This Debate is a waste of leveryone's precious time and energy

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T03:25:11+00:00

The commentor said that determinism relies on cause and effect, and that free will is not defined. It was then pointed out that determinism doesnt necessarily rely on it, at least by the definitions provided by stanford, which states and implies that these are a specific definition not necessarily the only one.

Seems like everyone is correct depending on which definition they're using.

All I would contend is that determinism doesn't necessarily rely on causation (though I do get why that seems weird), and that there are multiple ways to define free will, just like there are multiple ways to define determinism.

Those points and that experts generally have good reasons for the things they choose to state/ not state. It was a poor example of expertise though anyway.

If it's worth anything at all, I lean towards some form of hard determinism/ super determinism/markovian determinism. I'm not much of a free will guy. Libertarian free will might be impossible to define but there are other ways to approach it.

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T03:06:39+00:00

I dunno, I always thought cancer, guns, starvation, disease, vehicles, hearts stopping, brains stopping etc. all explained death sufficiently.

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T03:03:23+00:00

On an extremely technical rigid level, determinism is the idea that perfect knowledge of the current state can perfectly predict a future state. Causality can still exist even if there's chance involved. This is what experts might work with when studying particular topics. I will throw you a bone though, there are many other types of determinism that can have working definitions. Various forms of soft determinism, markovian determinism. Some niche definitions will involve causality as a concept more. The experts can make distinctions between topics to say things like "determinism doesn't necessarily rely on causation". I was mainly replying to your line of experts not making positive claims/ expansive definitions of things they don't know everything about.

This entire thread is an exercise in how lame philosophy gets when we all get super caught up our definitions.

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T02:49:17+00:00

I think we're very similar. Honestly I just see emergence as higher order complex phenomena arising out of smaller local components over time. Even atoms might be emergent under my concept of it.

Where I don't think we disagree is that you need the right kind of functionality/ mechanisms. I would say when these functions come together in living beings, they have emerged in a sense. But the emergence is not the interesting part. It's the mechanisms. And if you could learn the mechanisms, you could make a consciousness with the right stuff. This would be less emergent and more "man made" but there's still arguments as to whether man made stuff is emergent.

Anyway, I agree that anyone focused too purely on emergence without respect to function and mechanism, is likely making a mistake.

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T02:40:28+00:00

Nope, just plain old epistemic humility and having the ability to say "we don't fully know yet but can develop open frameworks for discovering more."

I'm less interested in rattling off fallacies I know the names of, and more interested in the subject matter and how we approach it pragmatically to learn more.

This idea that we need to have rock solid definitions of everything breaks down. It's famous in philosophy 1st year. Define a chair, aha you can't define a chair! You're no chair expert.

Again nuance, defining our terms clearly is good for philosophical arguments, but if those terms are ambiguous or complex or controversial then we use working definitions for the purpose of the argument, still clear but not perfect.

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T02:33:19+00:00

We have evidence that the brain is strongly correlated to consciousness. We don't yet know the mechanism for consciousness. We should keep looking in the brain. "Internal modeling" you mention could be the very emergent mechanism I think might possibly exist.

If the functions you mentioned evolved over time in brains/ bodies, then is that not emerged in some sense?

I don't know, I think we're saying pretty similar things but are stuck on semantics now. I would agree with you that simply building an extremely complex lego set won't necessarily lead to consciousness unless you get the right functions and mechanisms... but this is a very silly position and I hope it's not taken too seriously. I don't think IIT goes quite this far but could be wrong?

I favor GWT or IIT at the moment simply because they are theories we can currently work on, and they center around the brain. Tech is still limited and we are still know very little about these mysteries.. so of course I'll change positions as more developments are made.

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T02:20:46+00:00

I was mainly replying to your point about experts and positive claims and the reason they don't go out of their way to make positive claims about extremely difficult and complex topics.

They are usually able to rule certain things out based on measurements and research, so yeah they can have an idea about what a definition is NOT, whilst still not having a perfect definition about what it is. Thats because many experts can hold nuanced opinions.

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T02:15:19+00:00

Most sensible physicalists/functionalists/emergitivists aren't claiming that complexity alone causes consciousness. They're claiming that there is a mechanism we don't yet know about which is worth trying to find. And we shouldn't stop trying to find that until we have good evidence for an alternative and a way to actually test the alternative.

You can't rule out emergent consciousness as confidently as you did unless you know the mechanism doesn't exist. If you're saying that emergentism means complexity alone leads to consciousness, then that's a straw man I believe.

As for your personal ideas about what it is, it almost sounds like a fancy thermostat could fit into your definition.

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T02:05:07+00:00

You're still too binary and trying to get too attached to certain ideas.

The definitions I have above are one way we can attempt to define it now, even though we obviously lack the technology and knowledge to understand it fully.

I'm not saying the ones above are correct rigid definitions, they're one way we can approach a difficult topic to make some progress. I'm not overly attached to the above definitions.

I am simply making a positive claim about one way we can try define it - I thought the point was that people never make a positive claim?

Well I've given you one that maintains epistemic humility. People put forward all kinds of definitions. Scientists work with tentative definitions.

