3 ms·
I don't think calling it a machine is implying that we understand how it works internally (to a much greater extent than we actually do). Or even that we fully
by realharo 6y ago
I don't think calling it a machine is implying that we understand how it works internally (to a much greater extent than we actually do). Or even that we fully understand how it tends to behave in practice, out there in the "real world", as part of larger systems. But I guess if many people view it that way, then using slightly different language might be better.
What I was getting at is the fact that there is no fundamental difference between "I did it" and "my illness caused me to do it" (other than maybe probability).
Or in other words, no "free will", in the way that some people view that term.
- partyboat1586 6y agoI agree that there is no fundamental difference between you doing it and your illness causing it. A person can identify with the results of a machine or a complex system. My issue with the word machine is that in most people's minds that brings up ideas of cross sections, gears, cogs, repairs and so on. People aught to be thinking of a complex system instead like perhaps the ecosystem in the Amazon rainforest.
- HPsquared 6y agoComplex systems can be considered to have "chemical imbalances" - the climate, for example.