it, like i would a parent? for that matter, will we even be allowed to buy them? wouldn't that be akin to slavery?
this is a strange vision you have of the future.
im not afraid of it per se. it's just a strange thought to me and it seems impractical and possibly even unattainable.
Ok, suppose I agree that the conscious self is for self-examination and perhaps even long term planning, filing of information and so on. Free-will comes from as you say evolution over millions of years and I deffinately agree there. Then it's been determined. Does genetics alone explain the variability of free-will?
No, I mean self-determinant in that will determines it's self.
If you agree that everything has a cause and agree that will is variable. In that, some people make different decisions than others. The what causes will to vary?
There are many meaningful differences between humans and computers. I would have no qualms unplugging a self-aware computer.
We're allowed to treat computers however we wish. The very act of creating them dictates as such.
Of course! Why wouldn't you?
Hehe...no, you wouldn't have to.
No.
Why?
Go ahead, dust off that abacus if it makes you feel better
Hehe...free-will is structured to use "input and memory", and lots of its variability can be explained by the contents of those things, but it is in no way dependent on those things (though it makes little sense without them, particularly the input part). For some reason, you're just ignoring what it means to be self-aware -- the construct that allows your brain to "see" yourself and the interactions you have with your environment, providing you with the means to project the affects of your actions and make choices accordingly. I guess you're just looking for someone to tell you that free-will is some kind of spectral mojo that exists in a vacuum without any limits or underlying foundation.
Ahnimus, you're trying to turn human existence into a game of pool. What you're ignoring is that human existence does involve choices. The foundation of a building does not dictate that building's specific uses, nor does the existence of a brain dictate the will's specific outcomes.
I'm not sure if you're trying to absolve yourself of bad choices you've made in the past or acting out of a desire to control the behavior of others or something else entirely, but I guess it would be very appropriate to wish you a hearty GOOD LUCK.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm not doing this for any personal gain outside of the effect it will have on humanity. I've done nothing I need to excuse myself for.
I'm simply being realistic. You are fully admitting that will does not exist simply as it is, that environment and genetics effect it. So then how can you say that it exists as something else? I'm not ignoring self-awareness, I'm trying to define it.
Oh wow, great thread! Only half way through but.... I in fact have a friend of 25+ years that our relationship keeps taking a bender every 2-3 years over his "rational" reactions to my "emotional" responses or what not. That quote above, H-mom, sums him up in to a "T."
I've been working on a concept of "Honesty vs Rationality" and really struggling with it. Another friend tells me to "leave him out" of my figuring, or rather concentrate on why I feel so frustrated when the shit hits the fan with him... It's been good advice. (And mostly because I come to the conclusion he's a really good friend and I hate arguing with him...)
But then, part of my thought riff has been on the concept of "to rationalize" something, or project logical arguments for irrational behavior. He sticks to his rational guns, making point leading to point connecting to point and I just feel/intuit/sense that he's "rationalizing" or worse really, just not being honest with me about what we're arguing about....
It's almost like a parlor trick to him now, and he's damn good at it. Obstinate comes to mind...
Why or how is it that the rational response does not always lead to an honest response?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok. Let's stick with this very simple question (you can ignore the rest of my post here if you'd like or must):
1) What effect will it have on humanity?
I'm not. I'm saying more that environment and genetics effect it. Otherwise, we're at instinct. Your identity, the recognition of self, is what primary effects it.
I have defined it. It's a construct in your mind wherein you recognize yourself as a distinct entity and, with it, others as distinct entities separate from yourself. It is made possible by the biological construction of your brain.
That's another topic. I think it will end some of these viscous myths.
Ok so something determines will for us that is not within us to control?
An identity and morality independent of me or you, for starters.
No, computers can have senses, just like you can.
Well, a sense would be a combination of a program and a physical sensor, but yes.
Think about this question you're asking. How can I do so?? The exact same way I could treat you any way I wish. The question you need to ask is why would I do so. And for that, I'll need you to answer this question:
Why can you not treat a human any way you wish?
They do? How?
No, you can't discount them. They exist. They should simply hold no relevance to your actions.
Yep.
Hehe...then why did you bring it up?
Why do you keep equating the "determination" of the will's construct with determination of its output? If I build you a hammer, have I determined what you'll build with it?
Ok, because you are saying that will is a construct of the brain. You make it sound like a computer we can put input into and it will run an algorithm and spit out output. That's exactly what I believe it is. But you are suggesting that giving it the same input twice would produce different results, without that being a function of the computer. Or that if we installed the same software into multiple computers and gave them the same input multiple times, each computer would repeatedly make the same choice but would be different from the choices of the other computers. I'm saying the same input into the brain will always produce the same choice, but that input includes everything, every experience, every chance occurrance, everything. If two people were born with the same genes and experienced everything the exact same, exactly the same, they would make the exact same choices every time. That means that choice is dependent on input.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The actual process of cell devision is so much more complicated.
How does one cell become two cells?
Hehe...no, I didn't miss that. They never really touched on how I could actually create humans, however. They only taught me how to reproduce them.
How do we form identity and morality that can't be programed into a computer?
Because I feel it is wrong to harm another, to discount their own emotions. I can't think of a need to harm another person that would outweigh the feelings of another besides self defense. Harmony and peace in this world are dependent of this.
The birds and the bees, of course.
Why as opposed to the feelings of another human? Would these self aware computers not also object to being considered irrelevant and act out? Would it be ok to program humans to not have self defense as you could the computer? Wouldn't the computers feelings be just as real whether or not they acted out in self defense? So what you're basically saying is we program ourselves where as a machine is dependent upon outside programming?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde