4 ms·
All you have said is reducible to 'nothing has agency'. Regardless of what is the true nature of consciousness, the fact remains that you are capable of self co
by eternalban 4y ago
All you have said is reducible to 'nothing has agency'. Regardless of what is the true nature of consciousness, the fact remains that you are capable of self control and to assert that "rivers are just like humans" is rather silly unless you either put forward the thought ending idea that "it's just a big complex machine and we're cogs in it regardless of illusions of choice" or "consciousness is just a matter of degrees removed from what's happening with a river because determinism", ignoring the fact we still have managed a patchwork of models to explain reality and have to date failed to have a unified model of reality. I am entirely open to the thought that n centuries from now our models may look as quaint as the earth centric cosmology of the ancients. Minds are a phenomena that are not understood and the proposition that it is an emegent chimera is neither satisfying nor convincing. At least for me. ymmv.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago> All you have said is reducible to 'nothing has agency'. That's one valid interpretation, yes. We don't choose our genetic makeup, which determines (along with environmental factors) the structure of our brain, and therefore also our mind. Another valid interpretation is the one we're discussing: that humans are not a special case and that all complex systems can be said to have agency, even if we are not able to recognize it as such.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]