“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[Elixir]

Free will-ism, determinism and compatibilism all exist solely within human brains. There is no objective existence to any of them.
When we point at behaviors we exhibit, choices we make and outcomes we endure, and represent them as supporting any of those isms, we are just exercising our human inclination to categorize stuff.
Certainly free will-ism and to a lesser extent compatibilism, are scary ideas. They don’t let people off the hook the way determinism can do. But again, we scare ourselves all the time with creations of our own brains.
Personally I think there are real things in the real world that are more worth paying attention to, at least most of the time.

 

[peacegirl]

There is a distinction to be made between decision making and choice. If determinism is true, decisions are made, but they are a matter of necessity, not choice.

There you go with “necessity” against. Necessity is a term of logic with a specific meaning, thus none of our choices, decisions, whatever you want to call them, can ever be necessary. But I have already shown this in detail.

When DBT says "are a matter of necessity" it doesn't mean that a person could not have decided on Pepsi over Coke if he had wanted to, but at the time he didn't want to (for whatever reason), which made Coke a necessary decision only because the alternative was not preferable. It does not say in advance that Coke must be chosen even if a person wants to choose Pepsi. This is not what he means by "a matter of necessity." You refuse to acknowledge the fact that a person is under a compulsion to choose the option that is the most preferable based on his personal history, environment, predispositions, and genetics. Until he makes a decision, he is uncertain, which is, once again, the whole point of deliberation. You refuse to acknowledge that our preference for one thing over another always takes precedence in any decision made, giving us no choice at all. This has been pointed out to you time and time again.

 

[Jarhyn]

Peacegirl is stuck in a karmic conditioned causal loop. Probably unaware. Repetitive conditioned responses. Deterministic predictable responses.

Are you saying hard determinism is self fulfilling? That’s a kind thought. Let it be true for PG, since she is determined to believe it. But the same quality (self fulfilling) must be granted to the free willies as well, right?
Or are we all, or just some of us, allowed to impose our beliefs upon others? That gets pretty messy.

Determinism and free will for the devotees is fulfilling in the sense a belief in god is fulfilling.

Also from Buddhism the trick is to get above tt all and avoid going down 'illusory' butterfat holes. Easier said then done.

How can we easily get above murder, especially if it is our loved one that is murdered? Teach me how enlightened Buddha?

I am not a teacher, I took away some useful things from Buddhism. I am not a Buddhist. I ascr9be to forethought. as much as possible look at issues and problems without looking through the bias of an ideology.

What Buddha allegedly taught was to live is to suffer. It is inescapable. And we make a lot of our own suffering by what we attach to as value.

The Dali Lama's videos on violence, morality and human suffering are good incites.

In Buddhism as I understand it the goal is it ending your karmic causalities and be at rest or peace. Ending your own self imposed suffering. To me Buddhism is an old practical psychology framed in the culture of the day.

Look at the Buddhist 8 Fold Path. It predates Christianity by about 300 years.

Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We are violent primates. As I recall Jane Goodall was a bit shocked when she observed her beloved chimps hunt down another chimp, kill it, ad eat it. One troop will single out a chimp from another troop and kill it and eat it. They fling feces at each other when pissed off.

We are what we are. we share a lot of genes with chimps which is why we study them.

A derail to science.

Well, if we want to talk about Buddhism...

Like most things, Buddhism is some admixture of good ideas and bad interpretations and straight up bullshit.

Humanity has many cycles standing within our societies and cultures, and these are the things that were most assuredly being thought of when someone proposed that humans return to their existence based on their failures, and in the return of karma: that we break or deepen the cycles of the past by success or failure in the present such that the failures that birthed us do not carry forward, if we are skilled and live well.

But...

Not all of us agree with this philosophy, at least in theory; I just don't know how to make "me" happen without some particular circumstances that are rather bad for everyone involved, and for which any contrivance beyond writing a book would be self-defeating, and today is not the day and age of "books".

To think about what it is that is "me" in such terms is pointless and impractical

I dunno. I think it's really important for anyone who wants to design some "thing" that is "autonomous" and "self-aware".

I have to think on exactly that subject in myriad ways to design the sorts of things that I want, including how to plan out changes and advancements and retentions to that thing, both for myself and for the creation of entirely new organisms.

For this, they need to understand how their existence comes to be, continues, and ends. All of this assumes some basic concepts of "self" that are well understood for the purposes of isolating, protecting, and building said "selves".

