Jump to content

empleat

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About empleat

  • Rank
    Quark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting. I thought everyone have their own clocks. I don't even know what to imagine behind that. Than how could be some object measured by other clocks, which have stopped?! Has it not its own clock? I watched Dark recently. And there was something about time stopping, which broken cause and effect. And allowed time travel to any time, with a time machine. Also there was disconcerting idea, we may relive same lives over and over. I already heard about that, there are many theories about that actually... So i was curious, if anyone could ever change that theoretically. Because information cannot be destroyed and time doesn't go anywhere: we exists in past,present and future - at the same time. I am afraid, that we may be reliving same lives over and over, or different ones, which is even worse... Literally anything could happen...
  2. Hello, i just want to ask a quick question: could cause and effect be broken, if time stopped? Question is, even if it did... could anything happen due to time stopped? And by that i don't mean classical event in time, by that i mean anything physical, or quantum. Perhaps some interaction of sorts, i don't know... Because for example: some theories say, that time is emergent. Thanks for answer.
  3. You say that. I read that carefully twice, but i still disagree, i mean no offense! But i am allowed to have my opinion. But your definition still doesn't explain how it is decided. Because everything has a reason, or is random, at least until it gets disproved maybe, but currently everything is either predetermined, or random. That's fact! Think about it! Lets say: you have a wish to rob a bank, but than you decide to not do it. (E.g. because at the end, we decide only by pleasure, or pain - say neurologists). Since we can decide whether or not to act upon our wishes, than how it was determined? It had to be somehow right? Maybe in reward/risk ratio, risk exceeded reward. But someone wouldn't care and someone would care in the same situation. Because both are different persons. But than again: how it was determined, that one person decided like that?! And second person is different ? E.g. one which had a wish and decided to not act upon it, so why he did that ? He had to have reason right ? Was risking a prison to much for him, was he afraid of pain? Than how did he chosen, that he was like that? I give more examples: - Kids find parent's gun and decide to play with it and shoot someone by accident. E.g. if parents were more responsible and used safe, kids wouldn't find it. Than they wouldn't get into that situation in the first place! - that was external factor, which completely changed course of action, if parents had no gun - there would be no gun to be found! - But what if parents had 200 iq prodigy and he would have cracked the safe and than kids would still played with the gun and shoot someone - but no one chosen his iq! - Or lets say i want to win contest in a school, but there are a lot of smart kids competing and i have just average iq and i don't win that. But if i had iq 200, i would probably won that right ? - Or lets say i want to buy ice cream, but ice cream shop closes at 4pm, lets say: i am doing test at school and after tests kids are allowed to quit. I have to finish the test, because i want to get good rating, but at the same time i want to make it for ice cream. But if i wouldn't have high iq, i wouldn't finish it in time and make it for the ice cream as well. - So what if i wanted to be rich, but i didn't get rich, because i didn't observed something. Maybe some people notice something in news, or see some opportunity by being lucky, or higher intelligence and see patterns! - So you see, sometimes we can't act upon our wishes, because intelligence for example. But we didn't choose our intelligence did we ? So that's perfect example for my argument! How would you counter that ? So you see are limited by external factors too, even if i want to rob a bank, i don't want to, because i would end up in prison probably. If people weren't put into prison and if we omit other factors for sake of the argument. Than nothing else would stop me. But i didn't choose, that people go to prison for crimes! - What if i born in africa and i liked astronomy, but i had to much on my plate and had to deal with many things, before i could start working on my goal and than i don't achieve it! So than you could argue, but not all people are equal. But you can choose according your own wishes and free will, in that range what is available to you. But than again, what about all scientific studies about gut bacterias, parasites, which change our behavior. And genes, some people born with asperger and have trouble making social contacts: even they want to! But if they didn't born with it, they would live completely different life. How do you argue against that huh ? Consider every scenario, every permutation, than can ever happen and tell me how is that free will in each one ? But i still think: no one have free will, because you can't be responsible for the way you are. But you act, because the way you are! I gave many examples above.
