You really know such things? — Heiko
fun fact: we live closer on the timelime to the T-Rex than the T-Rex did to the Stegosaurus. — StreetlightX
May be I spoke too soon. — TheMadFool
But our ''failure'' can be attributed to poor choices we make. If everybody realizes the fact that we're harming the planet and takes action then we would surely survive for longer than the dinosaurs barring, of course, catastrophes like asteroids and volcanoes. — TheMadFool
Nice post all in all but I'd say it is a popular category error to say this would contradict free will.Maybe the decision making is hard wired so that choice is nothing more than a serious of switches being thrown. — Bitter Crank
Given your Buddhist studies, you likely hold the other 0-2-4-6-8-and-more-legged creatures in higher regard than many do. — Bitter Crank
Because, like, where would we be if a clam or an orangutan could become Buddha? — Bitter Crank
Yes, it's about hierarchy. Those have to reincarnate as humans first and then may become Buddah.Because, like, where would we be if a clam or an orangutan could become Buddha? — Bitter Crank
Because, like, where would we be if a clam or an orangutan could become Buddha? — Bitter Crank
Nice post all in all but I'd say it is a popular category error to say this would contradict free will.
You can be feeling cold although you are fevering. — Heiko
What is a computationally universal brain? — Bitter Crank
What if you simply do not get the one without the other? — Heiko
We (people) may recognize that all these drastic changes make good sense, but we find that we do not have the necessary free will to actuate these plans in a timely manner (which would be about 30 years ago). We can look at it, see it, understand it, know what we should do, then have a horrible sinking feeling in our guts and decide to think about something else. — Bitter Crank
In my opinion having the ability to choose between what is beneficial and harmful, evidence of free will, is a survival advantage given, of course, that our motivations are life-sustaining and not otherwise. If this is so, then free will would be, to say the least, on the cards if not the ultimate goal of evolution. — TheMadFool
he problem is, to depict such choices in terms 'what benefits survival' is reductionist. All it amounts to, is a form of utilitarian ethics - that we do what we do because it's likely to 'provide a survival advantage'. Now, obviously, one ought not to leap off cliffs or walk in front of buses, and the ability to avoid such obviously lethal behaviours is 'advantageous'. But in terms of ethical philosophy and principles, it means pretty well zilch. You see, you're falling into the very common mistake, in my view, of taking evolutionary biology as a kind of 'guide to the good life', which it isn't. (This is exactly what makes Sam Harris such a crap ethical philosopher, IMO.) — Wayfarer
the basic tools for everything under the sun. What do you think. — TheMadFool
Programs and hardware are anthropomorphic in this context. — Noble Dust
It is proved, that according to known physics — tom
They're anthropomorphic in the sense that we made programs and hardware, and then we decided that the world is like our programs and our hardware. — Noble Dust
No, we made tech that created computational universality, and then we started getting anthropomorphical about it. Evolution didn't do that; the evolution of us making tech did that. What sort of evolution is that, anyway? — Noble Dust
Deutsch-Principle, to distinguish it from the Church-Turing Thesis. — tom
Please don't read it as it will only confuse you. — tom
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.