211 réponses à ce sujet

[GnusmasTHX]

newcomplex wrote...

cronshaw8 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

At least this topic weeds out the traitors to humanity.

Haha! Indeed. Lets round them up!

We should go back to rounding communists.   Just because the people who vote communist on political party polls just to be a non-comformist (99.9% of them) makes me want to kill kittens.  

I agree. We have to think about the kittens.

[marshalleck]

You have an unconventional definition of religion, newcomplex. One that I don't share. Which makes further discussion inevitably fruitless.

Modifié par marshalleck, 03 mars 2010 - 04:30 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

We never stopped being mammals, unless you're not human... Reapers have gone back in time to undermine humanity's efforts in the future!

[GnusmasTHX]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

We never stopped being mammals, unless you're not human... Reapers have gone back in time to undermine humanity's efforts in the future!

Sounds familiar, but probably completely original.

[Esker02]

newcomplex wrote...

Define "will".    Define "voluntary".    You clearly have reasons in which you act upon them.    Technically, its phsyically possible for you to commit suicide in half an hour (though it may require some creativity ).   If you believe in will, are you saying that if you played back this half hour enough times, in one of them, you would kill yourself?   Why?   For no reason?   Just, you randomly strangled yourself with an elaborate noose made from your keyboard and your pajamas?   No reason at all?   Doesn't the reason have to exist?    Now, wouldn't that same reason cause the same result if it were applied at a particular place in time?     Are you saying that whether you kill yourself or not in those situations, is entirely up to luck?   To quantum fluctuation?    

A clever and classic criticism. If I say I would never kill myself, then it would seem will is determined as well. If I say I would, then it would appear to be random, and thus not really voluntary. I'm familiar with this problem, though it's normally established as a fork in the road going left or right, not killing oneself...

I'm not going to pretend to be able to solve conclusively a problem even the best libertarians, to my knowledge, have yet to really defeat. The actor's will is constrained by reasons which are determined - this much is obvious. I could not choose, for instance, to jump out my window and fly to the Moon. My biology constrains that from being an option. Similarly, I couldn't choose to kill myself in the sense that I have no compelling reason to do so, and therefore my will has no such reason to emphasize and make into action.

However, right now I should be writing a paper. I should have been for awhile now. I can imagine an alternative reality where I began working on it hours ago because I decided to act more responsibly. This only partially gets at your problem, and I realize this. For you would still beg the question of what exactly, if not randomness, made the alternative me decide to act responsibly and this me to act irresponsibly. I don't have that answer. I am merely certain that I have options. I could do things right now, purely by my own will, or I could not, depending on what I choose to make into action. That's, again, the reality of the human consciousness - and it is what it is, regardless of whether it can be explained sufficiently at this point.

newcomplex wrote...

Even if that was true, how could you tie that sum of its parts to its biological shell?    

To this I will repeat my perhaps all too convenient statement - I don't know yet. But we will one day, because its reality is evident to every person aside from those who have convinced themselves it is unreal and it is only a matter of time before we discover how it operates. I fully recognize you have the high ground in terms of ease of argument - but I'm also sure I'm right, which makes this, as always, difficult.

[Esker02]

Double post? I don't believe it.

Modifié par Esker02, 03 mars 2010 - 05:05 .

[Qario]

cronshaw8 wrote...

Qario wrote...

cronshaw8 wrote...

the word "right" has no business in your post. "Rights" are entitlements that are assigned to members of a society based on moral codes; agreements; laws ect. Reapers are outside of any society. You might as well argue that Hurricane Katrina had the "right" to destroy New Orleans. Rights have nothing to do with a hurricane, hurricanes just are. If we could have stopped Hurricane Katrina we would have been morally obligated to do so. Just as Shepard is morally obligated to stop the Reapers. And the Reaper's sentience has nothing to do with it either. They have set themselves apart from and against every organic civilization and refuse to be judged/interpreted by those rules. So it is pointless to discuss their "rights"

Rights do have a role because as a species they are entitled to keep on existing, just as humans, turians, asari etc, they just happen to be in the position where the other part must be removed. Rights aren't just entitlements assigned to persons, it can be one persons or an entire race's right to exist because they worn born, and because you were born you're entitled to a life. Your argument about rights kinda arguing against United Nations declaration of human rights if I take it as an example, every person on this earth hasn't "earned" the right to live, they simply have the right to live.