  4. Isn't that obvious, if bacteria in your gut motivates you to eat specific food, or you feel more attraction to a person with different immune system, or parasite can cause you kill yourself. How is that free will ? Yep, but that doesn't say anything about free will itself. You can choose even if everything was predetermined, but it wasn't your choice: from your own free will. So that's why external factors, because if someone, or something change your decision, it wasn't really you who decided freely! It should probably include yet, to be able to choose from your own free will and not because you chosen something, because it was predetermined. But you get what i mean. That's what i don't get, we don't chose definitions of problems: because they are simpler, or to eliminate some problems, unless we trying to solve some complex problems and we just try to go with axioms and than change our believes, if theory doesn't fit the facts. We chose them, because we deduce, or induce them! So you don't agree with that logic ? What about paradoxes ? World is full of them. If something cannot be currently solved, like a determinism ? Is that proof, that it is not true ? I don't think so. You said: if you can act according your own wishes and believes, you have free will. But than, you have to responsible for your own wishes and believes to be able to act freely. Because you are acting on your own wishes. And still doesn't solve problem: how did you choose your wishes in the first place ? Because to be able to choose: you have to have already some preferences! How do i choose between blue and red t-shirt, if i don't have any preference yet ? Some could argue - i can choose randomly. But even so, how do i decide to do that ? Even that is preference, if i don't have any preference yet: so i don't care what i choose, so i choose randomly. Or i can decide to not choose at all, but that is preference too and had to come from somewhere! But when that come from ? Because we can agree on, i wasn't there forever, i was born at some point in the time. And i didn't choose my environment, or genes. So how could i choose my own preferences, or any sort of mental capacity, which will allow me to form them ? But than my preferences were dependent on the way, i was from the time i was born and my life until this point. But i didn't choose initial point, if i was nothing, i couldn't choose and form any preferences what so ever. But than i was born and i wasn't responsible for the way i was made. So than how my own preferences would be free, if they were chosen for me ? And i act upon them. Hope that makes sense. Yeah but you said that yourself, you act upon your preferences, which you didn't choose. So you act upon something you didn't choose by your own free will. What has been given to you. I don't see how is this any free will worth having. Yes you can choose how to act, but you can't choose your own wishes and believes upon, which you are acting. This seems to be like determinism. So you say: i can have preferences, but decide to act, or not to act on them ? And than it would be free will ? That still doesn't explain, why i did that. Because everything has a reason, or is random. So to be able to act freely, i would have to decide from my own volition and have my reasons why i did that right ? But where that came from ? Maybe my preferences changed, by thinking about them, but what caused that in the first place ? And that's where it gets to that pesky ad infinitum. So unless we can solve that. How can we know, we have a free will ? And so it doesn't make sense, that we would have free will. I can't even imagine how, that would be possible. Because everything we know is either predetermined, or random. There is no third option. I read that even from physicists and tried to find third option million times and no one proved yet: there would be another one.
  5. You don't understand, that's what i was claiming. It doesn't make sense you could decide how you will be, yet before you was born, because you didn't exist. Therefore something has to be given to me first, so i can decide, or form believes etc.
  6. Whoops i can't edit anymore... I didn't mean like no external factors at all. Like things in the world: which motivates you, or prompt you to some action. I meant external factors like: for example - parasit, which has 80% of population and is known to reduce intelligence, whereas other parasit cause risky behaviour in men and suicide in women. Or what if someone manipulates you, who is much smarter than you are, could you really done otherwise ?
  7. What ? I don't why. It simply implies you could choose otherwise and that your choice isn't limited to one action. As for external influences: e.g. if someone manipulates you, or some external influence changes your decision, than it wasn't you who decided freely. Yeah that's what my definition implies, that there is more than one possibility. How so ? That is the thing: no one choses his wishes, or believes. Believes are dependent on the intelligence, iq and many other factors. E.g. i don't know yet person who chosen his iq. To be able to act by your believes and wishes, you would have to made yourself according them. But where they come from in the first place ? Before you was born, you couldn't choose the way you will be. Besides: real world experience contradicts this. Consider this scenario: kids lose their parents to airstrike and gonna live with his uncle, who is radical and teaches them hate against west, they are denied books and internet to make their own opinions and believes. Could they chose by their wishes to not become terrorists, that's unlikely right ? Than it is same ad infinitum problem, you would have to get behind that - how your wishes and believes arised and no one can do that currently. Is it ? But than, how would you explain your wishes and believes to be truly free, if they didn't exist before you was born, as that is something we can agree on. Btw even they existed before that, that still doesn't explain how they would be free... Because i didn't choose my environment and genes. There is scientific proof that, both affect personality: so our preferences were chosen for us, before we were born yet!!! Otherwise you would have to claim: environment and genes don't influence our personality at all. And all scientific studies about them are flat out wrong! Or that immaterialism is true etc. Again we get to that: i do what i do, because the way i am. But in order for me to be responsible for my actions, i would have to made me somehow the way i am. But how could i made myself the way i am, before i was born ? Because after i am born, i am already in some way. That doesn't seem logical. If i can't choose what self i am, how can i choose how to act ? What if i am piece of sh.t alcoholic and i beat my family. I can argument almost with anything in the world against that. There are studies about, why people become alcoholics etc. Even tesla said he seemed to himself like an automaton and he couldn't stop doing his experiments and research and couldn't even sleep.
  8. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00z5y9z Listen 23:30. I had exactly same thought long time ago... I read like 1Mill. articles about free will and everything that exist and i wondered: i never encountered this anywhere, now i did... I was expressing it little bit differently, but i meant the same thing: How could i choose my preferences before i was born ? Answer is: i couldn't, because i was nothing, or rather particles at different places. Which don't have will, or a brain to be able to choose. So therefore i couldn't chose my preferences before i was born, something had to be given to me first - so i could chose my preferences. So than i don't have free will, because by definition free will is: "to be able to choose between one, or multiple things, without interference of external factors." But how would i choose in the first place how i will be ??? And even if i existed forever, or before this life, that wouldn't solve how i am in the way i am. If someone believed in souls for example etc. And than shouldn't i remember previous lives ? How come i don't even know why i am in the way i am ? No one can explain his behavior from 100%, not even genius with 250 iq , with 20 degrees in behavioral sciences and from psychology, philosophy, linguistics, neuroscience, biology, physics... E.g. while i was listening to this podcast, i was moving around with my headphone volume controller and i don't know why, or i was focusing with sight at one point and didn't even perceive vision much. This is more subtle. More important is why someone go rob a bank etc. but still... So how come, we don't even know why we do things and for what ? I can in retrospect analyze my actions and say i did it, probably because of this and that. But i don't really know. I didn't chose what entertains me and what i like, so i am doing that naturally. Like it is crazy, i can list almost anything. While some say, we may have partial free will. Even so there is another billion of arguments against it and contradictory facts and experiences from daily life scenarios. To be honest i don't understand how anyone in the right mind can believe in a free will, given human experience we have. I can think of almost any scenario, that is in direct contradiction to free will. And i don't think they can be reconciled, if ever. Besides there is scientific proof about environment and genes and how our parents dedicate attention to us, affects our personality traits. So if you wanted to claim free will exists, most of these studies would have to be false, but all of them can't be false right. Well maybe if there were some ridiculous twists, like every study ever concluded about genes was wrong, but that's ridiculous. And see i don't even know why i wrote all of this, i got carried away. I wanted at first just to tell about this argument and than these things are related to it and than again i get this idea and wanted to talk about this.
  9. If i think about it, i read on Quora: that after age 20, we lose 1 gram of brain mass per year. Given, maybe only hope to live forever: would be replacing some of neurons with artificial ones and slowly replace whole brain like this. Until your brain is slowly remade with artificial neurons. Because problem with transferring consciousness directly into a computer may be - that your brain dies and information is only copied. Than you would die and only your copy would live inside a computer! There is no proof information is immaterial and can be transferred like this. Going with former method, even so i think you would be just a copy of a copy. Here is why i think that: Because even in a living brain, neurons constantly die and being replaced. Memories are part of your personality, without them - you wouldn't be you. We lose some memories permanently, or at least they are lost to a consciousness. And even if we retain them, your neurons die and being replaced. So they are stored in different neurons.. you are just a copy of a copy. Even it doesn't feel that way, because we don't lose all cells at once. Or cells, that are part of immediate consciousness. There is no temporal death, like i would be dead for 30 seconds and voila now my brain is restored and i continue experiencing the world. But fact is we are probably copy of a copy, that cells that were processing a consciousness 10 years ago, some of them may be gone and you are just a copy of a copy. Psychologically: it sucks imagining working hard towards immortality, only for you to die and your copy continues to live on. Because we are motivated only by pain and pleasure - (negative and positive emotions) and with survival instinct, after all we are survivors. That's how we evolved/survived and even evolution has no goal, we are motivated to survive and feel negative emotions when thinking about death. So we want to live forever and because terror management theory, at least we need to deal somehow with death, to leave something behind etc. Even there is no logical reason and it doesn't matter, after you die: you won't care if you were homeless, or famous... So even we wouldn't die and replaced our brain gradually with an artificial neurons and than maybe transferred our minds into a computer. It wouldn't be really us, even for all intends and purposes we would be, lets say 100% human like, but in an artificial form. For sake of preserving consciousness: even we wouldn't experience death and had continuous experience, because delays of replacing parts of our brain would be so small to be conceivable