317 réponses à ce sujet

[Delta_V2]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

That's my stance.  For people who are very emotionally attached to the characters and Shepard, the endings are not optimal for what you want to get out of them.  However, if your less worried about the characters and are more interested in the a good reason of why the Reapers do what they do and how to solve it, then the endings are pretty good and the solutions are adequately controversial for the situation.

I think the actual endings, as far as Destroy/Control/Merge, are acceptable.  Could be better, but acceptable.  It's the whole Normandy thing that p***** me off to no end.  I expect sacrifices leading up to the finale, but to lose your entire crew after you've accomplished the mission. That's just completely unnecessary.  It adds nothing to the plot, and frankly feels like a giant FU to the fans.

[Zyrious]

Ypiret wrote...

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

But explain how any of those things don't have a cause. You have yet to give an example of an action without a cause because all the actions you listed have causes.

I don't mean to intervene but I think this highlights the possible confusion again. To accept the existence of Free-will does not neccessarily require you to deny causality.

To give you an example,

If you are pushed, now you have the option to push back. The cause for your decision is the initial push. BUT, the action you 'willed' after that push is entirely FREE for you to choose from. You can either shove back the person who pushed you or ignore and go on the way. The decision you make is a free decision.

Now due to some circumstances like a person's psychological preference or condition, you might be more inclined to push back but it is simply an inclination. You could still be the better man and walk away against that burning urge to push back.

No it is not. You chose the decesion by looking at past experiences and the base of the goal you want to achieve. Which is based on your emotions, mind set, and thoughts which are all based on DNA and other past experiences.

How do you know that? You are over simplifying humanity into a set of genetic binary code, but we face a billion variables, and we DO face situations where our emotions, thoughts, experience, knowledge, and everything else conflict and give us 100 different choices that we could choose. How can you dare to claim with certainty there's only 1 choice they could make and know why they made it?

[Aligalipe]

Where did you learn these endings? From the leaked script?

[AkiKishi]

Aligalipe wrote...

Where did you learn these endings? From the leaked script?

The cinematic of the conversation with the Guardian was knocking around Youtube earlier.

[Baronesa]

Delta_V2 wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

That's my stance.  For people who are very emotionally attached to the characters and Shepard, the endings are not optimal for what you want to get out of them.  However, if your less worried about the characters and are more interested in the a good reason of why the Reapers do what they do and how to solve it, then the endings are pretty good and the solutions are adequately controversial for the situation.

I think the actual endings, as far as Destroy/Control/Merge, are acceptable.  Could be better, but acceptable.  It's the whole Normandy thing that p***** me off to no end.  I expect sacrifices leading up to the finale, but to lose your entire crew after you've accomplished the mission. That's just completely unnecessary.  It adds nothing to the plot, and frankly feels like a giant FU to the fans.

Agreed... The endings would probably make a lot of snese with the context... STILL... i would pay for a better (emotionally speaking) ending(DLC). Make it as hard as possible... I don't care... but would really like an ending that not only address the plot but alos the emotional aspects of the characters. Hell... I would even say penalize us for it... if you want a survive + reuninion with surviving friends, lose half of earth

[Ypiret]

You don't seem to understand what abstract thought is. It has no basis. For instance, being a man 400,000 years ago looking up in the stars and thinking "Maybe someone made those". There is a reason all scientists subscribe abstract thought as a very human concept. It is THE VERY BASIS for the earliest of philosophy. It's easy to say "Every belief has a reason" now, after thousands of years of history and debate. No, you do undermind human intelligence.

You think of us as a complex machine. I see something more. But you simplify us, you demean what it is to be sapient because you want to think you can understand and control the human conciousness. But every scientist also admits that there are things we may not only never know, but things we may be horribly wrong about that we thought we were right about. Did you know we are STILL learning about how gravity works? The recent idea of "Gravitons" threw the entire theory into chaos. Your claim to understand what any neurologist says we don't understand is also full of hubris.

You have no idea what that man was thinking though. Maybe we just got done making a fire, looked up at the sky, say the stars, related them to fire, then concluded they must have been made like the fire was.

But you'd just think that the idea magically pop into his head without ANY thought, ANy prior events, ANY consideration?

I do not think I understand and can control the human conciousness, I have never claimed that I do (please don't put words in my mouth), nor do I want to. But I do not say it isn't possible.

The difference between you and I is that I don't quit. I don't just look at something I don't understand and say "we'll never know".

