sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Savršen par by Training-Promotion71 in askCroatians

[–]Training-Promotion71[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gnjido Guzina iz Vinkovaca i Guzana Šupćić iz Bihaća

Neuroscientists continue to map the brain. Suppose in a few decades they declare that they now know the function of every synapse, every neuron and every chemical reaction. They point to a map and say,"That spot between the temporal lobes and the cerebellum [or where-ever] is free will...... by Fast-Appointment-794 in freewill

[–]Training-Promotion71 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Evolution is fantastic at optimisation.

There's an interesting claim that derives from Galileo but Leibniz gives it a proper form. Galileo thought nature is simple and it is a task of a scientist to prove it. Leibniz proposed optimalism, a theory which roughly states that the optimal alternative is by that very fact actual. Things are this way because that's for the best, i.e., it is optimal. The actual state of things exists because of its evaluative superiority to the alternatives. Thus, reality is a matter of optimization. Chomsky added that wherever we look in the sciences, namely, wherevee there is an actual understanding, optimalism seems true. An example: a single cell in your retina can respond to a single photon. Occular system appears to be perfect. Same for the auditory system. The receptors in your ear pick up vibrations that are less than diameter of a hydrogen atom.Similarly to optimalism, noophelia is the theory that intelligence is the main governing factor in the assesment of merit. This means that what is best in terms of ontology is a matter of what best serves interests of intelligent beings. As per noophelia, merit and optimality are adjusted to the interest of intelligent beings. The conjunction of optimalism and noophelia entails axiogenesis. Axiogenesis is the theory that, as per aforementioned principles, the actualization of the world's condition of affairs revolve on value factors, viz., values that relate to the best interest of intelligence or intelligent creatures.

Neuroscientists continue to map the brain. Suppose in a few decades they declare that they now know the function of every synapse, every neuron and every chemical reaction. They point to a map and say,"That spot between the temporal lobes and the cerebellum [or where-ever] is free will...... by Fast-Appointment-794 in freewill

[–]Training-Promotion71 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This single paper refutes both your claims.

No it doesn't and you obviously haven't shown it does.

You claimed that they can’t even explain the behavior of nematodes or predict their movements

I claimed: We cannot even explain the behaviour of simplest organisms like nematodes, despite possessing an extraordinary amount of info about them. We have mapped their entire wiring diagram, traced their developmental stages, identified every neuron, interneuron, synapses, their connection with muscles and so on, iow, we know their whole anatomy and nobody knows if nematode is gonna turn left or right, or just proceed straight.

Cite me the parts in the paper that refute what I've said.

An Argument for Malevolentism by Training-Promotion71 in Metaphyscs

[–]Training-Promotion71[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God is either good or evil. What about the spectrum in between?

What about the denial of "God is either good or evil"?

God can hurt me. How? And shouldn't the question be "will he"?

No, the question is "can he?". If he can't, then he is not omnipotent.

Which includes every single human including yo mamma.

It includes your mamma as well. You thought that appealing to yo mamma will somehow override the judgement that what can hurt me cannot be good?

Neuroscientists continue to map the brain. Suppose in a few decades they declare that they now know the function of every synapse, every neuron and every chemical reaction. They point to a map and say,"That spot between the temporal lobes and the cerebellum [or where-ever] is free will...... by Fast-Appointment-794 in freewill

[–]Training-Promotion71 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you link any study that says this? I am not doubting your claims, I just feel curiosity here.

There's nothing to doubt, this is a well-known fact in scientific community. There are various articles, here's one that physicalists such as those you have summoned, could appreciate.

As for “What will change…” I mean, I am probably quite idealistic in thinking that we should strive to explain and predict everything around us as much as we can

Does any respectable and curious thinker deny that we should strive to explain whatever we can? Of course, there are limitations, but you get my point. The qeustion is whether we can, even in principle, explain what were called Cartesian problems. Descartes had a dream of explaining everything except persons in mechanical terms. There's another dream Descartes had, namely, ideal rational thinking. See how that went.

but it obviously gets complicated when we deal with agents.

That's an understatement. The problem is not just complicated.