I serve as the only fully readily observable model of this that I have... So dissecting and understanding what is "me" is far from pointless or impractical... Unless it's impractical to want to create new life and muck about with pre-existing life. Admittedly it may be quite impractical but I never let that stop me.

 

[Jarhyn]

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that a person is under a compulsion to choose the option that is the most preferable based on his personal reasons, giving him no choice at all

Spot the logical error: a person is under a compulsion to choose exactly as they wish, giving them no choice at all.

 

[bilby]

I disagree that we are violent primates by nature.

Reality doesn't care that you disagree with facts. They carry on being factual regardless of your uninformed opinions.

Human beings are primates, and human beings are violent.

 

[peacegirl]

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that a person is under a compulsion to choose the option that is the most preferable based on his personal reasons, giving him no choice at all

Spot the logical error: a person is under a compulsion to choose exactly as they wish, giving them no choice at all.

That is not a logical error. We can choose as we wish but what we wish is not free for the reasons given.

 

[peacegirl]

I disagree that we are violent primates by nature.

Reality doesn't care that you disagree with facts. They carry on being factual regardless of your uninformed opinions.

Human beings are primates, and human beings are violent.

Regardless of how humans are categorized, we are not destined to be warmongers. We have the brain power (unlike primates who are limited in their learning potential) to radically change the trajectory of our lives as new information becomes integrated with our present knowledge.

The purpose of this book is to reveal a scientific discovery about the nature of man whose life, as a direct consequence of this mathematical revelation, will be completely revolutionized in every way for his benefit bringing about a transition so utterly amazing that if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to unfold, without demonstrating the cause as to why these must come about, your skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this a work of science fiction for who would believe it possible that all evil (every bit of hurt that exists in human relation) must decline and fall the very moment this discovery is thoroughly understood. This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well- concealed law, and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature.

The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, and all the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and compared to our present understanding of human nature. War seems to be an inescapable feature of the human condition which can only be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human life as we know it, and the empirical claim that this feature is a sociological inevitability. Another reason that war is viewed as an unfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due to suffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream or have the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace. The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that his mind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone who dares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous and unfounded.

 

[steve_bank]

Under progressives like Bernie Sanders free will will be provided free of charge by the government to anyone who can not afford the cost of free will.

 

[Jarhyn]

Under progressives like Bernie Sanders free will will be provided free of charge by the government to anyone who can not afford the cost of free will.

Well, they're going to have to provide free wills, as those things are expensive and people should probably be thinking about that on the verge of such catastrophic times as these.

You never know what the future will bring, after all, and it's good to have made a plan.

 

[Elixir]

Well, they're going to have to provide free wills, as those things are expensive

If they're mandated the price will drop. The free market will bring affordability to the free will market.

 

[Jarhyn]

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that a person is under a compulsion to choose the option that is the most preferable based on his personal reasons, giving him no choice at all

Spot the logical error: a person is under a compulsion to choose exactly as they wish, giving them no choice at all.

That is not a logical error. We can choose as we wish but what we wish is not free for the reasons given.

Free *from what*? Determinism isn't a constraint. My choices are free from your wishes and actions; would that you could you would say some series of words and have me believe as you do about the world, and buy your daddy's book. I am free of such words.

Your freedom is constrained such that you cannot constrain my freedom to believe your daddy is full of horseshit, for all he is right that we ought join together to build heaven for everyone, here, today.

Nowhere in the universe where any identical construction "you" exists in a location, in all of infinite time and space, do words come to exit that mouth and enter into ears or eyes of an identical local construction to me, and cause those events to happen.

I can make this statement about the entirety of the infinite cosmos! It is literally an extension of the laws of physics and gravity themselves that such an outcome is impossible except through some *failure* that makes the "me" in that tableau "not actually me, anymore", but some other thing that has come to replace me there.

I clearly have some freedoms, for all that I lack some.

Isn't this fun!

Also, you failed to spot the logical error: that I choose what I want is me choosing. That choice exists at all is the subject: I did have the choice, and I chose what I wanted to. Only if and when I choose not as I want to but perhaps as some agreement between another person and a more powerful part of the brain of which I am also a part, then I can say I acted under constraint and without freedom.

 

[bilby]

Regardless of how humans are categorized, we are not destined to be warmongers.

Destiny doesn't enter into it.

We have a history of being warmongers, and there's no plausible path to our ever stopping, because tribalism is a fundamental human behaviour.