And what saddens me is that so many think like you. So many people are willing to just give up and say "it's impossible". Image if all early humans had been like that. We'd all still be living like animals and clueless to the world around us.

I'm not claiming to understand everything or even anything. All I know is that I will never contribute to holding back the desire for knowledge.

Modifié par Ypiret, 03 mars 2012 - 11:42 .

[Zyrious]

Ypiret wrote...

You don't seem to understand what abstract thought is. It has no basis. For instance, being a man 400,000 years ago looking up in the stars and thinking "Maybe someone made those". There is a reason all scientists subscribe abstract thought as a very human concept. It is THE VERY BASIS for the earliest of philosophy. It's easy to say "Every belief has a reason" now, after thousands of years of history and debate. No, you do undermind human intelligence.

You think of us as a complex machine. I see something more. But you simplify us, you demean what it is to be sapient because you want to think you can understand and control the human conciousness. But every scientist also admits that there are things we may not only never know, but things we may be horribly wrong about that we thought we were right about. Did you know we are STILL learning about how gravity works? The recent idea of "Gravitons" threw the entire theory into chaos. Your claim to understand what any neurologist says we don't understand is also full of hubris.

You have no idea what that man was thinking though. Maybe we just got done making a fire, looked up at the sky, say the stars, related them to fire, then concluded they must have been made like the fire was.

But you'd just think that the idea magically pop into his head without ANY thought, ANy prior events, ANY consideration?

I do not think I understand and can control the human conciousness, I have never claimed that I do (please don't put words in my mouth), nor do I want to. But I do not say it isn't possible.

The difference between you and I is that I don't quit. I don't just look at something I don't understand and say "we'll never know".

And what saddens me is that so many think like you. So many people are willing to just give up and say "it's impossible". Image if all early humans had been like that. We'd all still be living like animals and clueless to the world around us.

I'm not claiming to understand everything or even anything. All I know is that I will never contribute to holding back the desire for knowledge.

How can you claim to seek knowledge when you act as if you already know?  You are a determinist, that in itself says you have closed your mind to the possibility of free will. That is why you will never understand people like me, because the idea that something happens that you can't understand is beyond your comprehension. The very concept of free will is beyond your willingness to comprehend. That is why this conversation is now over.

[GracefulChicken]

Actually, it's pretty possible to be deterministic and still believe in free will. The universe being deterministic is still very possible even if individuals have free will...

I wouldn't call myself a determinist, but I do find the evidence that your subconscious makes all your decisions .22 seconds before we come to the same conscious "choice" pretty damning, though.

Modifié par GracefulChicken, 04 mars 2012 - 12:10 .

[Ypiret]

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

You don't seem to understand what abstract thought is. It has no basis. For instance, being a man 400,000 years ago looking up in the stars and thinking "Maybe someone made those". There is a reason all scientists subscribe abstract thought as a very human concept. It is THE VERY BASIS for the earliest of philosophy. It's easy to say "Every belief has a reason" now, after thousands of years of history and debate. No, you do undermind human intelligence.

You think of us as a complex machine. I see something more. But you simplify us, you demean what it is to be sapient because you want to think you can understand and control the human conciousness. But every scientist also admits that there are things we may not only never know, but things we may be horribly wrong about that we thought we were right about. Did you know we are STILL learning about how gravity works? The recent idea of "Gravitons" threw the entire theory into chaos. Your claim to understand what any neurologist says we don't understand is also full of hubris.

You have no idea what that man was thinking though. Maybe we just got done making a fire, looked up at the sky, say the stars, related them to fire, then concluded they must have been made like the fire was.

But you'd just think that the idea magically pop into his head without ANY thought, ANy prior events, ANY consideration?

I do not think I understand and can control the human conciousness, I have never claimed that I do (please don't put words in my mouth), nor do I want to. But I do not say it isn't possible.

The difference between you and I is that I don't quit. I don't just look at something I don't understand and say "we'll never know".

And what saddens me is that so many think like you. So many people are willing to just give up and say "it's impossible". Image if all early humans had been like that. We'd all still be living like animals and clueless to the world around us.

I'm not claiming to understand everything or even anything. All I know is that I will never contribute to holding back the desire for knowledge.

How can you claim to seek knowledge when you act as if you already know?  You are a determinist, that in itself says you have closed your mind to the possibility of free will. That is why you will never understand people like me, because the idea that something happens that you can't understand is beyond your comprehension. The very concept of free will is beyond your willingness to comprehend. That is why this conversation is now over.

