I'm skeptical. I don't think you would go all that long without deliberating about eating or drinking.

Ok, do you think that you are able to maintain a free willed choice to stop deliberating for the rest of your life?

If determinism is true, then there is no good reason to deliberate because such thought will not change how I decide (I must choose, or "act" the same way whether I deliberate or not). — NotAristotle

Do you think that you are able to make a free willed choice to stop deliberating?

First, we need to outline what is meant by these terms.

Determinism frames the premise that our futures are set and unchangeable (human choices are not real), whereas non-determinism frames the premise that humans can change their fate (human choices are real). — I like sushi

I doubt that this is a common view among those who accept determinism. Results of the 2020 Phipapers survey were:

Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?
Accept or lean towards: compatibilism 59.16% (57.68%)
Accept or lean towards: libertarianism 18.83% (18.20%)
Accept or lean towards: no free will 11.21% (10.58%)
Other 13.54%

Compatibilism, in a nut shell, is the view that free will is compatible with determinism.

What you are describing as determinism I would call fatalism.

Karma is the name given to the displacement of true nature with the illusory constructions and projections of Mind. — ENOAH

I don't know what you mean by "displacement of true nature". However, I think you are right in the sense that notions of karma are intimately tied up with our social primate tendency to project onto the world in terms of deservedness:



It seems to me, that the notion of karma arises from an attempt to rationalize, our instinctive (and substantially emotional) tendency to judge deservedess, as a matter of objective fact about the world.
(As opposed to recognizing the inherent subjectivity of judgements of deservedness.)

Does this fit at all with what you are thinking?

The APS magazine provides a neat summation of the mechanics of making choices. — Banno

Nice succinct overview of important to understand matters. Bookmarked.

Could they not learn from that experience? Perhaps in some cases to go down for a while is the only way to continue on the way up. — Janus

As a resident of MAGA world, I certainly hope so.

Do you mean our knowledge and understanding could just as well degenerate as improve? — Janus

Consider people who get involved in cults?

The following view is ascribed to Nietzsche: — Tarskian

And? Is this meant to be an argument from authority? Nietzche having made predictions about the future based on his limited perspective isn't something I am all that interested in.

In any case, it doesn't seem to respond to the questions I asked you.

Your position seems to mostly amount to an appeal to consequences fallacy. Suppose a substantial portion of our fellow social primates can't cope emotionally with having an atheistic perspective. Do you recognize that that doesn't have any bearing on whether God exists?

...frantically trying to avoid the inevitable final outcome, which is that it will spectacularly commit suicide. — Tarskian

Sounds like fantasizing on your part, to me.

Do you see yourself as someone likely to commit suicide if you came to have an atheist perspective? If so, do you think that might just be a personal issue you have?

:up: :up:

Sounds as if you are arguing for an intellectually impoverished populace, and I wonder why?

Looking into what groups can be found through meetup.com might be worthwhile.

delete

delete

Morality is rooted in our immediate visceral response to what happens to us or others. My suffering does not begin with the concept of suffering. I do not need to form a concept to know that it is bad. Most of us are capable of empathy and do not first develop or appeal to a concept of empathy in order to be able to empathize. We do not need a concept of care in order to care. We do not need a concept of something mattering in order for something to matter to us. — Fooloso4

100 :up:

E-motions are moving forces which are meant to coordinate with our agency, not to override and destroy our agency. — Leontiskos

"Meant to" by whom?

It looks to me like evolution resulted in us having emotions which act as 'interrupts' to our rational consideration, and which tend to redirect our thinking.

Can it ever be disproven, and is it likely, that some may have discovered memories or signs of previous life? Perhaps there is a collection of dreams, that occurred since time in mother's womb, to the present day, that preserve abstractions of former dimensionality, and self-hood they once experienced. Perhaps there are direct memories in some minds of previous life. There's reason to suggest that could be possible, and nothing to say it's unlikely — Barkon

Well, if one accepts that human memories are encoded in the synaptic weightings of neural networks, then it doesn't make much sense to think that we have memories from before our conception - when our neural networks hadn't begun to develop.

There are lots of reasons to "say it's unlikely", if one is informed about the nature of human minds.

