One example of when it fails to be intelligent is that weird feeling you get when you know you COULD do something very evil but don’t, like standing next to a friend on top of a building and for just the tiniest split second, you get that slight urge to ‘push’. It passes and doesn’t make you evil. It has a cause although I don’t remember it offhand. But I’m pretty sure it’s rather universal That’s an ‘gut’ impulse best tamed.

One example of when it fails to be intelligent is that weird feeling you get when you know you COULD do something very evil but don’t, like standing next to a friend on top of a building and for just the tiniest split second, you get that slight urge to ‘push’. It passes and doesn’t make you evil. It has a cause although I don’t remember it offhand. But I’m pretty sure it’s rather universal

That’s an ‘gut’ impulse best tamed.

==

Nope. It’ll get more powerful the longer I wait with better support software and communities around it just like all the other tinker boards did. I can wait.

===

I can get obsessed. Long ago, there was a thing called the Handspring Visor. 1999/2000s. Touch screen, black and white, the design inspired the Androids and iPhones that came much later on.

I had one. Loved it. Did everything on it that I could. Bought one for my mom. Bought one for my sister. Bought one for my friend. Bought one for another friend. Tried showing them all how to use it, all excited.

Wasted my money on them. But it was fun. Don’t know how this relates at all. It doesn’t relate at all.

====

THANK YOU. A good defense for free will that has an evolutionary flavor. This is one of the few times I’ve heard ANYBODY say that and it needs to come out more.

====

An extreme form of logic + materialism often leads people to Sam Harris and his conclusion that there cannot be free will, that it must be an illusion. [because we can’t find it and he can’t see a logical road to it].

Free will is painted as “that thing religious people believe in” but us rationalists know that we’re
just / merely / only
a complex set of moving data / chemical soup / fixed expressions of genetics

and free will has gotten a bad rap in those circles.

====

 

Well, he wrote his book 2012 about Free Will and it’s gotten super popular. I think he basically ignored this type of thinking and instead focused on his own, which ends up leading to his own religious-y way of seeing things. – a “new freedom” because now you don’t have to worry about free will anymore…

and that’s appealing to a lot of people.

====

Oh, he’s atheist. SUPER atheist. Mr. Atheist Himself. But I can spot a religious tenet a mile away, no matter how much someone tries to slap atheist on their lapels.

Here’s the problem Sam Harris runs into: He paints himself into a logical corner. He CAN’T accept free will because there’s no room for it. This is the same problem that Calvinists have that become atheist. They HAVE to become atheist if they follow their logic to the final conclusions.

Same idea, different era.

====

Must be Doctor Who: or something . We each have a similar view of Time — that we’ll always be slightly in the dark about certain things – even with the finest of tools because we CAN’T leave ourselves even if our tools seem to. [they don’t leave us either]

They can measure the lag time and we can even measure it in ourselves when we’re sick and such. But the lag time comes with lag time. There’s no escaping it. Even if we develop tools to measure for us, which we have, our lag time is built into THEM… and we won’t be able to see it.

This is where it gets wonky in my thinking and I have trouble explaining how I ‘see it’…

Our categories are based on our biological limitations This INCLUDES the very categories we use to develop the machinery we use to measure ourselves with.

Our ability to see and measure the Universe is always at a human level no matter how sophistocated the machinery… even if they machines build other machines. because the human limitations are built into them… and we won’t be able to see those limitatons BECAUSE we’re human.

====

If I were an electron and you were an electron, how would we see these things? If we were planets, how would we see things?

When we look at our current technology we think “How marvelous! we are at the pinnacle of human development! Why, there’s not much further to go now!”

But, put yourself in 19th century. They too were at the pinnacle of deveopment, convinced there wasn’t any further to go.

What about 500 years from now? Will they consider our computers accurate machines or will they laugh at how primitive life must have been for us?

====

Functional engineering limit. That’s a great description of it. Everything we produce, even if the things we produce produce other things that might behave in ways we can’t anticipate are *also* subject to our functional engineering limits.

Humans have infinite potential – within the sphere of every possible human potential but not beyond it.

But we’ll never know what’s beyond it or even IF there’s something beyond it.

That’s not a bad thing. We don’t KNOW what the limits would be and even if we reach them, we’ll never know we’ve reached them.

====

sensations of pressures inverting and folding is the closest I’ve come to some kind of electron perception. It’s not visual, more like tension, release, awkwardness, tension, awkwardness, release but many in parallel.

I don’t know how to interpret it but it’s some weird bodily sensation when I’ve tried to imagine it.

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


3 − two =

Leave a Reply