You dismiss claims that are obviously wrong. If I tell you a blue shirt is green, you dismiss it.
You know it's blue, and by your logic, because you ague that it is blue while I say it's green, you do not seek knowledge and alread claim to know everything.

I am humble enough to admit that I don't understand the workings of the brain, or the human ability to figure them out. I have faith in our potential.Yet you claim that it's impossible to figure out, and then call the the arrogant and close minded one.

Yah Okay.

If you had presented an arguement with explanations and facts rather than, "you can't" and "you don't". Then maybe you would have convinced me. 
I am totally willing to change my mind set when new viable information is presented. However, there was none.

Of couse anything is possible, but many of those things are incredible imbrobably. To the extent where accepting them as truth is completely stupid.

Anyways, I'm done responding to you. Our arguement lost it's fun when you began to personally attack me.

[Alessar1288]

Hehe people thinking that genetics and inheritance controls every aspect and trait of a person. Some people need to take more Behavioral genetics classes and realize how much of a role nurture has on ideas and personality. Anyways I'll always pick the destroy option, Quarians and Geth demonstrated that the two forms could eventually come together. Why would I force those who don't want to be synthetics to be part synthetic or control the reapers? Destroy lines up with the way I've played my Shepard and space magic annoys me.

[Zyrious]

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

You don't seem to understand what abstract thought is. It has no basis. For instance, being a man 400,000 years ago looking up in the stars and thinking "Maybe someone made those". There is a reason all scientists subscribe abstract thought as a very human concept. It is THE VERY BASIS for the earliest of philosophy. It's easy to say "Every belief has a reason" now, after thousands of years of history and debate. No, you do undermind human intelligence.

You think of us as a complex machine. I see something more. But you simplify us, you demean what it is to be sapient because you want to think you can understand and control the human conciousness. But every scientist also admits that there are things we may not only never know, but things we may be horribly wrong about that we thought we were right about. Did you know we are STILL learning about how gravity works? The recent idea of "Gravitons" threw the entire theory into chaos. Your claim to understand what any neurologist says we don't understand is also full of hubris.

You have no idea what that man was thinking though. Maybe we just got done making a fire, looked up at the sky, say the stars, related them to fire, then concluded they must have been made like the fire was.

But you'd just think that the idea magically pop into his head without ANY thought, ANy prior events, ANY consideration?

I do not think I understand and can control the human conciousness, I have never claimed that I do (please don't put words in my mouth), nor do I want to. But I do not say it isn't possible.

The difference between you and I is that I don't quit. I don't just look at something I don't understand and say "we'll never know".

And what saddens me is that so many think like you. So many people are willing to just give up and say "it's impossible". Image if all early humans had been like that. We'd all still be living like animals and clueless to the world around us.

I'm not claiming to understand everything or even anything. All I know is that I will never contribute to holding back the desire for knowledge.

How can you claim to seek knowledge when you act as if you already know?  You are a determinist, that in itself says you have closed your mind to the possibility of free will. That is why you will never understand people like me, because the idea that something happens that you can't understand is beyond your comprehension. The very concept of free will is beyond your willingness to comprehend. That is why this conversation is now over.

You dismiss claims that are obviously wrong. If I tell you a blue shirt is green, you dismiss it.
You know it's blue, and by your logic, because you ague that it is blue while I say it's green, you do not seek knowledge and alread claim to know everything.

I am humble enough to admit that I don't understand the workings of the brain, or the human ability to figure them out. I have faith in our potential.Yet you claim that it's impossible to figure out, and then call the the arrogant and close minded one.

Yah Okay.

If you had presented an arguement with explanations and facts rather than, "you can't" and "you don't". Then maybe you would have convinced me. 
I am totally willing to change my mind set when new viable information is presented. However, there was none.

Of couse anything is possible, but many of those things are incredible imbrobably. To the extent where accepting them as truth is completely stupid.

Anyways, I'm done responding to you. Our arguement lost it's fun when you began to personally attack me.

I believe you attacked me first with your claims of  my ignorance and holding back science. Pot calling the kettle black. Never once did i claim it's impossible to figure out, i just said it won't necessarily be figured out in the way you *assume* it will be. There is no more evidence for deterministic ideas than there is for free-will. You can not with any authority claim that the only reason people make any choice is based purely on biology and experience. There are a billion variables involved in even the simplest of decisions, and everyday we see people do so many unpredictable as well as predictable things.