There is a matter of trust here. There is no reason we should trust AI technology and its corporate owners — BC

A just machine to make big decisions
Programmed by fellas with compassion and vision
We'll be clean when their work is done
We'll be eternally free, yes, and eternally young
- Donald Fagan, IGY

:chin:

Then what is it that provides ‘direction’? Aren’t we back to orthogenesis, that being ‘evolution in which variations follow a particular direction and are not merely sporadic and fortuitous’? That is a very different picture to orthodox neo-Darwinism. I asked ChatGPT for a synopsis:

Neo-Darwinian theory, which is essentially the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, focuses on natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow as the main drivers of evolution. It emphasizes the role of random mutations, which are then acted upon by natural selection, leading to adaptations that increase the fitness of organisms in their environments. — Wayfarer

That there are drivers other than the main drivers doesn't seem like a surprising thing to find, in light of a an up to date view on evolution. It is called the "modern synthesis" not the "ultimate synthesis". Modern technology has given us the ability to look through millions of haystacks for needles, in gathering the data needed to get a better look at the degree of seeming randomness involved. I don't think scientists are on the verge of finding the hand of God at work.

But the times they are a’ changing. — Wayfarer

Always. But that doesn't make Theodosius Dobzhansky's statement any less valid, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

My neighbor only changes my belief if I choose to believe he's on the level. — RogueAI

I'd think it would be much more realistic to say, "My neighbor only changes my belief if my intuitions about my neighbor are such that I trust him in this circumstance." However, those intuitions were themselves likely caused (to some extent) to be as they are by your neighbor.

I think your talk about choosing to believe isn't a realistic description of how such things happen.

You can't change a belief when new evidence is presented? For example, I'm driving to work, thinking my house is fine. My neighbor calls me and tells me it's on fire. I now have a new belief that my house is not fine. I didn't change my belief in that case? What happened then? — RogueAI

Your neighbor changed your belief.

Isn't the process which is random the actual mutations? — Wayfarer

Even the randomness of mutations is questionable, and is being investigated moreso these days, due to the availability of modern technologies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6

Abstract
Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences1. Here we test this assumption with large surveys of de novo mutations in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. In contrast to expectations, we find that mutations occur less often in functionally constrained regions of the genome—mutation frequency is reduced by half inside gene bodies and by two-thirds in essential genes. With independent genomic mutation datasets, including from the largest Arabidopsis mutation accumulation experiment conducted to date, we demonstrate that epigenomic and physical features explain over 90% of variance in the genome-wide pattern of mutation bias surrounding genes. Observed mutation frequencies around genes in turn accurately predict patterns of genetic polymorphisms in natural Arabidopsis accessions (r = 0.96). That mutation bias is the primary force behind patterns of sequence evolution around genes in natural accessions is supported by analyses of allele frequencies. Finally, we find that genes subject to stronger purifying selection have a lower mutation rate. We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias2 reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis, challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.

Where did you get that impression?
— wonderer1

Are you saying the random mutation of genes that leads to superior survival and reproduction is intentional in some way?? — Astrophel

Well no. I was asking a question regarding the following claim.

Then I invite you to consider that evolution is in essence entirely "accidental". — Astrophel

Do you understand the role that natural selection plays in evolution, and that natural selection is not random?

Then I invite you to consider that evolution is in essence entirely "accidental". — Astrophel

Where did you get that impression?

As I understand it, the issue with teleology, goal-directedness and purpose is that it was associated with Aristotelian physics... — Wayfarer

It seems to me that it is the association between teleology and the anti-intellectualism of modern day religious creationist, who attempt to keep people in a state of ignorance regarding evolution, moreso than any consideration of Aristotle.

We might put a dog down if it kills someone, buy we don't do it for punishment. — Patterner

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial

Animals, including insects, faced the possibility of criminal charges for several centuries across many parts of Europe. The earliest extant record of an animal trial is often assumed to be found in the execution of a pig in 1266 at Fontenay-aux-Roses.[2] Newer research, however, suggests that this reading might be mistaken and no trial took place in that particular incident.[3] Notwithstanding this controversy, such trials remained part of several legal systems until the 18th century. Animal defendants appeared before both church and secular courts, and the offences alleged against them ranged from murder to criminal damage. Human witnesses were often heard, and in ecclesiastical courts the animals were routinely provided with lawyers (this was not the case in secular courts, but for most of the period concerned, neither were human defendants). If convicted, it was usual for an animal to be executed or exiled. However, in 1750, a female donkey was acquitted of charges of bestiality due to witnesses to the animal's virtue and good behaviour while her co-accused human was sentenced to death.

