(1) How can randomness exist? Randomness states that there is an unknown, for randomness to exists means that something has to never be able to be known. You’re saying because quantum mechanics has greater accuracy that Newtonian mechanics that there won’t be other things discovered in the future?
As for motivation, people can be motivated if they happen to be open to motivation. A boulder can affect someone, there’s no will there.
@Charlesdance (2) Someone could be horrified to see the boulder crushing, suck the joy out of life, no will there.
What are you saying about crime and punishment now? That with your philosophy you would or wouldn’t have state punishment? How would you implement punishment and for what reason to what direction?
@Charlesdance : I believe in incarceration and rehabilitation, punishment is just a crude force from folk behaviorism. Some of this may look like punishment, but it wouldn't be. If someone is a danger to themselves and other people, for example, I think you are doing them an act of kindness to prevent them hurting someone seriously. I believe rehabilitation is possible, but it requires the will of the person being rehabilitated.
@Charlesdance : there are a lot of framing problems here, I am trying to sort them out. There can't be "randomness"... that's related to this idea of freedom as totally unrestrained. There is probability and statistic and a built in indeterminacy in the individual case. It seems to me. The individual is constrained to certain possibilities, and overall statistical probabilities play out. Not really "random".
@pyrrho314 If a plan for rehabilitation counted on people having will ‘power’, or whatever, it’d be useless. There’s a reason the motivation market exists and it’s because people can’t kick habits. You could say some people do but then you’d have to say that will differs from one person to the next, then you’d have to apply that to a justice system accounting for differences in will which can’t be measured. Pragmatically, any policy would be more effective with a deterministic view.
@Charlesdance : no, it would not be useless, it would work for those with the will. Some people do kick habits. If only a minority of people have sufficient will, that doesn't mean it's not about will. Also, people can make their will more strong and healthy, and they might even become a majority. Our wills are sick b/c of thousands of years of slavery.
@pyrrho314 Say what? Our wills are sick because of thousands of years of slavery? People can make their will stronger? What would be the process of somebody making their will stronger and healthier? But more to the point, our wills are sick because of thousands of years of slavery?
@Charlesdance : Yes, I believe our will was broken by the "breaking" process used on ranch animals, which is what a human slave is treated like. I believe of course you can make your will stronger, through exercising it, as with most parts of the body. So the answer is exercising the will. Taking choices seriously.
As far as the slavery opinion... I see mankind mostly enslaved by a small minority for thousands of years and expect a psychological affect. What do you see?
@pyrrho314 (1) So will in mankind has been gradually broken down over time because they have been enslaved by a few. Who are the few and how did they get this will and take it from others? Was it inherited genetically, circumstantially? And these people have strong wills so they are essentially ‘freer’ in their will power than the others they subjugate? It sounds like you’re talking about arrogance, I see no challenge to a deterministic view.
@Charlesdance (2) Make will stronger by exercising it? A stronger will is a freer will? Is that what you’re saying? Because it’s ridiculous.
As far as your slavery idea and what do I see? I see a powerful system that has managed to exploit every single person, I do not see a few people exploiting others, everyone is in the same game. With determinism there aren’t bad guys or good guys, just people who do well and others who don’t.
@Charlesdance : I think it's ridiculous you don't think you can make your will stronger by exercising it correctly. When you say the system has managed to... that sounds like you are saying the system has intention, and achieved it... that doesn't seem as likely as it being people that built the system that achieved it.
@pyrrho314 (1) I’m not saying the system has intention, I’m saying it’s a dead unthinking thing that’s perpetuating itself like a dead unthinking gene, it exploits us for its own ends successfully.
I’m not saying name individuals, I’m asking who these few you’ve stated are wilfully subjugating mankind. The bourgeoisie? You’re talking about a quality in
@Charlesdance (2) people and I’m asking how these few have it and others don’t because I could substitute a different quality for what you’re identifying as will and make just as much or as little sense.