You came at me with no facts and expect me to rebuttle with facts? It's a pure philisophical debate, and the problem is you aren't willing to acknowledge that. There are no facts on the matter either way, period. But i believe, through my own experience and knowing how my own mind works, that pure biology and "experience" are not all that drive me. However, some fear the idea that there are things beyond what we know. We fear the unknown, afterall.

[Ypiret]

GracefulChicken wrote...

Actually, it's pretty possible to be deterministic and still believe in free will. The universe being deterministic is still very possible even if individuals have free will...

I wouldn't call myself a determinist, but I do find the evidence that your subconscious makes all your decisions .22 seconds before we come to the same conscious "choice" pretty damning, though.

Exactly, well king of. I don't believe in free will in it's exact definition.
I'm under the impression that the people responding to me think that because I'm a determinist, I think I know everything.

I don't, I simply understand and recognize the mechanic. 

My decision still "feel" like my own even though I know that they aren't. Just like I don't "feel" the sadness I feel when I get dumped is just a bunch of chemicals jumping around in my brain.

I don't look at life as a giant cause and effect sheet even though In the back of my mind, I know it is.

But everything that will happen is borderline impossible to figure out.

I could die tomorrow. I won't know why, but I'll know it has a cause.

As I originally said, Life is a movie you've never seen before.

[Zyrious]

GracefulChicken wrote...

Actually, it's pretty possible to be deterministic and still believe in free will. The universe being deterministic is still very possible even if individuals have free will...

I wouldn't call myself a determinist, but I do find the evidence that your subconscious makes all your decisions .22 seconds before we come to the same conscious "choice" pretty damning, though.

I think determinism and free will are diametrically opposed. I believe in free will, which is that while we are influenced by our past, by what's around us, and by our parents genetics, ultimately we are the driver of our own car. I'm not in a particular mood to drive that metaphor forward though, but i'm sure you could work with it for a while.

[Ypiret]

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

You don't seem to understand what abstract thought is. It has no basis. For instance, being a man 400,000 years ago looking up in the stars and thinking "Maybe someone made those". There is a reason all scientists subscribe abstract thought as a very human concept. It is THE VERY BASIS for the earliest of philosophy. It's easy to say "Every belief has a reason" now, after thousands of years of history and debate. No, you do undermind human intelligence.

You think of us as a complex machine. I see something more. But you simplify us, you demean what it is to be sapient because you want to think you can understand and control the human conciousness. But every scientist also admits that there are things we may not only never know, but things we may be horribly wrong about that we thought we were right about. Did you know we are STILL learning about how gravity works? The recent idea of "Gravitons" threw the entire theory into chaos. Your claim to understand what any neurologist says we don't understand is also full of hubris.

You have no idea what that man was thinking though. Maybe we just got done making a fire, looked up at the sky, say the stars, related them to fire, then concluded they must have been made like the fire was.

But you'd just think that the idea magically pop into his head without ANY thought, ANy prior events, ANY consideration?

I do not think I understand and can control the human conciousness, I have never claimed that I do (please don't put words in my mouth), nor do I want to. But I do not say it isn't possible.

The difference between you and I is that I don't quit. I don't just look at something I don't understand and say "we'll never know".

And what saddens me is that so many think like you. So many people are willing to just give up and say "it's impossible". Image if all early humans had been like that. We'd all still be living like animals and clueless to the world around us.

I'm not claiming to understand everything or even anything. All I know is that I will never contribute to holding back the desire for knowledge.

How can you claim to seek knowledge when you act as if you already know?  You are a determinist, that in itself says you have closed your mind to the possibility of free will. That is why you will never understand people like me, because the idea that something happens that you can't understand is beyond your comprehension. The very concept of free will is beyond your willingness to comprehend. That is why this conversation is now over.

You dismiss claims that are obviously wrong. If I tell you a blue shirt is green, you dismiss it.
You know it's blue, and by your logic, because you ague that it is blue while I say it's green, you do not seek knowledge and alread claim to know everything.

I am humble enough to admit that I don't understand the workings of the brain, or the human ability to figure them out. I have faith in our potential.Yet you claim that it's impossible to figure out, and then call the the arrogant and close minded one.

Yah Okay.

If you had presented an arguement with explanations and facts rather than, "you can't" and "you don't". Then maybe you would have convinced me. 
I am totally willing to change my mind set when new viable information is presented. However, there was none.

Of couse anything is possible, but many of those things are incredible imbrobably. To the extent where accepting them as truth is completely stupid.

Anyways, I'm done responding to you. Our arguement lost it's fun when you began to personally attack me.