Is there a name for the logical fallacy that "P is repugnant, therefore not-P." — fishfry

Appeal to consequences?

Is inductive reasoning what you mean by "empirical logic"?

True enough, we are not running out of space, and mass starvation has not ensued. — BC

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10062021/agriculture-greenhouse-gas-emissions-food-production-climate-change-paris-agreement/

Emissions from food production, already considered one of the biggest contributors to climate change, have been underestimated for decades, potentially skewing the pledges that countries have made under the Paris climate agreement to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, according to new research.

In a study published this week in Environmental Research Letters, researchers found that the food system was responsible for as much as 40 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.

“When you count it all up, across the food system, it’s enormous,” said Cynthia Rosenzweig, a researcher with Columbia University’s Earth Institute and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “So it offers countries really enormous opportunities.”

If you'd really like to compare thinking between us, a simple review of this thread only will reveal the true quality of Farmir of Gondor (me). — Chet Hawkins

:rofl:

One reason, I think, (other than Dennett's provocative style) is that lay people often see the relatively few public figures like him as representative, if not wholly constituent of their field, whereas in reality, the field is both more crowded and more diverse than they realize. As a result, those public figures are seen as more significant and/or controversial on the outside than on the inside. — SophistiCat

:up:

Opus read my mind and understood everything that I was driving at. Llama 3 does sound like a stochastic parrot; Claude 3 not at all. — Pierre-Normand

It is impressive what Llama 3 can do on such readily available hardware, but yes, Claude's response is so much better.

I think it's a really strange thing that some peoples first inclination on hearing about the death of someone is to try to discredit them or list all the things you disagree with them about. — flannel jesus

"Strange" isn't the word I would use, but yeah.

This progress doesn’t get us closer and closer to the way things ‘really are’, it just gets us fresher and farther from who we used to be. And it also opens up increasingly intimate and peaceful ways of understanding each other that I believe will eventually allow us to jettison our blame-based moralisms. — Joshs

I think the tendency to blame is innate, and it seems unrealistic to me to think we will "jettison" such an innate tendency. I'd think at best humanity might come to have better recognition of the nature of blame arising in our minds, and the value in dealing with such in a skillful way.

Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing about how you imagine such a jettisoning occurring.

It sounds like you might appreciate The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation by Peter Tse.

Like this:

While people who have been blind since birth do indeed dream in visual images, [...]
— https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2020/02/11/do-blind-people-dream-in-visual-images/ — Lionino

Seems rather weak. As best I can tell from that article, the claim is based on detecting activity in the occipital lobe of people born blind. (As well as what may be spurious eye movements.) However - https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/24498-occipital-lobe:

Occipital lobe activity in those blind from birth or early in life
In those with early or congenital blindness, their occipital lobe is still very active. However, that activity happens when they use their other senses, such as smell, hearing and touch. The occipital lobe of a person with blindness also becomes more active when they’re speaking or listening to others talking.

This reassignment of the occipital lobe is a form of neuroplasticity. That’s the term for the brain’s ability to adapt itself to an unusual circumstance or condition.

According to the scientific method, a statistical significance of five sigma is accepted as the criterion for reliable knowledge of unobservable entities like the Higgs boson. — Michael

Think how much greater than five sigma confidence people would have to have in all those distal objects such as measurement instruments, computers, and a bunch of scientists, to have a reason to believe a five sigma level confidence for the Higgs Boson.

That seems non-productively reductionist to me.
— wonderer1

It seems consistent with the scientific evidence. Experience exists within the brain. Distal objects exist outside the brain. Therefore, distal objects are not constituents of experience. — Michael

This just seems another example of how this discussion doesn't seem to be about much more than semantic preferences.

It is quite consistent with scientific evidence to say that experiences occur in space-time regions, and an example of such an occurrence would be light reflecting off a cow and into my eye, resulting in my recognition that 'there is a cow playing a causal role in my experience'.

This way of conceivng of experiences allows, "I shared the experience of seeing the total eclipse with...", to make sense. Conceiving of experiences in a way that doesn't allow for shared experiences is not a way of thinking that I would expect scientists to be very inclined to.