You gotta see if from a reaper's point of view, if you were a reaper, and you've accapted that the most effective way to keep on existing is to extinguish organic life in the milky way in cycles, you have to right to keep existing. The only insanse thing here is that, that "right" consists of killing billions of people.

Human society attributes rights. They are "inherent" because we say they are. They don't have existence or meaning outside of human society. There are no "rights" in the wild. zebras do not have a right to live that they can exercise against an attacking lion. They flee and probably live, or fight and probably die. The reapers are outside any organic society. They have placed themselves there through their actions and words. They refuse to be bound by the same rules that govern organic societies (or even a synthetic society like the geth). So the concepts of those societies do not apply to them. They do not have rights as we understand them. This means that it is pointless to try to apply human/organic morals to interactions with the reapers. I'm not really sure what you are getting at. There is no possible scenario where the organic species in the Galaxy can feel morally wrong for trying to exterminate the reapers.

You have a good point cronshaw8. The interpretation of concepts like "rights" is maybe/probably different from organics to reapers, however that doesn't take away the fact that the reapers are a race, the most successfull race in the galaxy in terms of survival. I aint taking the side of the reapers, I want to stop them, just making a point that as a race the reapers are entitled to ensure their survival, just as organics do. They do this by killing of billions of people, and we happen to be next in line. It is an "us or them" situation, but from a certain point of view the reapers can also be seen as not evil, even though obviously being an organic the reapers would be evil.

I'm happy I've created some dabate on the forum  

[Inquisitor Recon]

Who cares what the Reapers think? They are big stupid shellfish.

You've all been reported to Cerberus for being traitors to humanity who are likely to ally with the Reapers.

Enjoy the labor camp.

[newcomplex]

Esker02 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Define "will".    Define "voluntary".    You clearly have reasons in which you act upon them.    Technically, its phsyically possible for you to commit suicide in half an hour (though it may require some creativity ).   If you believe in will, are you saying that if you played back this half hour enough times, in one of them, you would kill yourself?   Why?   For no reason?   Just, you randomly strangled yourself with an elaborate noose made from your keyboard and your pajamas?   No reason at all?   Doesn't the reason have to exist?    Now, wouldn't that same reason cause the same result if it were applied at a particular place in time?     Are you saying that whether you kill yourself or not in those situations, is entirely up to luck?   To quantum fluctuation?    

A clever and classic criticism. If I say I would never kill myself, then it would seem will is determined as well. If I say I would, then it would appear to be random, and thus not really voluntary. I'm familiar with this problem, though it's normally established as a fork in the road going left or right, not killing oneself...

I'm not going to pretend to be able to solve conclusively a problem even the best libertarians, to my knowledge, have yet to really defeat. The actor's will is constrained by reasons which are determined - this much is obvious. I could not choose, for instance, to jump out my window and fly to the Moon. My biology constrains that from being an option. Similarly, I couldn't choose to kill myself in the sense that I have no compelling reason to do so, and therefore my will has no such reason to emphasize and make into action.

However, right now I should be writing a paper. I should have been for awhile now. I can imagine an alternative reality where I began working on it hours ago because I decided to act more responsibly. This only partially gets at your problem, and I realize this. For you would still beg the question of what exactly, if not randomness, made the alternative me decide to act responsibly and this me to act irresponsibly. I don't have that answer. I am merely certain that I have options. I could do things right now, purely by my own will, or I could not, depending on what I choose to make into action. That's, again, the reality of the human consciousness - and it is what it is, regardless of whether it can be explained sufficiently at this point.

newcomplex wrote...

Even if that was true, how could you tie that sum of its parts to its biological shell?    

To this I will repeat my perhaps all too convenient statement - I don't know yet. But we will one day, because its reality is evident to every person aside from those who have convinced themselves it is unreal and it is only a matter of time before we discover how it operates. I fully recognize you have the high ground in terms of ease of argument - but I'm also sure I'm right, which makes this, as always, difficult.

So it comes down to a Argumentum Ad Ethos.    An Appeal to the value of your personal opinion.    Well, I'll value your opinion as much as I do any one elses.

Somewhere between duct tape and pancakes.    

To be fair, I have some pretty crazy opinons too, though i basically squelch them if they aren't readily provable by logic, or supprorted by science that is in calling distance of the mainstream.   Though all of them concede free well.    I certainly believe conscious beings have Will, and are wholly responsible for their actions, and are able to change them at any point just not the truely free variety.   And frankly, I don't understand why it matters.    If anything, free will is bad, because it implies randomness.     I want my actions to have reason.    We can leave "randomness" to nature and quibits.     