I believe you attacked me first with your claims of  my ignorance and holding back science. Pot calling the kettle black. Never once did i claim it's impossible to figure out, i just said it won't necessarily be figured out in the way you *assume* it will be. There is no more evidence for deterministic ideas than there is for free-will. You can not with any authority claim that the only reason people make any choice is based purely on biology and experience. There are a billion variables involved in even the simplest of decisions, and everyday we see people do so many unpredictable as well as predictable things.

You came at me with no facts and expect me to rebuttle with facts? It's a pure philisophical debate, and the problem is you aren't willing to acknowledge that. There are no facts on the matter either way, period. But i believe, through my own experience and knowing how my own mind works, that pure biology and "experience" are not all that drive me. However, some fear the idea that there are things beyond what we know. We fear the unknown, afterall.

"You take a very simplistic view of the human conciousness, but that is typical of a determinist. You do humanity a disservice to underestimate the human mind and millions of years of evolution in general." 

You insulted me first. I'm amazed you didn't even look back a few pages to see if my claim was true and just outright denied it.

I guess that just shows what type of person you are.

[Zyrious]

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

You don't seem to understand what abstract thought is. It has no basis. For instance, being a man 400,000 years ago looking up in the stars and thinking "Maybe someone made those". There is a reason all scientists subscribe abstract thought as a very human concept. It is THE VERY BASIS for the earliest of philosophy. It's easy to say "Every belief has a reason" now, after thousands of years of history and debate. No, you do undermind human intelligence.

You think of us as a complex machine. I see something more. But you simplify us, you demean what it is to be sapient because you want to think you can understand and control the human conciousness. But every scientist also admits that there are things we may not only never know, but things we may be horribly wrong about that we thought we were right about. Did you know we are STILL learning about how gravity works? The recent idea of "Gravitons" threw the entire theory into chaos. Your claim to understand what any neurologist says we don't understand is also full of hubris.

You have no idea what that man was thinking though. Maybe we just got done making a fire, looked up at the sky, say the stars, related them to fire, then concluded they must have been made like the fire was.

But you'd just think that the idea magically pop into his head without ANY thought, ANy prior events, ANY consideration?

I do not think I understand and can control the human conciousness, I have never claimed that I do (please don't put words in my mouth), nor do I want to. But I do not say it isn't possible.

The difference between you and I is that I don't quit. I don't just look at something I don't understand and say "we'll never know".

And what saddens me is that so many think like you. So many people are willing to just give up and say "it's impossible". Image if all early humans had been like that. We'd all still be living like animals and clueless to the world around us.

I'm not claiming to understand everything or even anything. All I know is that I will never contribute to holding back the desire for knowledge.

How can you claim to seek knowledge when you act as if you already know?  You are a determinist, that in itself says you have closed your mind to the possibility of free will. That is why you will never understand people like me, because the idea that something happens that you can't understand is beyond your comprehension. The very concept of free will is beyond your willingness to comprehend. That is why this conversation is now over.

You dismiss claims that are obviously wrong. If I tell you a blue shirt is green, you dismiss it.
You know it's blue, and by your logic, because you ague that it is blue while I say it's green, you do not seek knowledge and alread claim to know everything.

I am humble enough to admit that I don't understand the workings of the brain, or the human ability to figure them out. I have faith in our potential.Yet you claim that it's impossible to figure out, and then call the the arrogant and close minded one.

Yah Okay.

If you had presented an arguement with explanations and facts rather than, "you can't" and "you don't". Then maybe you would have convinced me. 
I am totally willing to change my mind set when new viable information is presented. However, there was none.

Of couse anything is possible, but many of those things are incredible imbrobably. To the extent where accepting them as truth is completely stupid.

Anyways, I'm done responding to you. Our arguement lost it's fun when you began to personally attack me.

I believe you attacked me first with your claims of  my ignorance and holding back science. Pot calling the kettle black. Never once did i claim it's impossible to figure out, i just said it won't necessarily be figured out in the way you *assume* it will be. There is no more evidence for deterministic ideas than there is for free-will. You can not with any authority claim that the only reason people make any choice is based purely on biology and experience. There are a billion variables involved in even the simplest of decisions, and everyday we see people do so many unpredictable as well as predictable things.

You came at me with no facts and expect me to rebuttle with facts? It's a pure philisophical debate, and the problem is you aren't willing to acknowledge that. There are no facts on the matter either way, period. But i believe, through my own experience and knowing how my own mind works, that pure biology and "experience" are not all that drive me. However, some fear the idea that there are things beyond what we know. We fear the unknown, afterall.

