dimreepr

It could also exlpain the conectivety of the universe due to the exclusion principle.

captain panics right but unfortunatly polititions are just as bad at agreeing. I liken this problem to a plane full of people argueing over how fast to hit the mountain.

For me corruption is the enrichment of oneself in the knowledge that this act will impoverish others

Unfortunately that is VERY unlikely, the North Korean people can at best look forward to more of the same.Third generation dictatorships, history shows, generally degenerate. 1st generation wins the power, 2nd generation loots it, 3rd generation looses it. All we can really hope is that he looses it quickly. And yes the song is awesome, I allways look to south park for my social commentry.

This is a parradox, how can you believe this and be able to write it down.

I think quatum mechanics entirely muddies the scientific waters. The problem being it has no hypothesis. Its our atempt at retro-engineering the universe, consiquently it is filled with this type of uncertaincy

I agree their are logical flaws in the statement, it is very difficult to avoid this in such a short statement, however the basic premis still stands.

Yes offcorse we think for ourselves in the sense of do i reply to this post or not. I have choosen to respond. That choice however is bounded. The term free will really needs definition to establish what choices we really have.

I think in general power corrupts. This statement automatically moots your argument, since it allows the possibility of the uncorruptable.

I am probably being very stupid but wouldn't this mean it would shut itself down.

The one thing I have learned on this forum is, you have to get the question right. My first attempt at this was, I'm afraid a disaster.This was due to my lack of eloquence and naivety (on this forum). So having a weeks experience, here goes. I think matter is, fundamentaly made up of an energy/spacetime interaction*. For me this goes along way to explaining our universe. E=MC^2, matter anihilation when the energy is released, the reason gravity is so weak compared to the other forces and gravity itself*. Now this I'm not clever enough to be sure but it seems to comply with durac's equation. I'm clearly no einstien, consequently I have no math to back up this hypothesis. Please please please help me destroy this hypothesis and bring peace to my musings. *If you imagine energy is an open hand and spacetime is a foamy substance. The hand makes a fist this action creates matter and in doing so stretches the foam.

Jesus, Buddha and mohamed. Three people who are famously refuted to be uncorruptable, though they weren't tested by absolute power. If they're reputations are accurate then few could doubt they would pass. I think the old saying "it takes one to know one" is particularly relevent here. Anybody who is corrupt would be unable to understand the concept as they're only reference is corrupt thinking. If only our society could atchieve that very thing. Platocracy in my view is the only chance our society has for a reasonable relatively corrupt free future. To atchieve this, is offcorse almost impossible. First you need a benign philosipher, though how you test his/her uncorruptabilty (food for ferther thought), then offcorse, you need the consensus of the people to allow this person absolute domain. tricky...

I dont believe power corrupts. I believe power attracts the corruptable.

Its all in formation of planets. They are all either molten or gassious in formation, so when gravity does its job they are forced into a perfect circle erosion does the the rest. Our planet is only 3% off a perfect circle even now.

It strikes me that we could well be, but if we are in a designed system and we can assume the systems imperfect. This means, this system will at some point would break down, given the systems complexity time is the variable. We just need to work out the probability of such a systems breakdown. We can then determine if we should have witnessed this breakdown at this point in our history.

I'm not sayimg its an illusion I'm saying I have free will but within movable boundaries. Take for example the news from holland about the catholic church. It would seem to be strong evidence as to the limits of free will. The forced abstenance seems to have the effect of perverting they're thinking. I'm not sayimg its an illusion I'm saying I have free will but within movable boundaries. Take for example the news from holland about the catholic church. It would seem to be strong evidence as to the limits of free will. The forced abstenance seems to have the effect of perverting some of the priest's thinking.

I think the only way we could have a society that would sustain and be free of coruption is a platocracy. How you could set this system up is the big question.

I think "free will" needs definition. Whilst I have made a choice to write this, that choice had lots of boundaries, set by my culture, friends and family. Plus the presure on my time and my needs (food etc.) and my fear that I'm talking rubbish in the eyes of my peers. My aparent free will has been moulded. Then stir into the mix my reactions to hormones, drugs and different foods, So how free is my will.

if you could build a perfect simulation then you design it so that this type of thought is impossible.If its imperfect then its size and complexety would throw up an emergent quality and the illusion would be discovered.

It seems you have answered your own question, freewill doesn't exist. We are all restricted, primarily by culture, also family and friends. Fear of showing yourself up, the need to feed and cloth yourself. Cyber agents would have its programming restricting it, plus any maintenance needed.

descartes "I think therefore I am" comes into play here. If you design a system then freewill is automatically restricted and therefore is impossible.

If you read the thread called "mirror test of self awareness" in this forum your question Should be answered.

Quite right. By the way is your hat in any danger?

The thread is called mirror test of self awareness please read. you will see my point. Besides a "real contibution" would imply an actual answer not a question of this uninformed type.

Having taken part in a thread that challenged the mirror test (I believe correctly). This Ambiguity throws up a question. If there are animals selfaware and animals not selfaware means we have an awareness graph. This also means we have a point at which basic selfawareness starts. Any ideas what that animal or genus might be?