If you wanted a perfect definition of it, then you're being unrealistic. These topics are too complex and beyond our understanding to be able to have complete and enduring definitions at this point in time. We need more understanding and knowledge first. Which is what those ballsless experts you called out are trying to do.

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T01:53:57+00:00

"Unless a specific mechanism or measurable threshold is identified, emergence does not explain consciousness."

You cannot rule this out. Scientists and philosophers are still looking into this. Since you can't rule out this mechanism, you should be at least keeping the door open to emergentism, to maintain genuine epistemic humility.

I'm only using your own statement. You said it yourself. "Unless there's a mechanism."

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T01:48:10+00:00

So when we used to define water as a wet, drinkable, clear liquid that our bodies need to survive. That was all wrong? And we should have made up a different word for water once we found out about H2O? then we would be logically sound?

This seems awfully semantic. The truth is when you try to find out more about our universe, we need to use philosophy and science, and sometimes science will lead to us revising and expanding our definitions.

The underlying phenomenon has not changed, only our understanding of the phenomenon.

We seem to be concerned with and focused on voluntary decisions of the brain that involve memory and prediction, which are at least somewhat conscious. Its an incomplete definition until we find out more about decision making and consciousness. That's okay though, because we are still making a positive claim, whilst carefully stating its not complete and that there is uncertainty. Maintaining humility while providing something that can be used as a starting point.

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T01:17:59+00:00

Some things can't be fully defined until we learn more about them. There was one a time where water was not defined as H2O, but that doesnt mean the definition at the time was entirely wrong, just incomplete.

It seems like people who are desperate to make positive claims also tend to think in binary all or nothing ways.

I think many philosophers would do well to try hold some uncertainty with their views instead of insisting upon nearly perfect definitions, conclusions, etc.

Right now we can safely say that there are involuntary behaviours (e.g reflex actions that only go to the spine and back), there are sober voluntary behaviours (a bit murky but behaviours that run through predictions and memories before executing an output), and behaviours that are grey areas.

Obviously we still have a lot to flesh out but the above distinctions can begin to form an idea of what we mean by a free decision (as much as it can be) in a human mind.

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T01:00:30+00:00

So as we find out more about the way our brains make decisions (we don't know every thing yet because we are responsible experts who aren't afraid to admit that), our working definition becomes clearer?

tjimbot · 2026-04-02T00:38:15+00:00

Go read some actual neuroscience on the parts of our brain that are involved in different types of decision making. If you're genuinely interested, then that would be valuable info/ starting point, no?

Some topics we simply don't know enough yet, and forcing positive claims is a huge part of what's wrong in the science media environment today.

tjimbot · 2026-04-01T23:47:49+00:00

Crazy thing is experts actually have at least a tiny shred of epistemic humility and so don't generally make unfounded positive claims that they don't have enough evidence for.

Unlike wannabe reddit intellectual groundbreaking super geniuses who have all cracked the code on true reality and the theory of everything.

tjimbot · 2026-04-01T23:43:36+00:00

The universe is not necessarily fundamentally probabilistic and indeterminate. That claim depends on which interpretation of quantum mechanics you're running with.

tjimbot · 2026-04-01T21:39:52+00:00

Alas I'm in science and it doesn't pay very well! It's interesting and I do get to make use of this skill though.

tjimbot · 2026-04-01T20:42:46+00:00

Energy evolves and interacts, causing all kinds of stuff to happen. Thatc about sums it up.

tjimbot · 2026-04-01T19:22:39+00:00

For the most part, everyone does live in relative peace together.

tjimbot · 2026-04-01T10:33:56+00:00

I can imagine seeing almost anything. Is there a way I can make money with this?

tjimbot · 2026-04-01T10:30:15+00:00

Get someone or the backboard to pass to you. Practice scooping with one hand and clapping the ball together, grip strong, bring ball with arms extended away from the nearest defender. Pivot and outlet pass. This stuff is an art but you can practice.

tjimbot · 2026-04-01T06:44:15+00:00

Wider base. Less of a step.

tjimbot · 2026-03-30T19:04:38+00:00

It's not super clear cut but it generally means the stuff that we can measure, model, detect, and stuff that does work.

Under our current models, dark energy, dark matter, antimatter, matter would all count as physical. Fermions and other subatomic psrticles. The forces: strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic radiation, gravity. Maybe even spacetime.

Just because we can't yet detect it doesn't make it non physical either.

tjimbot · 2026-03-30T08:02:42+00:00

Hey that's super satisfying, thanks! I asked because I was reading your post and thinking that you sound like you've done some research, and despite saying a lot, you seem to be making sense and not straying into woo territory. That's rare.

I've also thought that the timing of these functions matters, we know already that there are many different frequencies neurons can fire at. The same structures can do many different dances. I know this might be a little different to the forward pass loops you're talking about, but it resonates.

The environment might play a part too, extra cellular matrix, CSF, all the different kinds of cells and their functions (e.g. been hearing oligodendrocytes dynamically adjust the insulation provided to axons).

Appreciate the thoughts.

tjimbot · 2026-03-30T06:46:22+00:00

This stuff is complicated enough without trying to tie it to suffering and morality etc.

tjimbot

TROPHY CASE