"You take a very simplistic view of the human conciousness, but that is typical of a determinist. You do humanity a disservice to underestimate the human mind and millions of years of evolution in general." 

You insulted me first. I'm amazed you didn't even look back a few pages to see if my claim was true and just outright denied it.

I guess that just shows what type of person you are.

I see no personal attack. I see it as a simplistic view of the human conciousness, and that view IS typical of a determinist. I never attacked you, if you see it that way, i'm sorry, but that's just how i see it. Not once did i bring your character or person into question, not until you attacked me atleast.

[Ypiret]

Zyrious wrote...

GracefulChicken wrote...

Actually, it's pretty possible to be deterministic and still believe in free will. The universe being deterministic is still very possible even if individuals have free will...

I wouldn't call myself a determinist, but I do find the evidence that your subconscious makes all your decisions .22 seconds before we come to the same conscious "choice" pretty damning, though.

I think determinism and free will are diametrically opposed. I believe in free will, which is that while we are influenced by our past, by what's around us, and by our parents genetics, ultimately we are the driver of our own car. I'm not in a particular mood to drive that metaphor forward though, but i'm sure you could work with it for a while.

The problem with that is that the fact that you have a brain complex as yours, or even that you're alive right now is %100 based on your DNA. 

It's the code that allowed you to do what you do and be what you are. It's what separates you from an ameba.

So it ultimately is that factor that drive everything you do because it allows it in the first place.

[Zyrious]

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

GracefulChicken wrote...

Actually, it's pretty possible to be deterministic and still believe in free will. The universe being deterministic is still very possible even if individuals have free will...

I wouldn't call myself a determinist, but I do find the evidence that your subconscious makes all your decisions .22 seconds before we come to the same conscious "choice" pretty damning, though.

I think determinism and free will are diametrically opposed. I believe in free will, which is that while we are influenced by our past, by what's around us, and by our parents genetics, ultimately we are the driver of our own car. I'm not in a particular mood to drive that metaphor forward though, but i'm sure you could work with it for a while.

The problem with that is that the fact that you have a brain complex as yours, or even that you're alive right now is %100 based on your DNA. 

It's the code that allowed you to do what you do and be what you are. It's what separates you from an ameba.

So it ultimately is that factor that drive everything you do because it allows it in the first place.

Molecules, atoms, and quantum mechanics are are also the only reason i live, but that doesn't mean they are all that drive me. (Technically, quantum mechanics states determinism is impossible because of random variance). I don't see how just because DNA is the blueprint of our body it is also now the soul of our conciousness. I don't see the connection, and this is the first time i've seen someone try and make it. Even most determinists i've talked to say environment and parental condition can be a bigger factor than genetics.

[Ypiret]

I see no personal attack. I see it as a simplistic view of the human conciousness, and that view IS typical of a determinist. I never attacked you, if you see it that way, i'm sorry, but that's just how i see it. Not once did i bring your character or person into question, not until you attacked me atleast.

You didn't bring up my character or person into question?
In those two lines you called me unappreciative and simple mined.

[Zyrious]

Ypiret wrote...

I see no personal attack. I see it as a simplistic view of the human conciousness, and that view IS typical of a determinist. I never attacked you, if you see it that way, i'm sorry, but that's just how i see it. Not once did i bring your character or person into question, not until you attacked me atleast.

You didn't bring up my character or person into question?
In those two lines you called me unappreciative and simple mined.

That's you putting words in my mouth. I believed what you were saying was, essentially, an offense to me and was in MY VIEW simplistic and undeserving of humanity. But not once did i make a comment about you. Wether you choose to read more out of it or not is your choice.

[Ypiret]

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

GracefulChicken wrote...

Actually, it's pretty possible to be deterministic and still believe in free will. The universe being deterministic is still very possible even if individuals have free will...

I wouldn't call myself a determinist, but I do find the evidence that your subconscious makes all your decisions .22 seconds before we come to the same conscious "choice" pretty damning, though.

I think determinism and free will are diametrically opposed. I believe in free will, which is that while we are influenced by our past, by what's around us, and by our parents genetics, ultimately we are the driver of our own car. I'm not in a particular mood to drive that metaphor forward though, but i'm sure you could work with it for a while.

The problem with that is that the fact that you have a brain complex as yours, or even that you're alive right now is %100 based on your DNA. 

It's the code that allowed you to do what you do and be what you are. It's what separates you from an ameba.

