Prometheus

Don't know who this comedian is, but his actions shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of his work. Wagner has made some of the most powerful and beautiful music known to man -being a nazi sympathiser doesn't change that.

So from this it would appear you are a mathematical Platonist, believing that mathematical objects are in some sense real and underlie the reality we perceive. This is one of your premises but you haven't even tried to discuss whether it is true or not. No one knows if it is true or not and i don't think it could ever empirically be investigated. The alternative is that you believe maths just happens to be a useful tool to understand reality, in which case the rest of your argument doesn't follow. But let's assume for now you are correct and say the brain is based on mathematical Platonism You say therefore, but it doesn't follow. You state the brain is based on logic with causes and effects then declare consciousness cannot arise from these. That is just another statement. Why can't consciousness arise from a purely logical based system and mathematical operations? We know this is what you believe so need to to restate it. But you claim this is based on logic - what is your chain of logic? And why give logic primacy over empiricism? What, like an iterative process? Maths is replete with examples of such. I assume you think computers can never achieve consciousness then? I was going to say that at least that would be an empirical statement, but i suspect you would not accept a computer as conscious even if it were behaving in an identical fashion to humans - that would just be mimicry, right? In other words, would you put your 'logic' before evidence? But you have mentioned it, several times. You have just reworded the same statement in your first paragraph. Why is it impossible? Why can't logical systems produce consciousness? I don't know much of the Incompleteness Theorem, but i know it proves that not all maths can be reduced to logic. Therefore, you have to make the additional assumption that the brain is only based on that subset of mathematics which is entirely bound by logic. It's not 'logical' for an electron, a point particle, to not have a precise position and velocity. But the maths makes perfect sense. When discussing reality, it is far more important to trust in empiricism rather than demand that it is 'logical' and conforms to our expectations. It was that kind of reasoning that led Aristotle to conclude that the moon was made of some sponge like material. Saying less but actually addressing points would be appreciated.

The maximum sentence is 7 years isn't it - quite close to your demand. No appeals? That's kind of a cornerstone of free societies: i wouldn't want a ban on appeals for any crime. If you're not cherry picking provide data. For instance a CPS study concluded that 'it is a "misplaced belief" that false accusations of rape are commonplace', would seem to suggest otherwise. Why the talk of false accusations anyway? I thought the guy admitted all charges. If so then the courts will sentence him accordingly. If it affects his job the courts usually take that into account during sentencing. And if your job depends on popularity, don't do unpopular things.

But it is a logical fallacy to say something can't happen because you can't believe it does happen. You have been asked many times on many threads why a mathematical universe can't give rise to consciousness. Your answer has always been 'Because it is composed of mathematical systems', or ''Because it has no reason to arise'. These do not answer the question., they just restate your assertion with slightly different words. So, why can't a mathematical universe give rise to consciousness?

You don't feel like you are a little homunculus 'driving' your body around? You don't need direct insight into the workings of the brain to experience this, it's quite natural, to me at least. I've a feeling we are talking about different things. So we agree on this point, but just call it different things. I don't understand about half of what you are talking about. Maybe i'm just uncouth and missing lots of nuances but this seems like an awfully long winded way of simply saying you have a different definition of free will. I think i'll just choose to disagree (or do you agree i can't even tell that much) with you and leave it there.

We also have the experience of a ghost in the machine. Instead of saying we have the experience of free will, we could just as accurately say we have the illusion of free will. But we agreed it couldn't be otherwise given the same preconditions, so why is it a category mistake? The lightening couldn't have struck elsewhere, but as far as we can tell before the incident it could have struck elsewhere - this is just a limitation of our understanding of the exact conditions. In the same way our 'free will' is a result of us not knowing the preconditions which cause our choices. I can understand the view that we need to pretend free will exists in order that people so not simply give up on life.

I can accept that consciousness is a necessary condition for free will, but that in it itself doesn't prove that we do have free will. Isn't this just a case of different definitions of free will? I imagine it as asking given the exact same conditions in two instances, would we 'decide' to do the exact same thing? To which i imagine the answer being yes. You seem to agree (in saying that you believe in determinism), but say that the process of coming to the determined decision is exactly what free will is - even though it couldn't be otherwise. Is this a correct understanding?

But a self-driving car does picture its environment, evaluates futures against its interests (not crashing), judges futures that might arise dependent on its actions, all it lacks is a self-image. Same as our spider. So it's this self-image which interests me. So what properties does self-image have that allow free-will, where otherwise you would no free-will (assuming all your other conditions are met)? Sorry if i'm being dense but it isn't making sense to me.