You know what you they say, sit back and enjoy the ride, and the beautiful symmetries of the universe.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 03 mars 2010 - 07:23 .

[slackbheep]

There is no such thing as a natural right, as such the reapers have no right or responsibility to "maintain stability". That said, I think your idea is more or less the way THEY see it. It's an interesting, and perfectly benevolent idea depending on your intentions and how long of a view you are taking. The reapers may well see themselves as preserving these species and allowing them to coexist in a peaceful fashion, and not as farmers.

[Esker02]

newcomplex wrote...

So it comes down to a Argumentum Ad Ethos.    An Appeal to the value of your personal opinion.    Well, I'll value your opinion as much as I do any one elses.

Not exactly...  it is an appeal to reality - though perhaps not in the strict, contemporary scientific sense. Look around you right now. You could do anything you wished - you could smash your computer or topple your chair over. You have these capacities, this freedom. The illusion is that only one thing occurs, so it seems that only one thing could have occurred. And if not only one thing, then it is hard to imagine how you could have decided to do something different. I admit these problems.

But they don't totally take away from what we feel to be, and what I'm claiming, we know to be reality. They merely demonstrate a gap in our scientific understanding of how things of this nature operate... and frankly, I find it more logical to believe such limitations still persist in our knowledge - as they have always persisted - than to come to the conclusion something so pivotal to what it is to be conscious (the experience and belief of a free will) must not really exist.

Until scientific knowledge is complete (and who would claim that it is at this point?) I deem it a mistake to rely solely on it in matters where it seems to come up lacking, or plainly counter-intuitive.

And frankly, I don't understand why it matters.    If anything, free will is bad, because it implies randomness.     I want my actions to have reason.    We can leave "randomness" to nature and quibits.

Free will doesn't represent a departure from reason, but rather a freedom to select reasons as opposed to being hopelessly bound by particular ones. That's why the lack of it is so bad, because it implies a dark finality and a stagnant, pre-determined existence, which I don't believe accurately captures the human (or more generally, sentient) condition at all. I do, however, think it captures a machine's existence.

I certainly believe conscious beings have Will, and are wholly responsible for their actions, and are able to change them at any point

Though this has me puzzled. I'm sure you'll give me some brand of compatibilism, but I have to ask, how exactly are you defining "will" here?

Modifié par Esker02, 03 mars 2010 - 07:47 .

[newcomplex]

Esker02 wrote...

Not exactly...  it is an appeal to reality - though perhaps not in the strict, contemporary scientific sense. Look around you right now. You could do anything you wished - you could smash your computer or topple your chair over. You have these capacities, this freedom. The illusion is that only one thing occurs, so it seems that only one thing could have occurred. And if not only one thing, then it is hard to imagine how you could have decided to do something different. I admit these problems.

But they don't totally take away from what we feel to be, and what I'm claiming, we know to be reality. They merely demonstrate a gap in our scientific understanding of how things of this nature operate... and frankly, I find it more logical to believe such limitations still persist in our knowledge - as they have always persisted - than to come to the conclusion something so pivotal to what it is to be conscious (the experience and belief of a free will) must not really exist.

Until scientific knowledge is complete (and who would claim that it is at this point?) I deem it a mistake to rely solely on it in matters where it seems to come up lacking, or plainly counter-intuitive.

Well actually, I couldn't do that because I have neither a computer nor a chair, being curled in bed with some crackers, black coffee and a laptop and a couple big textbooks.    But I get your point.   But why on earth would I do that?   The only reason I would do that would be to prove I could do that and the only reason I would want to do that is because I read this poist.    Hence, casuality.    

Consciousness and Free Will are not intricately tied.    Consciousness is will.    Consciousness is defined as the construction of a reality that is fundementally different from the acting input, and output is processed through the constructed reality built of retained information (that constructs a reality) rather then a I/O format.   Will is defined as the ability to manipulate consciousness.   Free Will means the ability to manipulate consciousness beyond itself.   In other words, we are drawing a conclusion that is inconsistent with our status as an invidual.   That is ALL that it means.    It DOESNT mean that you don't have a choice.   It means that in a choice, your actions will be chosen from experience, feelings, desire, will, etc.   Not from a unforseen x factor.

I understand you insistance that Consciousness is real.     But consciousness in free will are no way tied.   When I make simplifications like "your brain is an in/out" generator, those are simplifications.   