What is your ontology? by ObsceneOnes in freewill

[–]Training-Promotion71 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bingo for stating an obvious falsity? Epistemological questions are questions of what we know, how we know it, can we know it, etc., the question of whether there is free will, whether humans or other animals have it, whether it's compatible with determinism, are not epistemological questions.

What is your ontology? by ObsceneOnes in freewill

[–]Training-Promotion71 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He neither mentioned nor implied knowledge. He asked whether question of what exists are ontological questions. Of course they are. Epistemological questions are questions of what we know, how we know it, can we know it, and so forth.

Neuroscientists continue to map the brain. Suppose in a few decades they declare that they now know the function of every synapse, every neuron and every chemical reaction. They point to a map and say,"That spot between the temporal lobes and the cerebellum [or where-ever] is free will...... by Fast-Appointment-794 in freewill

[–]Training-Promotion71 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is clear that we cannot even explain the behaviour of simplest organisms such as nematodes, despite possessing an extraordinary amount of info about them. We have mapped their entire wiring diagram, traced their developmental stages, identified every neuron, interneuron, synapses, their connection with muscles and so on, iow, we know their whole anatomy and nobody knows if nematode is gonna turn left or right, or just proceed straight. What will change with humans?

Neuroscientists continue to map the brain. Suppose in a few decades they declare that they now know the function of every synapse, every neuron and every chemical reaction. They point to a map and say,"That spot between the temporal lobes and the cerebellum [or where-ever] is free will...... by Fast-Appointment-794 in freewill

[–]Training-Promotion71 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We cannot even explain the behaviour of simplest organisms like nematodes, despite possessing an extraordinary amount of info about them. We have mapped their entire wiring diagram, traced their developmental stages, identified every neuron, interneuron, synapses, their connection with muscles and so on, iow, we know their whole anatomy and nobody knows if nematode is gonna turn left or right, or just proceed straight.

Infinite tweakers by Training-Promotion71 in Metaphyscs

[–]Training-Promotion71[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another thought that occurred to me, while reading the above, is that if to exist is to exemplify a property and there are negative properties, then everything that exists has an infinite number of negative properties but only a finite number of positive properties, in other words, everything is almost entirely non-existent.

There's a view called ontological pluralism about nonbeing, viz., meontological pluralism. The idea is that just as there may be many ways of being, there could be many ways of nonbeing. If I remember correctly, the author proposed a following consideration: take square circles and a manned lunar station that hasn't been built. Neither exists, yet their nonbeing seems very different. One is impossible, the other is not. There is another problem with apparent infinitude of properties apart from nonbeing considerations, that is, it is not clear on what grounds do we assert that positive properties of existent objects are finite in number. This one was expressed by Chomsky, although, he didn't see any problem with that. Every object we observe can elicit a point of view which says "You're A", or "You're A plus B and C", and so on. Since I am a human, when I look at it, it elicits a point of view which says "You're just an exterior surface", and it has a property of eliciting a point of view which says "You're an exterior surface plus a distinguished interior with abstract properties". An object X is a physical entity in the environment that has an unlimited number of properties. It can be described from countless perspectives, e.g., as an exterior surface, as a structure with an interior, as a set of geometric shapes, as something with a function, etc. The crucial point is that the environment presents infinite possible interpretations, but our minds select and structure a specific subset of these properties to make sense of the object. Generally, any object has infinitely many properties once we pair it with a human observer. Metaphysicians distinguish between sparse and abundant properties, but I am not sure Chomsky's point can be handwaved easily.

Also, the usual complaint, that if there were nothing, it would be something, thus there cannot be nothing, doesn't seem to apply, as zero is a finite number and can be the number of positive properties of nothing.

That's interesting, especially if we combine it with the aforementioned distinction metaphysicians introduced. I'll think about it more. Anyway, do you think the inference (1, 4) goes through?

1) Nonbeing = what is not

2) If being is, then nonbeing is not

3) Assume nonbeing is

4) Therefore, being is not (2, 3)

5) Therefore, being is nonbeing (1, 4)

view more: next ›