First i wasn't necessarily stating the universe is like this, but asking why monotheists never even consider it as an option (and it is generally monotheists; polytheists, particularly some hindus, have no problem with it). I've asked many times in many places but never received an answer that doesn't boil down 'it must be because i can't fathom it being otherwise'. As far as i understand, our knowledge of physics/cosmology hasn't taken eternal existence off the table Second, the god hypothesis is basically useless in making predictions. It explains precisely nothing in just about every case (not to mention the lack of evidence). Take this thread as a case. Can't fathom the universe having existed forever, or something coming out of nothing? No worries, invent a concept called god and say it created the universe. But of course god has existed forever, he didn't just pop out of nothing. Precisely nothing has been gained by saying the universe can't exist forever but something called god can. We have, however, added one more layer of complexity to the problem. Evolution seems up to the job. I don't understand the details of it, no one really does yet. Of course, our lack of understanding isn't evidence of god, it's evidence of our limitations and all the more reason to invest in basic sciences.

A single cell organism can exert control over its environment, by chemotaxis for instance - a completely determined process. But that doesn't mean it has free will, does it? Is the only difference that humans have a self image? So you might say that a dog has free will, but that a spider does not (if we make the assumption that spiders do not have a self image)?

As far as i can tell, you would say a machine learning algorithm to choose photos with cats in it is exerting free will. Do i understand you correctly?

I don't know loads about it but cells can kill themselves if they are under certain stresses or in the presence of certain biochemicals secreted by other cells. It's a highly regulated process, essential to the overall organism's health. For instance cells no longer responding to kill signals are liable to become cancerous. How different is that to humans suicide? It may be a far more complicated series of inputs interacting with each other and intrinsic pathways but it seems to me essentially the same. We can identify people at risk of suicide because of this predictability, despite the overwhelming complexity of the system.

Subjective? Qualitative? 'Somewhat' arbitrary?

I wouldn't have said so. Those deaths are the result of biochemical signals causing a chain reaction in the cell. The same could be said for humans though - people don't just commit suicide, there are various inputs that lead to feelings of not wanting to live. Ultimately i've a feeling that most of this discussion will boil down to how we define free will.

Some of our cells commit suicide - is that evidence that these cells also have free will?

Given cancer survival is increasing something right is being done. There are also vaccine programs for various cancers - i know of prostate and cervical cancers vaccines, but i think others are being developed. One alternative that seems stigmatised is simply doing nothing (other than palliative care to relieve symptoms). Some people with advanced cancer are given the choice of chemo to buy a chance at a few more months of life, not realising the cost is some pretty nasty treatment and frequent hospital visits. For some people trying every option available no matter what is the right choice. For other people relieving the symptoms and letting the disease take it's course is the right choice. But the latter should be regarded as a viable option.

Why do you limit your options to 'god did it' or 'everything popped out of nothing'? What about it didn't start, i.e. it's always existed? What about 'we don't know'? Also, as i understand it physicists have found that things do simply pop into existence. And yes, i'm frequently astonished by existence. Why does that imply god? I like this question. Many people seem to question that the universe could either just pop into existence or that it has always existed - but are happy to ascribe these exact same properties to something they call 'god'. Either way something has this property - why not discard the middleman and simply ascribe it to the universe. Depends how god is defined. A god that set up the conditions for the big bang but does not intervene at all thereafter would be impossible to detect, at least with our current capabilities. A personal god that answers prayers and parts seas has been pretty well debunked. Such a god would be easy to detect - we would just look for instances where the laws of physics contradict themselves (i.e. the rules change) - seas start to part, lakes turn into wine, whatever other crazy stuff you think a god might do. There is no sign of such a god.

Sorry, didn't realise we were exempting democracy from this analysis. Why is that though? I raised it because if it's OK to celebrate democracy despite it's historical body count then why not communism? It might help us pin down what is different (or perceived to be different) about Fascism if we include democracy as well as communism into the analysis - another datapoint so to speak. Maybe it's as simple as a joint democratic and communist alliance won world war 2 so could set the tone on the historical narrative of the ideologies. My experience has been different to the premise of the OP. My grandmother lived through the Spanish civil war and wouldn't hear a bad word about Franco. When i applied to the join the auxiliary fleet of the Royal Navy i was asked questions about any links to communism but none about fascism. Had an uncle who lived in West Germany while his brother lived in East Germany - they both tore into Communism frequently.