So it ultimately is that factor that drive everything you do because it allows it in the first place.

Molecules, atoms, and quantum mechanics are are also the only reason i live, but that doesn't mean they are all that drive me. (Technically, quantum mechanics states determinism is impossible because of random variance). I don't see how just because DNA is the blueprint of our body it is also now the soul of our conciousness. I don't see the connection, and this is the first time i've seen someone try and make it. Even most determinists i've talked to say environment and parental condition can be a bigger factor than genetics.

I never claimed they drive decisions. They're the ultimate cause of your action.
My whole point is cause and effect. Everything that happens has a cause. I don't understand how you can think otherwise.

Also random variation is caused by quantum mechanics.

[Zyrious]

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

GracefulChicken wrote...

Actually, it's pretty possible to be deterministic and still believe in free will. The universe being deterministic is still very possible even if individuals have free will...

I wouldn't call myself a determinist, but I do find the evidence that your subconscious makes all your decisions .22 seconds before we come to the same conscious "choice" pretty damning, though.

I think determinism and free will are diametrically opposed. I believe in free will, which is that while we are influenced by our past, by what's around us, and by our parents genetics, ultimately we are the driver of our own car. I'm not in a particular mood to drive that metaphor forward though, but i'm sure you could work with it for a while.

The problem with that is that the fact that you have a brain complex as yours, or even that you're alive right now is %100 based on your DNA. 

It's the code that allowed you to do what you do and be what you are. It's what separates you from an ameba.

So it ultimately is that factor that drive everything you do because it allows it in the first place.

Molecules, atoms, and quantum mechanics are are also the only reason i live, but that doesn't mean they are all that drive me. (Technically, quantum mechanics states determinism is impossible because of random variance). I don't see how just because DNA is the blueprint of our body it is also now the soul of our conciousness. I don't see the connection, and this is the first time i've seen someone try and make it. Even most determinists i've talked to say environment and parental condition can be a bigger factor than genetics.

I never claimed they drive decisions. They're the ultimate cause of your action.
My whole point is cause and effect. Everything that happens has a cause. I don't understand how you can think otherwise.

Also random variation is caused by quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics do not follow the laws of physics, are the very base of every partical in the universe, and are unpredictable and random by nature. Perhaps you're thinking of a different definition of random variance?

Also, DNA is the blueprint that constructs my body and allows it to function, i do not believe it is the inherent "cause" of what i choose to do, but perhaps a influencer. However, you still refuse to believe this is a philisophical debate, and i cannot imagine why. It seems almost as if you hate my line of thinking, and i find that, more than all else, offensive.

[Ypiret]

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

I see no personal attack. I see it as a simplistic view of the human conciousness, and that view IS typical of a determinist. I never attacked you, if you see it that way, i'm sorry, but that's just how i see it. Not once did i bring your character or person into question, not until you attacked me atleast.

You didn't bring up my character or person into question?
In those two lines you called me unappreciative and simple mined.

That's you putting words in my mouth. I believed what you were saying was, essentially, an offense to me and was in MY VIEW simplistic and undeserving of humanity. But not once did i make a comment about you. Wether you choose to read more out of it or not is your choice.

What? No I wasn't. I was explaining my take on the AIs-cannot- be-people subject. Then you go "you undermine humanity and evolution and blah blah blah", because I didn't agree with your view. Then I started attacking you.

And you can't say I'm putting words in your mouth for interpreting it the way I did. 
Who wouldn't interpret it that way?

[Zyrious]

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

I see no personal attack. I see it as a simplistic view of the human conciousness, and that view IS typical of a determinist. I never attacked you, if you see it that way, i'm sorry, but that's just how i see it. Not once did i bring your character or person into question, not until you attacked me atleast.

You didn't bring up my character or person into question?
In those two lines you called me unappreciative and simple mined.

That's you putting words in my mouth. I believed what you were saying was, essentially, an offense to me and was in MY VIEW simplistic and undeserving of humanity. But not once did i make a comment about you. Wether you choose to read more out of it or not is your choice.

What? No I wasn't. I was explaining my take on the AIs-cannot- be-people subject. Then you go "you undermine humanity and evolution and blah blah blah", because I didn't agree with your view. Then I started attacking you.

And you can't say I'm putting words in your mouth for interpreting it the way I did. 
Who wouldn't interpret it that way?