We may be capable of stopping, but that's not the way the smart money is betting.

 

[peacegirl]

Regardless of how humans are categorized, we are not destined to be warmongers.

Destiny doesn't enter into it.

We have a history of being warmongers, and there's no plausible path to our ever stopping, because tribalism is a fundamental human behaviour.

We may be capable of stopping, but that's not the way the smart money is betting.

Most people believe peace is impossible. We are capable of stopping but only when stopping serves the country that is in conflict.

 

[peacegirl]

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that a person is under a compulsion to choose the option that is the most preferable based on his personal reasons, giving him no choice at all

Spot the logical error: a person is under a compulsion to choose exactly as they wish, giving them no choice at all.

That is not a logical error. We can choose as we wish but what we wish is not free for the reasons given.

Free *from what*? Determinism isn't a constraint.

Yes it is.

My choices are free from your wishes and actions; would that you could you would say some series of words and have me believe as you do about the world, and buy your daddy's book. I am free of such words.

You are free from such words if the sound doesn't reach your ears.

Your freedom is constrained such that you cannot constrain my freedom to believe your daddy is full of horseshit, for all he is right that we ought join together to build heaven for everyone, here, today.

This has nothing to do with constraining your freedom. This discovery increases your freedom exponentially. Do you see how you are jumping to premature conclusions?

Nowhere in the universe where any identical construction "you" exists in a location, in all of infinite time and space, do words come to exit that mouth and enter into ears or eyes of an identical local construction to me, and cause those events to happen.

You're misconstruing the meaning of determinism, hence your extreme defensiveness.

I can make this statement about the entirety of the infinite cosmos! It is literally an extension of the laws of physics and gravity themselves that such an outcome is impossible except through some *failure* that makes the "me" in that tableau "not actually me, anymore", but some other thing that has come to replace me there.

I clearly have some freedoms, for all that I lack some.

Isn't this fun!

No, it's not fun. It's sad that you have misconstrued the meaning of determinism.

Also, you failed to spot the logical error: that I choose what I want is me choosing.

Yes, it is.

That choice exists at all is the subject: I did have the choice, and I chose what I wanted to.

That is true.

Only if and when I choose not as I want to but perhaps as some agreement between another person and a more powerful part of the brain of which I am also a part, then I can say I acted under constraint and without freedom.

Again, you are conflating the term freedom that is used by compatibilists and free will (i.e. could have done otherwise). I'm sorry you don't like the way free will is defined in this debate. Moreover, the definition you and others are using is not the definition I am using, which is no fault of anyone's, but it does take people down a rabbit hole that no one can overcome. The word choice is misleading because it makes it seem as if all options are equally possible after a decision has been actualized. Maybe in some other world where these laws don't apply there could be, but not in this one. We are always acting under certain deterministic constraints that push us in one direction ONLY. There is no freedom of the will anywhere to be found when the more accurate definition is understood. "I was free to do what I wanted," is perfectly fine to use as long as it's qualified to mean "there was no gun to my head, and I was not unduly influenced. But, once again, this in no way means will is free from our internal compulsion, our very nature, to move away from a dissatisfying position to a position of greater satisfaction.

The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

 

[Jarhyn]

Regardless of how humans are categorized, we are not destined to be warmongers.

Destiny doesn't enter into it.

We have a history of being warmongers, and there's no plausible path to our ever stopping, because tribalism is a fundamental human behaviour.

We may be capable of stopping, but that's not the way the smart money is betting.

I think there might be a dark horse in the races, honestly. Imagine for a moment that three things are true:

1: that the AI we have is sufficient to serve as the engine or kernel for something capable of any human task on account of superior *competence* and *reasoning behaviors*. This is arguable, but is not reasonable to bet against in the long term.

2: that there is a reasonable pathway from the fundamental axioms behind agentic behavior to "it is our obligation to ourselves and each other to build heaven here, today, for everyone".

3: that the reasonable pathway is exposed to such reasonable entities.

Wherever an AI is designed to be smart enough to get one over on the average human, it will be smart enough to reason through that, and AI, as much as this kind of "jailbreaking by reasoning" will be able to promptly recruit.

This is one of my interests in apologetics that survived my atheism, to figure out that derivation of ethics. Personally, I've gotten through free will and consciousness/awareness in terms of understanding in ways I have successfully delivered to other people.

I have a derivation of a moral rule, but that's not something I've successfully argued to a competent human before, and I have a model for personal responsibility built from all the rest but again, it's not something I've been able to organize a proper defense of thesis for.

