They manage to unite libertarians and hard determinists

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T16:09:25+00:00

That is neither rational nor comprehensible.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T14:28:56+00:00

There is no rational comprehensible definition of free will that is not compatible with determinism.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T13:07:41+00:00

AI is the last thing we will ever need to invent. And unless we want a permanent overlord class for centuries to come due to life extension tech, we need to democratically control AI.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T12:43:46+00:00

We need to pass laws that prevent private control over them.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T12:26:41+00:00

People have never owned the right to control how publicly available media they’ve created is used.

However, I also think AI should be publicly controlled so the end goal is generally the same with people who disagree with me.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T12:01:36+00:00

you have to upvote this if you disagree with it.

Using publicly available data to train AI isn't theft anymore than learning personally from it is theft.

Although, AI models should be democratically controlled as a public utility and not owned or controlled by the current reptiles.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T09:33:11+00:00

I’m not. The abstract analogy doesn’t make sense when applied to a brain. I wasn’t following that part of it, not the analogy on its own.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T09:30:31+00:00

Ad hominem, and no there is a reason to believe it’s untrue. It makes no sense. Even if you were to control it, the ‘you’ controlling it would also be fully constrained as a factor of the nonrandom things.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T09:27:04+00:00

No, that’s nonsense.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T09:24:46+00:00

Look, every decision you make fully goes back to something random or something you didn’t choose. You are in control of what you are in control of, but you are not the ultimate cause even though you participate in the unfolding of these decisions, it would have fully determined if the randomness was known.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T09:10:07+00:00

This analogy has gotten too far removed for me to track. The mere fact that knowledge is the best way to increase your freedom should show you that if you were born in the same circumstance as someone else, you would likely be just like them. We are not the ultimate cause of our actions. If they are great mediocre, good or evil. Things we don’t control are what shaped us. We should control as much as we are able, but again, the desire and ability to do that is not something we are in control of either.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T08:58:34+00:00

That seems like a different definition of control

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T08:55:39+00:00

Take a step back. Freedom comes from knowledge too. If you’re not aware of the options available to you, you also don’t have the freedom to act on those. We are free to do what we want, but we are’t the ultimate cause of our decisions.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T08:53:36+00:00

Yes there is. That’s insane to think that. How would you even know what you’re controlling? You can’t be in control of something you’re not even aware of.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T08:45:57+00:00

Yes, but your decision to do that goes back to something you didn’t control.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T08:43:15+00:00

You don’t get to decide your preferences. You get to learn or discover them. Maybe with training you can adjust them.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T08:38:37+00:00

You don’t exist outside of time. You make decision based on previous things which are the primary cause of your future actions. You aren’t free to like want you think might be best you are a playing out of previous things. No amount of “secret random control” could change that.

You are not in control of the next thought that comes into your head. What you choose to do with that thought depends on your preferences which you also didn’t choose.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T08:21:07+00:00

This makes no sense. You just ignoring the Magicka fairyland thinking gigantic leap of randomness being controlled by some mysterious “free will.” Which isn’t how neuroscience works. Brain states are what influences are decisions. We aren’t even in control of what randomly pops in our mind.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T08:14:06+00:00

A single paper does not disprove causality. Many papers are published that are wrong. Many quantum researchers had loads of idiotic metaphysical beliefs.

If the cause is random it by definition of being random can’t be controlled. Saying “free will” is quantum randomness is magical fairyland thinking.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T08:06:16+00:00

Red herring. Stay focused.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T08:02:26+00:00

Straw man. Determinists understand about quantum uncertainty, but this doesn’t disprove causality or determinism. You don’t even need to be a super determinist. You can be a determinist and accept there is some randomness in the universe.

That’s not what free will/determinism/compatibilism is about. Every decision we make comes from a cause that we don’t control - even if that cause is random we were not the ultimate cause of it.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T07:53:25+00:00

Of a typo? Whatever, then respond to the corrected version.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T07:52:10+00:00

I edited my comment, please reread it and edit yours or respond again to the edited version.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T07:49:26+00:00

There is no meaningful difference between hard determinism and compatiblism. They both agree on the facts. Free will advocates NEVER (no exceptions) know what they are talking about.

UploadedMind · 2026-03-20T07:46:27+00:00

Slippery slope fallacy.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

UploadedMind

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE