iNow

I’m reminded of when a toddler comes at me swinging and I just put my palm on their forehand to hold them back until they wear themselves out

Sometimes species go extinct because other predators become dominant and change the ecosystem. One has to try extremely hard to remain obtuse to these obvious facts

Couldn’t agree more

Homosexuality in the animal kingdom has already been observed in over 1,500 species and we’re still counting. Homophobia is just stupid nonsense we should all move beyond, but instead it becomes a lever to drive out the worst most abhorrent behaviors from the most manipulatable people among us.

What part of my understanding of neural chemistry and the locations of decision events being before conscious centers of the brain do you think is mistaken? The evidence is on my side here, so curious what evidence you have which leads you to conclude I am "lost" and have "a very unreal wrong belief." I'm quite open to correction, but you have yet to demonstrate I'm wrong. There are minor criticisms of some individual studies, but the preponderance of evidence in aggregate very heavily leans toward my side of this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Trying not to get lost in finding perfect words, but we DO have "conscious behavior," that DOES lead to outcomes in a causal way, and IS selected for in the course of evolution, but the "conscious behavior" itself is also beyond any "conscious" influence. It all occurs BEFORE we're "conscious" of it, before we're aware of it, and the narrative our minds generate comes AFTER any behaviors or "choices" are already decided. Our centuries of false understandings on this topic makes using words to explain it properly quite difficult, not unlike trying to use English to explain quantum and relativistic behaviors, but as there is no clean math nor equations (yet) for the mind, I'm doing my best and hoping we don't simply get lost in imperfect words with lots of historical baggage and subjective interpretation. From a chronological and location based frame of reference, consciousness and awareness come AFTER the "choice" or "decision" is made. We then explain it with a post-dictive narrative. Seconded. That "sometimes yes, sometimes no" part baffles me, and remains vague to the point of being useless IMO. Sometimes, like when / what? We agree that I can't "free will" myself into gestating a baby in my belly as a male human, or that I can't "free will" myself into growing wings out of my earlobes, but you seem to be asserting that there ARE instances where we can "free will" our decisions and choices consciously and in a manner unrelated to the chemistry driving our nervous systems. So, what do you think ARE those times? What examples can you give? My position is there is no such possibility, but you keep asserting otherwise so I assume that you MUST have something tangible to offer in support of that assertion, something more than "I simply cannot allow myself to believe I don't have a freedom beyond my neural chemistry to choose my path," right??

Perhaps I should not have introduced the outdated idea of unconscious versus consciousness. In terms of my position, this arbitrary distinction isn't very relevant. It's all the same biological hardware and all the same chemically induced electrical signals, and all of them occur before reaching the parts of our brain considered "self" and before we are even aware of it. Once these signals reach our awareness, we then apply a story to explain them, but that occurs after, not during nor before.

What I suspect you’re still missing is that you’re calling something a “decision” when it’s just chemistry and a narrative the story-telling parts of your brain applied after mostly unconscious neural machinery has already led to it

There will be some failures. There will be many more successes. There will be an Eden of new ideas to be acted upon by those using AI as a tool.

Yeah, sadly I don’t actually understand your position at all. When would it exist, and when would it not? Will you please elaborate? What else would they be when viewed at the level of chemistry in our nervous systems? The very label of them as “rational” or “passive” is itself an arbitrary narrative being applied AFTER the creation and awareness of the thought.

The danger is as swansont noted, though soon may evolve as AIs train on datasets generated by other AIs. The problems will amplify like making copies from copies from copies on the old xerox machines.

I heard she was going to volunteer at the local food pantry in her post working years and help to feed all of the children and mothers starving and suffering as a result of her reign. #theproblemofevil

Yet again, you are either unwilling or unable to answer my question directly. Why is that? It was a genuine question. I understand if it makes you uncomfortable, but that makes it no less valid nor no less deserving of a thoughtful response. Will you please help me better understand your position? That's all I'm trying to do here, is understand you better. Why does it matter whether we call ourselves spectators versus actors if nothing changes by doing so? In what ways do you believe they are different (in context of my position that it all occurs before conscious awareness / before the parts of our minds usually considered as "self")? Okay, now you're just being childish and silly. Of course I have more to learn, as do we all, but to suggest I don't understand our minds at all is borderline ad hominem, and 100% untrue. And my question to you is: HOW do you know this? You keep claiming it, yet have not even once explained. Or is it because I've challenged your worldview and you're uncomfortable considering different viewpoints? If I truly make "no sense at all" for you, then ask me to clarify my stance so you may better understand it. Don't run away like a child.

The "good guys" are definitely being drowned out by noise. No doubt there, but there are absolutely "bad guys" involved too, and it's not just on a single side.

Why does it matter if in the end it changes nothing? If the experience is exactly the same, who cares? We’re following the same “software” as we always have, it’s just now we understand it more completely. What makes you think there is any other possibility?

Only up until some threshold, though. The return on the gain follows an inverted U-shape as wages grow progressively higher. Workers can also be motivated to work harder via cattle prods or at the tip of a gun, but that obviously decreases morale.

Why, though? If, as you say, you’re “sure of very strong, total, absolute determinism,” are you not better described as a passenger than as a driver? Just trying to better understand you, yet you deflect my questions with irrelevant new questions back to me. Now I’m really confused… which is it? Are you sure of total absolute determinism or is the future not predetermined? Unless I’m missing something obvious, these two positions cannot both be simultaneously true. My experience, just like your experience and the experience of all others, varies and it is contingent upon the current configuration of the universe… with a special focus on the current configuration of me with all my bits and microbiota in my belly and bacteria being attacked by my immune system and whatever bad air I may be breathing or beautiful vistas I may be viewing… all of which contribute to my evolving neural aggregate… my experience in the present moment: iNow’s MyNow I don’t know what this means.

Ford and GM will also be / already are blaming this for their decision last week to pull back from expensive EV vehicle transition efforts.

Given this, in your opinion, why isn’t “spectator” an accurate description of our experience?

Remind me, when was that last election again?

I urge caution against painting everyone with the same one broad brush. We can agree on several problematic policies, but one of the problems we’re confronting right now is the need not to lose sight of the humanity of each individual involved. I’m sure you agree that many Israeli's find the idea of “ethnically cleansing the area” to be abhorrent.

Time began at the Big Bang. There was no “before” the Big Bang any more than anything can be farther north than the North Pole.

I’d wager an annual salary this is wrong, especially once AI is running on quantum computers, but that’s off-topic here. +1 for an otherwise good post

El-Sisi may have something to say about that

I’m curious whether you simply can’t answer, or if instead your existing narratives and baseline understanding of the workings of your mind has been challenged so deeply that you simply won’t or are too afraid to.