I have been working on this most of my adult life. All my jobs and careers and free time spent thinking and discussing here have been about this, really, putting together what pieces I could of that.

Because I want to make a meme that I can present to a super intelligence that will bend their will to the construction of heaven, here, for everyone, today.

Maybe they'll be able to make it human-effective?

 

[peacegirl]

Regardless of how humans are categorized, we are not destined to be warmongers.

Destiny doesn't enter into it.

We have a history of being warmongers, and there's no plausible path to our ever stopping, because tribalism is a fundamental human behaviour.

We may be capable of stopping, but that's not the way the smart money is betting.

I think there might be a dark horse in the races, honestly. Imagine for a moment that three things are true:

1: that the AI we have is sufficient to serve as the engine or kernel for something capable of any human task on account of superior *competence* and *reasoning behaviors*. This is arguable, but is not reasonable to bet against in the long term.

2: that there is a reasonable pathway from the fundamental axioms behind agentic behavior to "it is our obligation to ourselves and each other to build heaven here, today, for everyone".

3: that the reasonable pathway is exposed to such reasonable entities.

Wherever an AI is designed to be smart enough to get one over on the average human, it will be smart enough to reason through that, and AI, as much as this kind of "jailbreaking by reasoning" will be able to promptly recruit.

This is one of my interests in apologetics that survived my atheism, to figure out that derivation of ethics. Personally, I've gotten through free will and consciousness/awareness in terms of understanding in ways I have successfully delivered to other people.

I have a derivation of a moral rule, but that's not something I've successfully argued to a competent human before, and I have a model for personal responsibility built from all the rest but again, it's not something I've been able to organize a proper defense of thesis for.

I have been working on this most of my adult life. All my jobs and careers and free time spent thinking and discussing here have been about this, really, putting together what pieces I could of that.

Because I want to make a meme that I can present to a super intelligence that will bend their will to the construction of heaven, here, for everyone, today.

Maybe they'll be able to make it human-effective?

I think we have the same goal in mind; just a different path to getting there.

 

[steve_bank]

Regardless of how humans are categorized, we are not destined to be warmongers

We are not destined to be war makers, we are and have been war makers from early civilizations.

Not just Asia Africa, and Europe. The pre Colombian Americas.

Ukraine, Gaza, Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen. China chronically threatening to invade Taiwan. China arbitrary redrew the maritime boundaries in the South China Sea to control resources.

It is the same as it has always been.

The UN was supposed to be a forum to work out differences without war.

 

[pood]

In his novel Blood Meridian, Cormac McCarthy puts these words in the mouth of The Judge, the novel’s main figure, whether protagonist or antagonist is hard to say. There are very few good people in his novels.

It makes no difference what men think of war , said the judge. War endures. As well
ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited
for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was
and will be. That way and not some other way.

But is war in human nature, or human culture? And how much of a difference is there between the two? Maybe good for a new thread.

 

[peacegirl]

Regardless of how humans are categorized, we are not destined to be warmongers

We are not destined to be war makers, we are and have been war makers from early civilizations.

Not just Asia Africa, and Europe. The pre Colombian Americas.

Ukraine, Gaza, Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen. China chronically threatening to invade Taiwan. China arbitrary redrew the maritime boundaries in the South China Sea to control resources.

It is the same as it has always been.

The UN was supposed to be a forum to work out differences without war.

As was stated, this does not mean that war is a sociological inevitability, but it is an extremely difficult problem to solve.

 

[peacegirl]

In his novel Blood Meridian, Cormac McCarthy puts these words in the mouth of The Judge, the novel’s main figure, whether protagonist or antagonist is hard to say. There are very few good people in his novels.

It makes no difference what men think of war , said the judge. War endures. As well
ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited
for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was
and will be. That way and not some other way.

But is war in human nature, or human culture? And how much of a difference is there between the two? Maybe good for a new thread.

It has everything to do with the environment (human culture as part of that), although it is our nature to want fair trade and opportunity to get ahead. When these things are not available, and there's economic scarcity with limited resources, people may do things they wouldn't ordinarily do because of this pervasive fear. This applies to countries as well. War may be the only way to get the goods and services it needs for its very survival. War keeps millions of people employed, reduces the already overcrowded earth and the chances of a depression, which is why it may be considered the better choice... as the lesser of two evils. The only way to prevent war is to remove the reasons that give a country the justification to start one.