4 ms·

The transcript on the right is the same as the video, and easier to read. I think this is great overall. However, I think he's wrong at the very end. People ar

by javert 15y ago

The transcript on the right is the same as the video, and easier to read. I think this is great overall. However, I think he's wrong at the very end. People aren't just hardware and software; they're hardware, software, and the thinking they have done (call it "free will" if you want). That accounts for a lot of the differences in people.

bfe 15y ago
Or it's software that keeps writing more software, thereby modifying itself and sometimes its hardware.
- javert 15y ago
  Yes, I think that's probably more accurate. Anyway, the point is that the end of the interview is a fallacious denial of that which is commonly called free will.
abdullahkhalids 15y ago
Or you could listen to what biologists are saying..
- javert 15y ago
  Well, if you're right, and we can't excecise thought independent from our genes and external influences, then all our thoughts, mistaken or correct, are determined anyway. So who are you to say that you're right and I'm wrong? Maybe your determined thoughts happen to be flawed, and mine happen to be correct. In other words, a complete and utter denial of "free will" (which is vaguely defined, hence my "complete and utter" qualifier) is a self-defeating argument.
  - ristretto 15y ago
    - We live and act in a deterministic universe with deterministic brains - Right and wrong are social constructions. In science, people use empiricism as a criterion - Free will requires the existence of a supernatural "self" or actor. Good luck finding it.
    - javert 15y ago
      You've made two grand mistakes. (1) You've stepped into and apparently completely ignored the exact fallacy pointed out by the grandparent of this comment. (2) You offered arbitrary assertions without evidence. You know what I think; if you want to counter it, give evidence. Shouting louder doesn't do you any good. To respond to your arbitrary assertions: - Yes, but not in the sense you mean. - No. Right and wrong must be discovered. - No. Depends on your definition of "free will," but in general, no.
      - ristretto 15y ago
        - For an interesting take on (1) and (2) i would suggest reading this http://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/dp/0307377334/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313711503&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/... ; I think there's ample evidence there, too. - You need a tool to "discover" right and wrong, just like you need a metric tensor to measure length. That tool is empiricism. - If it's not the actor's will, whose is it?
        javert 15y ago
        Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful response. :-) Unfortunately, my reading list is tooo long to add anything new anywhere near the front of the queue, unless it's something that is absolutely earth-shattering. I see that the book you suggest is rated highly on Amazon. But the first review that comes up for me (maybe it's the first one for you, too) is a June 5 review by a neuroscientist (supposedly) who discounts the book as being highly intellectually sloppy. I actually think we may agree on the second overall bullet point. Which is a lot closer than I thought we were. However, I think certain empiricist philosophers have been pretty mistaken. I'm not an expert in either analytic or continental philosophy, but wasn't Hume the famous empiricist who posed the "is-ought" dichotomy and rejected the possibility of finding any solution to it? Any Rand posed a solution to this problem, and I agree with her. I can provide further references up on request. On the third bullet point: I think "free will" is properly understood as a person's ability to choose whether or not to think about something. The more they think, the more refined their conclusions become. It's wrong to just claim that people are a product of their genes and environment, which implicitly ignores this thinking process. So to answer the question, the actor's "will" is the key factor here (if you want to use that word), but of course there is nothing supernatural going on.
Empact 15y ago
As far as the nature vs. nurture division, there's a good amount of new evidence from twin studies and adoption studies which back up Elon's conclusion about the heritability of traits. Bryan Caplan covers some of this in his new book "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids." http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xj9b1h_selfish-reasons-to-have-more-kids_news http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xj9b1h_selfish-reasons-to-h...
radu_floricica 15y ago
You don't program much in lisp, do you? :) Software can be adaptable and self-writing, too.
- javert 15y ago
  Oh, I totally agree with you. Your comment would be better directed to Elon Musk; it was his analogy. :-)

by javert 15y ago

bfe 15y ago

Or it's software that keeps writing more software, thereby modifying itself and sometimes its hardware.

javert 15y ago
Yes, I think that's probably more accurate. Anyway, the point is that the end of the interview is a fallacious denial of that which is commonly called free will.

abdullahkhalids 15y ago

Or you could listen to what biologists are saying..

javert 15y ago
Well, if you're right, and we can't excecise thought independent from our genes and external influences, then all our thoughts, mistaken or correct, are determined anyway. So who are you to say that you're right and I'm wrong? Maybe your determined thoughts happen to be flawed, and mine happen to be correct. In other words, a complete and utter denial of "free will" (which is vaguely defined, hence my "complete and utter" qualifier) is a self-defeating argument.
- ristretto 15y ago
  - We live and act in a deterministic universe with deterministic brains - Right and wrong are social constructions. In science, people use empiricism as a criterion - Free will requires the existence of a supernatural "self" or actor. Good luck finding it.
  - javert 15y ago
    You've made two grand mistakes. (1) You've stepped into and apparently completely ignored the exact fallacy pointed out by the grandparent of this comment. (2) You offered arbitrary assertions without evidence. You know what I think; if you want to counter it, give evidence. Shouting louder doesn't do you any good. To respond to your arbitrary assertions: - Yes, but not in the sense you mean. - No. Right and wrong must be discovered. - No. Depends on your definition of "free will," but in general, no.
    - ristretto 15y ago
      - For an interesting take on (1) and (2) i would suggest reading this http://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/dp/0307377334/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313711503&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/... ; I think there's ample evidence there, too. - You need a tool to "discover" right and wrong, just like you need a metric tensor to measure length. That tool is empiricism. - If it's not the actor's will, whose is it?
      - javert 15y ago
        Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful response. :-) Unfortunately, my reading list is tooo long to add anything new anywhere near the front of the queue, unless it's something that is absolutely earth-shattering. I see that the book you suggest is rated highly on Amazon. But the first review that comes up for me (maybe it's the first one for you, too) is a June 5 review by a neuroscientist (supposedly) who discounts the book as being highly intellectually sloppy. I actually think we may agree on the second overall bullet point. Which is a lot closer than I thought we were. However, I think certain empiricist philosophers have been pretty mistaken. I'm not an expert in either analytic or continental philosophy, but wasn't Hume the famous empiricist who posed the "is-ought" dichotomy and rejected the possibility of finding any solution to it? Any Rand posed a solution to this problem, and I agree with her. I can provide further references up on request. On the third bullet point: I think "free will" is properly understood as a person's ability to choose whether or not to think about something. The more they think, the more refined their conclusions become. It's wrong to just claim that people are a product of their genes and environment, which implicitly ignores this thinking process. So to answer the question, the actor's "will" is the key factor here (if you want to use that word), but of course there is nothing supernatural going on.

Empact 15y ago

As far as the nature vs. nurture division, there's a good amount of new evidence from twin studies and adoption studies which back up Elon's conclusion about the heritability of traits. Bryan Caplan covers some of this in his new book "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids." http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xj9b1h_selfish-reasons-to-have-more-kids_news http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xj9b1h_selfish-reasons-to-h...

radu_floricica 15y ago

You don't program much in lisp, do you? :) Software can be adaptable and self-writing, too.

javert 15y ago
Oh, I totally agree with you. Your comment would be better directed to Elon Musk; it was his analogy. :-)