5 ms·
I'm not super thrilled about being compelled by evolution or a god.
by silverquiet 2y ago
I'm not super thrilled about being compelled by evolution or a god.
- Havoc 2y agoNeither am I but evolution doesn’t seem inclined to engage in philosophical discussions
- silverquiet 2y agoI suppose it's a subject I've long wondered about - am I just some sort of biological robot fulfilling some pre-determined program? Or have I actually been equipped with some sort of agency? I guess it's the old free will question and it may be unanswerable. That said, I can't say I've ever really felt much instinctual desire to reproduce, and if I have, perhaps I have reasoned myself out of the idea in some way. Either way it would seem that I am an evolutionary dead end. Am I supposed to feel some way about that? It seems like having an opinion on g=9.8m/s2 or the boiling point of water; useless.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoFree will is so self-evident that deniers of free will have to give lectures at universities to convince everyone else that the universe is making illusions for fun at the cost of thermodynamic efficiency.
- vidarh 2y agoDefine it in a way that doesn't mean it is just an illusion, and that actually explains something then. I've yet to meet anyone able to do so coherently.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoIt’s impossible to define it or do anything requiring verbs if you don’t have free will, so it’s tautologically impossible to satisfy this class of solipsistic ideas.
- effingwewt 2y agoLol because commands can't be typed out by a computer. Your argument is flawed.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoSimply point to a computer that has never had conscious human involvement in any part of its evolution and wait for it to type out something ;)
- vidarh 2y agoA machine can type, so this is not a logically valid argument. You've also presented no argument for why it is impossible to define. If free will is possible, there should be no reason you can't define what it is.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoIf there is no free will, it’s tautologically impossible to define anything, therefore there is no reason to make an argument for free will, because in doing so I would be using free will.
- vidarh 2y agoThis argument is not logically valid. Nothing changes with respect to the possibility of defining something if there is no free will - defining something is merely mapping an identifier to a representation of meaning. A purely mechanical device can define things just fine. Free will is demonstrably not necessary to define things.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoIt is logically valid, because it’s like asking a candle flame to flicker in a certain pattern to prove it can control how it flickers to other candle flames. If we have no free will we are just like candle flames; any argument that says we are more than candle flames is not valid when you assume we are candle flames. People forget that logic requires axioms.
- coremoff 2y agoYou might enjoy "The Robot's Rebellion" by Keith Stanovich (in this context, you are the robot)
- RestlessMind 2y agoThen I suggest you introspect and observe your own behavior. A lot of it can be boiled down to evolution.
- silverquiet 2y agoHow do you figure?