I would say anyone not emotionally invested in this thread (i.e. most of us) would, since at no point did i mention you, your character, or anything else. Do i not like your beliefs?  Yeah, do i think it's a simplistic view of our mind? Yeah, considering i believe we are capable of free will and you dont, but i don't think you are simplistic. Although because of "Two wrongs don't make a right", i don't think you have much of a high ground here, but since my intent was never to attack in the first place, it is you who are drudging ad hominem into this. i have only ever attacked your idea's. Which is part of debate.

[Ypiret]

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

GracefulChicken wrote...

Actually, it's pretty possible to be deterministic and still believe in free will. The universe being deterministic is still very possible even if individuals have free will...

I wouldn't call myself a determinist, but I do find the evidence that your subconscious makes all your decisions .22 seconds before we come to the same conscious "choice" pretty damning, though.

I think determinism and free will are diametrically opposed. I believe in free will, which is that while we are influenced by our past, by what's around us, and by our parents genetics, ultimately we are the driver of our own car. I'm not in a particular mood to drive that metaphor forward though, but i'm sure you could work with it for a while.

The problem with that is that the fact that you have a brain complex as yours, or even that you're alive right now is %100 based on your DNA. 

It's the code that allowed you to do what you do and be what you are. It's what separates you from an ameba.

So it ultimately is that factor that drive everything you do because it allows it in the first place.

Molecules, atoms, and quantum mechanics are are also the only reason i live, but that doesn't mean they are all that drive me. (Technically, quantum mechanics states determinism is impossible because of random variance). I don't see how just because DNA is the blueprint of our body it is also now the soul of our conciousness. I don't see the connection, and this is the first time i've seen someone try and make it. Even most determinists i've talked to say environment and parental condition can be a bigger factor than genetics.

I never claimed they drive decisions. They're the ultimate cause of your action.
My whole point is cause and effect. Everything that happens has a cause. I don't understand how you can think otherwise.

Also random variation is caused by quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics do not follow the laws of physics, are the very base of every partical in the universe, and are unpredictable and random by nature. Perhaps you're thinking of a different definition of random variance?

Also, DNA is the blueprint that constructs my body and allows it to function, i do not believe it is the inherent "cause" of what i choose to do, but perhaps a influencer. However, you still refuse to believe this is a philisophical debate, and i cannot imagine why. It seems almost as if you hate my line of thinking, and i find that, more than all else, offensive.

But I'm not saying DNA causes you to make decisions. DNA causes you to have a brain and a bony; the tool necesarry to make decision.

Like If I give you a sovel, and you go dig a hole. I didn't directly cause you to dig a hole, but your ability to dig the hole and the ultimate reason it now exists is because I gave you the sovel. 

See what I mean?

[tangalin]

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. I believe determinism for the same reason you believe in gravity. It causes me to reflect on the world around me and I have no choice but to logically conclude that it is correct. The wording or phrasing of facts serves nothing more then to make them referenceable. You don't believe in gravity because of the theory of gravity, you just observe the facts it explains and have to conclude that it is true.

As for your second question, I will to live because I want to fulfill my goal of becoming a genetic engineer. On top of that there is the natural human instint to servive. Both of which are causes of past events. I don't understant the point you're trying to make. Their is no such thing as choices you chose based on past events that happened because of past events, that happened because of other past events that you had no control over.

I think you are confusing 'will' with constraints on your choices. Gravitiy, Genetics are simply constraints. Your genes might constrain your from becoming a Genetic Engineer for an example. BUT, you are free to choose to be a Genetic Engineer or anything else. The fact that you choose that is not a matter of determinism.

At the moment you make the choice to be a Genetic Engineer or a game developer, the choice is free for you to make. Now you may say I am going to choose it based on the fact that I get a good salary etc etc. But these are just constraints. You can ultimately choose to ignore all of these constraints and choose the opposite of these.

So the point of that thought experiment is that at any moment, since you are free to choose any option from the given set of choices (which are defined by constraints like laws of phsysics, biology and chemistry), the idea that your will is not free or determinisitc seems to be intuitively false.

Not true. the "choice" to be a genetic engineer or game dev are in reality just the end result of a subconcious analysis of past experiences, present circumstance, and future probabilities. You are not actually free to choose. You could argue that you could have made a different choice. But could you really? If it was so easy to do, why didn't you? You can only prove you were able to make the choice you made. All other choices are hypothetical, but cannot be made, because your analysis didn't allow for it.

Moving away from the above quote, in response to people saying a program breaks when it encounters a situation it can't deal with, I would put forth that humans have the same problem, its called suicide / death in general. Situation encountered, software / hardware unable to deal, (quite literally) fatal error.