and wouldn't affect everything at once. We would technically still die and be just copies. Question is does that really matter ? If we are already copies of ourselves... And we can't tell a difference. And unless we die and will be copied to a computer, do we really care ? Even some futurists etc. claim we may achieve immortality by a year 2045, some neurologists and scientists doubt that and say: it won't be maybe possible hundreds of years yet. Even technology is improving exponentially and if we make human like - intelligent ai and improve performance of computers drastically. Who knows really... because it is very complex. Not to mention, even if you were successfully transferred into a computer: your mind would have to be backed up in case of catastrophe. Or you would eventually die, so even after that you would become a copy of a copy! But still if you lived like 10 thousand of years, it would feel like forever. Thing is: imagine working whole life towards that goal and than not being able to achieve it... Today times are too boring, we can't even travel to other planets and galaxies and beyond, if we ever will... And small minority of them is habitable and rest are just wastelands, even we could terraform it eventually. And it feels we are alone, are there other species out there to meet ? People that are going to Mars not gonna have great lives, it will be amazing much much later... And free will is illusion, everything is predetermined, or random. Even there are other viewpoints and philosophies. Given human experience, i don't think there is a free will. It feels pointless to live without free will! Life is pretty depressing. Except maybe: if universe is cyclical and we are reliving same lives over and over, that would be immortality, even pretty depressing one. Or new universe is born and we live other lives - much better one! But that's not kinda of immortality, i am not talking of.
  10. I usually like to read pages on wiki about authors, because there are some biased people, which think because people with OCD, can overcome their problem. That implies, that mind is immaterial or something. I don't even...
  11. It is easy to find if an article was peer-reviewed, but who reviewed it ? That's important as well. It could have been scientist, which claims nobel prize winners eaten chocolate, therefore eating chocolate increases intelligence... I found an interesting publication and i would like to check who reviewed it. Not sure if there is a way to find out. If site for publications is of high quality, article itself is probably legit, but nothing is 100% perfect. I am honestly surprised, that you can't see who peer-reviewed it as well as names of authors, because it makes sense.
  12. Ye i saw that. Wealthy will probably be able afford it sooner and get the edge. But from concerns project 2045 they aim to be affordable like for 300 000$. Still this is not version which will have computation power like supercomputer, you will be only in robot, who get into that first will get huge advantage. If like some cabal of rich people got first into computer with supercomputer power, that would be bad. Or even if people get there, there is 20% chance humanity will go extinct at 2100, because of global warming and endangering species and destroying environment... Or if ai destroys humanity.. Maybe people survive on mars, while die in earth who knows. It is pretty tough to survive in universe, to even have life supporting habitat and than to not get wiped by anything, there are pretty scary things in universe, so matter from quarks, which could poison whole planets and turn them into same matter. Or some explosion on atomic, or subatomic level, which could destroy whole universe and physical laws as we know them, or black holes and who knows what. Humanity probably won't survive even that long, who know if we will be able to achieve ftl, or even get to posthuman stage. And i agree torture is pretty ugly, people in middle age used to be cruel and disgusting, obviously even today some, why would you wanted to risk it and die painfully, if universe is going to repeat itself forever maybe...
  13. I didn't ask about boredom tho, i am interested what point could exists for people to want immortality. Specifically rather, than obvious reasons to live longer, or survival because people fear death, or traveling to new planets etc...
  14. This is lounge right, you can talk about anything here, i am just interested what people see about immortality. That's it...
  15. Same even with immortality, is question: 1. if you get transferred into computer 2. or die and copy of your mind gets transferred Even even if so, what if someone kills you, or you die by accident, if you mind will be backed up and than copied to new body, it won't be you, but your copy. Even if you was lucky and lived like 10k years, eventually you will die anyways, even universe is probably going to end and it will be difficult to survive... Same there is no point, why would you do that ? So you can live another x years for what ? And it is so boring, everything is predetermined, or random, which is not any better... So you maybe explorer new planets, or travel through time, or to another dimension and learn some new things, because we are programmed to do stuff e.g. our survival, otherwise we get bored. Don't know how you see it, but this is so utterly boring.. Every possibility bores me to death, even ai starting to bore me already and it is rather new...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.