I’m still curious though because you didn’t say anything, are you saying that a stronger will is a freer will? I don’t understand when you talk of exercising will because you believe there’s an element of freedom and I just can’t see how such a thing would play out.
@Charlesdance : no, it's not of equally little sense automatically, because will is a feature of a conscious experience and whatever you think about will the conscious experience is happening. Try it, substitute another quality.
Re strong vs free, no, I'm saying I think the term "free" is pretty incoherent for these purposes, and I want to talk about power, which is not "free" but is "bound" in some ways and not others. You are confused that I talk about what I do when I feel...
@pyrrho314 : like I'm making a choice, since there is none? I think that's silly, because I believe, no offense, that you know what it is like to -feel- like you are making a choice. You also feel that first feeling is an illusion, or think it is at least, but that still means you know what it feels like to feel as if you have a choice, and are making it. So what's to not get when I say "when I feel that feeling I try to make it more vivid and strong?"
@pyrrho314 : side note: may people talk about outburst, e.g. of anger, vandalism, and tantrums as acts of the will (to do so) being too strong. My experience with that is that it feels not like controlled will, but out of control "will". That looks and feels "out of control". I'm talking moments where you feel "in control" not out. And it's not always good, like strong muscles aren't always used for good. Perhaps these are two types of will, but I tend to talk of the latter.
@Charlesdance : I am saying what is perpetuating it is not the only question. The other question is simply why do you have a subjective experience... why and how would/could a deterministic universe, or whatever type of universe -we're- in, generate such a thing.
Who has enslaved mankind? Greece, Rome, European Monarchs, etc. wtf are you asking? if you want to say it was their influences that caused, say, southern slave owners to do so, fine, it's a chain. so?
@Charlesdance : If I can't name the few then it didn't happen? I see that people have oppressed people, who it is has evolved over time, but the pattern remained as the individuals came and went. Did I say it was inhereted? It's taken by war generally.
Steven Weinberg also said that the "system" was comprised of fields. I have the first two books in his series, "The Quantum Theory of Fields". He refused to call it Quantum Theory, without addressng the "fields". If people wish to argue that QM is not a deciding factor in consciousness, that is one thing, but to deny the value or validity of the information...of QM as a science...is just ignorant. Your opponents are using their own version of String Theory as a basis for an alternate. Shame.
Great stuff! I have a question regarding the fact that everything breaks down and u are right.But what about prime numbers? or division by zero does the dividing process stop eventualy?
@slevin741 : I saw a great lecture on the Stanford channel by Suskind and he points out that QM really has revealed something about reductionism. The process of decomposition turns out to be a process of transformation. Subatomic particles can transform into each other. Decomposition is not "looking inside" it's "transforming into parts"... and any thing can be part of another system or is another system.
Ironically, physically, you do supposedly get to an indivisible thing...
@pyrrho314 ... but it's a unit of energy, and oddly, perhaps due to relativity, one frame's smallest unit is not the same size as that of another. So while it's the smallest for you, someone might running at a higher resolution and from your perspective be dealing with smaller amounts of energy.
@slevin741 : thinking of everything as a system shows you don't really get inside them, you just disassemble them to get more information (such things are valuable, but really a small part of how you study a system... the primary way is to observe the systems behavior I'd think). The hard part is the idea "what is it a system of?!?!" but that might have an easy answer in that it's something like "fields, or a field" and the primary relation is between the field and itself over time.
hmm. can't change the world just change the view, and how we look at things changes what of us others choose to read.
GoldenFinchFellow 3 weeks ago
One of the few non morons on you tube. Thanks for not throwing in the towel.
AEVautomatic 3 weeks ago
(1) How can randomness exist? Randomness states that there is an unknown, for randomness to exists means that something has to never be able to be known. You’re saying because quantum mechanics has greater accuracy that Newtonian mechanics that there won’t be other things discovered in the future?