Is it just the body count that matters? Because if so millions have been killed by democratic nations: tens of millions of Indians are thought to have died under British rule (though very hard to find good statistics on this) - how many native Americans were directly killed during the colonisation of the Americas - similar numbers I imagine. But again i'm struggling to find good data on this. Even as recently as the 1960s a million Indonesian 'communists' (along with a few ethnic Chinese) were killed in the name of 'democracy' (it was a straight up political coup by an autocrat, but done in the name of democracy and the regime was supported by Western democracies). We have reasonably accurate information on deaths on communism because they are relatively recent, but the fact we have vague historical records about peoples Western people don't really care about doesn't mean they didn't happen. But people still revere democracy. I guess the pertinent question is whether communism actively advocates such massacres, and even if it did can (and should) it be allowed to change? Democratic countries started very poorly too but have improved - is the same possible for communism?

Describing it is kind of like trying to tell someone how to ride a bike so that's probably as close as i can convey. Imagine how empty your life would have to be to never feel grief or anger. I once received some wisdom from a Bodhisattva who put it quite well, let me see if i can find it. Ah, yes the great sage Butters: Happy to disagree too. If all roads lead to Rome i'll see you when we get there.

Yes, and i think your interpretation is the more common one. But to my mind that kind of inner peace is just another emotion - or maybe a lack of certain 'negative' emotions. Inner peace isn't itself an emotion or lack thereof, but a way of relating to emotions and experiences. To try to use the rollercoaster ride analogy: inner peace isn't just the fun bits that go down, or the sedate bits that go up (depending on your preference), it's learning to relax and enjoy the entire ride (using the words enjoy and relax in a very loose way).

I think what dimreepr means by inner peace is different from what you (and most others) mean by it. That blowing off of steam can be a part of inner peace - it isn't going through your whole life as if floating on a cloud never troubled by anything - that's a Stone Buddha. You can rant and curse to your hearts desire in the traffic if that's how you feel, and when the feelings gone let it go to let the next experience in. Letting go can be quite difficult though - i agree it comes with experience. It's a bit like some people's concept of heaven: some sedate place where everyone is blissed out all the time. Sounds like a heroin den to me: nothing like an actual heaven would be like.

Interesting turn this conversation has taken. I remember watching a long interview with Mike Tyson where he talked at length about how he used anger in his fighting. Recently saw a comment allegedly made by Mohammed Ali expressing the same opinion - but, you know, the internet has lied to me before. I used to practice a martial art that would encourage anger in fighting, trying to imbue a sense of 'i don't care if you kill me: i'm going to die with my teeth tearing out your carotid artery'. I'm also reminded of the Viking beserkers riling each other up before battle. So using anger has been used effectively by some executing violence. I switched to another martial art though - i didn't like seeing every other young male as an enemy and the teacher actually encouraged us to get into fights to practice. With regards to the OP i'd say it is perfectly fine to feel anger: it is part of the palette of human experience. It is not wrong to feel any emotion, but you can do many different things with them. Don't think Martin Luther King wasn't angry: he just channelled it with supreme skill. We have the saying 'bravery isn't the absence of fear: it is the presence of fear with the will to go on.' We could hijack it here, 'equanimity isn't the absence of anger: it is the ability to see clearly in the presence of anger, and to let it go when it ebbs. ' And if nothing else, we would lack some great music if not for anger. Is that in the Tao Te Ching? What version (it's surprising how different some translations are)?

Different traditions and people will have different ideas, but in Buddhism the idea that we are trying to never feel emotions is pernicious: so much so that people who practice this way have a name: Stone Buddhas. The story of the Buddha includes an episode where the Buddha was practicing strict asceticism until a women told him to stop being a plonker and eat some rice. I think we can all agree that whatever inner peace is, it is not a state of feeling nothing?

You can do this but then x is not a number but is itself a random variable, drawn from the geometric distribution. You can work out its expected value (mean), but as it isn't a number the rest of your approach won't work. I think you were closer with your first line of thought. As you said 100 heads is just as likely as alternating heads and tails or any other particular sequence of 100 flips. Once we reach the end of any particular sequence of 100 the chance of either a head or tail on flip 101 is still 0.5. I think you may be getting caught out by the fact that in all these possible sequences only 1 leads to all heads, and only one leads to all tails while lots of possible sequences have numbers of heads and tails that cluster around 50 each - there are just more of these possible sequences. But regardless of whichever sequence was realised, the 101 flip is still 50/50. Oh no, negative probabilities. Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? I assume were talking eruptions if we're talking Yellowstone? Can eruptions be assumed to be independent? My naive thoughts are that after an eruption the chances of another eruption are diminished as there is a release of pressure. Apparently there are plenty of non-Bayesian approaches in statistical seismology. Not sure which is considered better in what circumstances though.