I'm just going to give you a interpretation of whats going on.   Its unbiased, theirs tons of evidence one can draw free will from.

-----------------------------------

The brain is the single most complex piece of technology we have ever seen.     The illusion of free will is part of its complexity.    Simply put, the amount of information that is being processed is so ****ing massive, yet so subtle.   The sole barrier between making a brain from tech is not the raw processing power-A human brain takes 93 billion dollars to manufacture.    Its something we could build right now, albeit expensive but rather, its power source.   The power required to run the 400+ supercomputers needed would require, quite literally, its own nuclear power plant or something.     The human brain runs on a couple bottles of H20, some salt, a few vitamin pill, and an electric motor.   

What is really impressive about the Human brain, is its software In order to run at that rate, it concedes a small 10% loss in processing power beyond that implied by its raw components.   10% is not much (440 sups->400 sups:o)    But this 10% isn't a flat cut.    It makes 10% of data operations in the Brain return a binary value that is simply not right, because at this level, information is so tightly stored.   Synapses communicate to Ion channels which are prone to a bunch of quantum mechanics that make it "fuzzy".    

That alone, is literally, the only difference between our brain and a supercomputer.    And that is slowly dieing.    http://www.stanford..../goals.html.    The next problem were going to have to solve once we get 500 of those chips is how to crack the software.    Thats it.    

Free will doesn't represent a departure from reason, but rather a freedom to select reasons as opposed to being hopelessly bound by particular ones. That's why the lack of it is so bad, because it implies a dark finality and a stagnant, pre-determined existence, which I don't believe accurately captures the human (or more generally, sentient) condition at all. I do, however, think it captures a machine's existence.

The thing is, believing in determinism doesn't stop any of those things.    Just because you have a destiny does not mean you know it.    It can be ANYTHING, including becoming a reaper .     Simply try your hardest.    Even with free will, how does that change anything?   A person being born in africa is still born in Africa.     You still do what you still do.   

I certainly believe conscious beings have Will, and are wholly responsible for their actions, and are able to change them at any point

Though this has me puzzled. I'm sure you'll give me some brand of compatibilism, but I have to ask, how exactly are you defining "will" here?

Basically, Will for me is a philosphical and moral standpoint.    I believe the universe is deterministc (and kinda entropic, bleak, nihilistic, empty, and all that jazz....like, literally, their is one thing in the universe that does not change, not, direction of, speed, nor existence of time, not the speed of light (which even water changes), not anything, only entropy) 

We shouldn't look for universals to justify morals, beliefs, or anything besides what we put in our math textbooks and physics textbooks.    That is all.    They are utterly imcompatible, because as I said earlier in the thread, meaning is a conception invented by humans, and does not exist.     Everything, except the patterns of physics is a human construction.    When i say "life has no purpose", I do not mean that from a nihilistic viewpoint, its a rejection of the notion of purpose in regards to science.    In that regard, Will is the idea that every human has responsbility, and the ability to change their actions, because they do.    Even if mathematically, they were always going to change, its important we view human change as a result of Will.    

Whenever someone ever decided to apply science to sociology, it basically ended in a huge pile of ****.    I literally cannot think of a single positive effect.    ****sm, Darwinism, Offshoots of bolshekvism.   We apply science to gain a greater understanding of the world.     Then we return to belief, even as an atheist, for morality.      Because the converse applies.    Whenever someone applied belief or faith to science, it also ended in a huge pile of ****.    Bible Belters, the Spanish inquisition...etc..etc...

Will is a matter of philsophy.    We have it, because an accused murderer can go to his execution thanking his executioner, praying to god forgiveness, not of murder, of being human, and accepting his death, despite knowing that he did not do it, and having it proved as a misconviction fifty years later postmortem.    A man can turn the other cheek, or he can retaliate.   He can sacrifice, or he can revenge.     That is a testament to will.   Not free will, for he was shaped by every experience, a mothers touch, a fathers blow, but will nonetheless.     Does it matter if in the great cosmic order where we are nothing but computations that it was not free will?   it is utterly irrelevent.    You might as well refuse to accept that the Earth is so small because it makes our lives seem irrelevent.    

Its getting late, I'm distracted, I'm probably rambling on the internet.   So heres a coherent question.

Is their any decision you made in your life that would not be possible should free will not exist?  

Modifié par newcomplex, 03 mars 2010 - 08:37 .