As for motivation, people can be motivated if they happen to be open to motivation. A boulder can affect someone, there’s no will there.
Charlesdance 3 weeks ago
@Charlesdance (2) Someone could be horrified to see the boulder crushing, suck the joy out of life, no will there.
What are you saying about crime and punishment now? That with your philosophy you would or wouldn’t have state punishment? How would you implement punishment and for what reason to what direction?
Charlesdance 3 weeks ago
@Charlesdance : I believe in incarceration and rehabilitation, punishment is just a crude force from folk behaviorism. Some of this may look like punishment, but it wouldn't be. If someone is a danger to themselves and other people, for example, I think you are doing them an act of kindness to prevent them hurting someone seriously. I believe rehabilitation is possible, but it requires the will of the person being rehabilitated.
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@Charlesdance : there are a lot of framing problems here, I am trying to sort them out. There can't be "randomness"... that's related to this idea of freedom as totally unrestrained. There is probability and statistic and a built in indeterminacy in the individual case. It seems to me. The individual is constrained to certain possibilities, and overall statistical probabilities play out. Not really "random".
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 If a plan for rehabilitation counted on people having will ‘power’, or whatever, it’d be useless. There’s a reason the motivation market exists and it’s because people can’t kick habits. You could say some people do but then you’d have to say that will differs from one person to the next, then you’d have to apply that to a justice system accounting for differences in will which can’t be measured. Pragmatically, any policy would be more effective with a deterministic view.
Charlesdance 3 weeks ago
@Charlesdance : no, it would not be useless, it would work for those with the will. Some people do kick habits. If only a minority of people have sufficient will, that doesn't mean it's not about will. Also, people can make their will more strong and healthy, and they might even become a majority. Our wills are sick b/c of thousands of years of slavery.
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 Say what? Our wills are sick because of thousands of years of slavery? People can make their will stronger? What would be the process of somebody making their will stronger and healthier? But more to the point, our wills are sick because of thousands of years of slavery?
What?
Charlesdance 3 weeks ago
@Charlesdance : Yes, I believe our will was broken by the "breaking" process used on ranch animals, which is what a human slave is treated like. I believe of course you can make your will stronger, through exercising it, as with most parts of the body. So the answer is exercising the will. Taking choices seriously.
As far as the slavery opinion... I see mankind mostly enslaved by a small minority for thousands of years and expect a psychological affect. What do you see?
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 (1) So will in mankind has been gradually broken down over time because they have been enslaved by a few. Who are the few and how did they get this will and take it from others? Was it inherited genetically, circumstantially? And these people have strong wills so they are essentially ‘freer’ in their will power than the others they subjugate? It sounds like you’re talking about arrogance, I see no challenge to a deterministic view.
Charlesdance 3 weeks ago
@Charlesdance (2) Make will stronger by exercising it? A stronger will is a freer will? Is that what you’re saying? Because it’s ridiculous.
As far as your slavery idea and what do I see? I see a powerful system that has managed to exploit every single person, I do not see a few people exploiting others, everyone is in the same game. With determinism there aren’t bad guys or good guys, just people who do well and others who don’t.
Charlesdance 3 weeks ago
@Charlesdance : I think it's ridiculous you don't think you can make your will stronger by exercising it correctly. When you say the system has managed to... that sounds like you are saying the system has intention, and achieved it... that doesn't seem as likely as it being people that built the system that achieved it.
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 (1) I’m not saying the system has intention, I’m saying it’s a dead unthinking thing that’s perpetuating itself like a dead unthinking gene, it exploits us for its own ends successfully.
I’m not saying name individuals, I’m asking who these few you’ve stated are wilfully subjugating mankind. The bourgeoisie? You’re talking about a quality in
Charlesdance 3 weeks ago
@Charlesdance (2) people and I’m asking how these few have it and others don’t because I could substitute a different quality for what you’re identifying as will and make just as much or as little sense.
