What would be the point of making something feel pain if it was 100% programmed with no free will anyway? — bassplayer

What would be the point in making something of 100% freewill feel pain anyway?

We don't have control. And if we can't have control, then what's the point of being an individual? — darthbarracuda

Just because you don't have control doesn't mean to say life isn't worth living. That is like the argument "if life doesn't go on forever then it is not worth living". The point of living is subjective and could actually be objective albeit concealed in a grand alien design. IMO, subjectively it would be to be a witness... free will or no.

you were thrown into the world from nothing-ness. — darthbarracuda

you don't know that, it may just be that you don't remember what it was.

Like Sartre said, existence precedes essence. Which I find to be entirely incoherent, since to exist is to have certain properties and qualities outside of your control. — darthbarracuda

What about if existence is meant in the sense of an objective universe that exists without witness? Then comes along an organism to add essence to the preordained existence.

Sydney where a man who killed bystanders in a carpark with a samurai sword — Wayfarer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3355584/Man-22-samurai-sword-sneaked-AFP-HQ-mingled-counter-terrorism-police-arrested-major-security-breach.html

It has been pointed out to Harris that if it is true from one's perspective, at any given instant, that what one is poised to do already had been determined at that time by one's (and the Universe's) past history then it is pointless to deliberate what to do. Harris's reply to this seemingly absurd practical consequence of his view is to claim that while we can't control the causes of our action, our actions nevertheless have consequences and since consequences matter we ought to take them into account while deliberating what to do. But this answer is completely point missing and is a garbled attempt to take in stride the central insight from compatibilism while, at the same time, denying the cogency of compatibilism. — Pierre-Normand

Simply put, he is just saying that it is the deliberation of the possible choices or outcomes before a decision is made that affects the beneficiality of the choice. That is not absurd as you say it is and is completely coherent with the determinism that he expounds on.

Just because what one is poised to do already is based on prior events does not negate the necessity of logical thought or reasoning for making a decision. Predestination works just as well if not better with a reasoning mind.

As for why you think it denies the central insight of compatibilism, I see no evidence to support your opinions here...

Thanks Terrapin, that outlined it in a lot more detail and gave me some context as to what it will be like.

I have no objections to the descriptions of tasks you listed (i.e. defending the opposite viewpoint I hold and putting down my belief systems for the sake of reason), albeit one... and that is reading thousands of pages per semester. I find prolonged reading very difficult and can only manage to pull through 10-20 pages a day max before my attention span withers and the sentences don't make any sense at all.

Per semester, this equates to 900-1,800 pages if reading 10-20 pages per day. The trouble is I doubt I can read everyday and that is why I wonder (granted I have understood the basic principles of what is being taught) if I could pass without reading much (<500 pages per semester), as long as I can verbalise ideas very comprehensively and with a strong vocab. True? I know from reading some philosophy books that majority of writers tend to just say the same things over and over again in different formulations.

Also, do you get help from others? Say if you struggled to understand some indistinct notion about nominalism, who is there to clarify it with? Fellow students? Professors? Tutorial classes? Did you find you had to do much of this personal clarification? Or did it always just make sense to you the first time you heard it all?

Or maybe my time on PF debating with clever people payed off — Michael

Indubitably kind sir, I concur with your statements and/or sentiments in precise accordance.

I did ask you what a better alternative to evolutionary reductionism is in this case and you said it would be a moral philosophy, yet I said how absurd that is and you agreed and confirmed that is what you thought all along.

So what is a better alternative to the OP's evolutionary reductionism?

I think there are other ways to recognize the primacy of consciousness other than by objectifying it in this way.
— Wayfarer

such as? are you seriously saying that you know a way that can better rectify the problem of consciousness than panpsychism yet still keep a subjective/objective or purely subjective dichotomy in place? — intrapersona

This is a great talk about the primacy of consciousness btw:

I see, when you phrase it like that it would seem quite hard to fail as long as you understood what the theory was or had read what the philosopher philosophized about.

I would go so far as to say that even if you didn't study much at all, as long as you still could verbalise ideas very comprehensively and had a strong vocab then you would pass. True?

haha I suppose that is the supreme wellspring from which advanced literacy is born.

What was included in these end of term exams apart from formal logic? Was the whole course hard? Did you struggle anywhere? Where your papers marked with an iron fist?

The OP is setting out to prove that we and all other organisms are intrinsically egoist because we are derived from the panpsychist "stuff".

It fails to do that... nevertheless, explaining why we are intrinsically egoist via a moral philosophy helps no better, especially not improving whether panpsychism is anymore valid.

I must concede though I am at a loss to find out how you would explain the egoism of all organism on earth by morality. There is no morality in the purely instinctual operations of mindless creatures.

secular intelligentsia' — Wayfarer

lol, more like self-entitled, pompous nobodies

"is a social class of people engaged in complex mental labor aimed at guiding or critiquing, or otherwise playing a leadership role in shaping a society's culture and politics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia

Yes but you quoted yourself. I asked what is the alternative to reductionism?

Inert matter needed to able to differentiate sensations. It simply couldn't have been the case that activities that produce positive inner experiences are just linked to survival randomly — Weeknd

Let me just clarify, do you mean inert matter as rocks and wind? Because they have no imperative to do anything. Or do you mean things like trees and algae? Because they are purely responsive to what is best for survival.

It seems "positive experience" is hard wired in to every single living thing on earth. For trees, the sunlight is positive experience because it provides energy. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? But you are the one talking about inert matter needing to have "positive inner experiences".

I think reductionist efforts are usually doomed to fail, in trying to explain ethical and metaphysical questions in scientific terms. — Wayfarer

What is the alternative?

I think there are other ways to recognize the primacy of consciousness other than by objectifying it in this way. — Wayfarer

such as? are you seriously saying that you know a way that can better rectify the problem of consciousness than panpsychism yet still keep a subjective/objective or purely subjective dichotomy in place?

6. Sure, most activities that are pleasurable (good food, winning something, sex, music, exercise etc) are also absolutely necessary for survival, but there are a lots of things too, which are really pleasurable, but offer no real advantage to the survival of the individual's species in terms of evolution.

7. All activities that have the feel-good factor are not necessarily activities that are beneficial to one's evolutionary fitness. But organisms keep doing them anyways. — Weeknd

They are the same both 6&7

evolution itself assumes the predisposition of organisms to behave egotistically, and uses this fact to eliminate (or propagate) individuals from a gene pool. — Weeknd

That sounds really true. I had this problem on the other forum that crashed. I was flamed for using evolution as a term for an entity. They would have said something like "evolution doesn't assume anything". You can read it here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/does-sperm-donation-win-at-evolution-76235.html

My guess is that organisms are intrinsically egoist, as a micro quality derived from the panpsychist "stuff" itself. — Weeknd

Why would pansychism derive egoist organisms? It would be more intuitive to think the opposite, that all organisms are one and therefor have no need to serve a segregated and individualized egoist motive.

lol, not necessarily. You can do skype voice call. This would be a great marketing technique for this forum actually, an option for CHAT messenger or VOICE messenger up the top.

Beauty!