I’m still curious though because you didn’t say anything, are you saying that a stronger will is a freer will? I don’t understand when you talk of exercising will because you believe there’s an element of freedom and I just can’t see how such a thing would play out.
Charlesdance 3 weeks ago
@Charlesdance : no, it's not of equally little sense automatically, because will is a feature of a conscious experience and whatever you think about will the conscious experience is happening. Try it, substitute another quality.
Re strong vs free, no, I'm saying I think the term "free" is pretty incoherent for these purposes, and I want to talk about power, which is not "free" but is "bound" in some ways and not others. You are confused that I talk about what I do when I feel...
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 : like I'm making a choice, since there is none? I think that's silly, because I believe, no offense, that you know what it is like to -feel- like you are making a choice. You also feel that first feeling is an illusion, or think it is at least, but that still means you know what it feels like to feel as if you have a choice, and are making it. So what's to not get when I say "when I feel that feeling I try to make it more vivid and strong?"
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 : side note: may people talk about outburst, e.g. of anger, vandalism, and tantrums as acts of the will (to do so) being too strong. My experience with that is that it feels not like controlled will, but out of control "will". That looks and feels "out of control". I'm talking moments where you feel "in control" not out. And it's not always good, like strong muscles aren't always used for good. Perhaps these are two types of will, but I tend to talk of the latter.
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@Charlesdance : I am saying what is perpetuating it is not the only question. The other question is simply why do you have a subjective experience... why and how would/could a deterministic universe, or whatever type of universe -we're- in, generate such a thing.
Who has enslaved mankind? Greece, Rome, European Monarchs, etc. wtf are you asking? if you want to say it was their influences that caused, say, southern slave owners to do so, fine, it's a chain. so?
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 I’m lost for now, don’t have the will to carry this on and what have you.
Charlesdance 3 weeks ago
@Charlesdance : If I can't name the few then it didn't happen? I see that people have oppressed people, who it is has evolved over time, but the pattern remained as the individuals came and went. Did I say it was inhereted? It's taken by war generally.
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
Steven Weinberg also said that the "system" was comprised of fields. I have the first two books in his series, "The Quantum Theory of Fields". He refused to call it Quantum Theory, without addressng the "fields". If people wish to argue that QM is not a deciding factor in consciousness, that is one thing, but to deny the value or validity of the information...of QM as a science...is just ignorant. Your opponents are using their own version of String Theory as a basis for an alternate. Shame.
Qntkka 4 weeks ago
free won't.. but unfree will
TWITfromURANUS 4 weeks ago
free will is essentially the same as a magician trick. you dont see behind the curtain so you think its magic.
Ioganstone 4 weeks ago
@Ioganstone : I don't think it's magic, I think it's physics.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
Great stuff! I have a question regarding the fact that everything breaks down and u are right.But what about prime numbers? or division by zero does the dividing process stop eventualy?
slevin741 4 weeks ago
@slevin741 : I saw a great lecture on the Stanford channel by Suskind and he points out that QM really has revealed something about reductionism. The process of decomposition turns out to be a process of transformation. Subatomic particles can transform into each other. Decomposition is not "looking inside" it's "transforming into parts"... and any thing can be part of another system or is another system.
Ironically, physically, you do supposedly get to an indivisible thing...
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
@pyrrho314 ... but it's a unit of energy, and oddly, perhaps due to relativity, one frame's smallest unit is not the same size as that of another. So while it's the smallest for you, someone might running at a higher resolution and from your perspective be dealing with smaller amounts of energy.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago
@slevin741 : thinking of everything as a system shows you don't really get inside them, you just disassemble them to get more information (such things are valuable, but really a small part of how you study a system... the primary way is to observe the systems behavior I'd think). The hard part is the idea "what is it a system of?!?!" but that might have an easy answer in that it's something like "fields, or a field" and the primary relation is between the field and itself over time.
pyrrho314 4 weeks ago