The Enlightenment - roll it back or forward?

[Speaker to Animals]

I did not claim evution rules out God.

[GloryofGreece]

You need a meaningful identity, and a reason for living. This is what the tribe provides for you.

Neo-liberals see everything in terms of the individual, which is wrong. It's every bit as wrong as how the Marxists see everything in terms of the collective.

You need a tribe. The tribe gives you belonging and meaning. It is within the context of the tribe that your individuality is truly able to manifest itself. The greatest individuals in human history belonged to an ethnicity. They had nothing in common with the neo-liberal individualist.

It seems to me that, when you lose identity as happens in neo-liberalism and in any form of Marxism, that is when the truly horrendous crimes are committed. The hype-individualist is beholden to nobody and the cog in the collective machine is disposable.

Yeah because most of history was tyranny, illiteracy, madness, murder, rape and strict codes to obey nobles and the clergy.

You need a meaningful identity, and a reason for living. This is what the tribe provides for you.

Neo-liberals see everything in terms of the individual, which is wrong. It's every bit as wrong as how the Marxists see everything in terms of the collective.

You need a tribe. The tribe gives you belonging and meaning. It is within the context of the tribe that your individuality is truly able to manifest itself. The greatest individuals in human history belonged to an ethnicity. They had nothing in common with the neo-liberal individualist.

It seems to me that, when you lose identity as happens in neo-liberalism and in any form of Marxism, that is when the truly horrendous crimes are committed. The hype-individualist is beholden to nobody and the cog in the collective machine is disposable.

I like ideas and discussion like these. For me though it seems like the primary axiom for "identity" and/or meaning is something like father, mother, child. Not really "tribe".

Why would you want your identity to be strictly tied to your fathers or mothers?

It's not about wanting it to be. It simply is. A priori fact

[jediuser598]

Human beings could just be incredibly complex programs, that are a result of evolution.

Sure, electrons aren't deterministic, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing that is deterministic.

What happens when a deterministic system runs into something that's not deterministic, or even a deterministic system runs into another deterministic system.

I think we could agree that the universe isn't deterministic, but are we deterministic? Do we have free will? I don't know.

[Speaker to Animals]

If the universe itself is nondeterministic, then humans are nondeterministic.

Unless you want to argue that determinism emerges from nondeterminism..

[jediuser598]

If the universe itself is nondeterministic, then humans are nondeterministic.

Unless you want to argue that determinism emerges from nondeterminism..

Why couldn't it?

You're arguing it yourself. You're saying we're non-deterministic, yet we can make deterministic systems.

I can make a program which produces the same result every time, thus being deterministic. I'm non-deterministic you say, so by your reasoning there is no way I as a non-deterministic, can make a deterministic. That's unreasonable.

So yes, non-deterministics can create deterministics, by your own reasoning.

Simply put: (your argument)
We're non-determitics. (True)
We can create deterministics. (True)
Thus non-deterministics can create deterministics. (Has to be true)

[Speaker to Animals]

If the universe itself is nondeterministic, then humans are nondeterministic.

Unless you want to argue that determinism emerges from nondeterminism..

Why couldn't it?

You're arguing it yourself. You're saying we're non-deterministic, yet we can make deterministic systems.

I can make a program which produces the same result every time, thus being deterministic. I'm non-deterministic you say, so by your reasoning there is no way I as a non-deterministic, can make a deterministic. That's unreasonable.

So yes, non-deterministics can create deterministics, by your own reasoning.

Simply put: (your argument)
We're non-determitics. (True)
We can create deterministics. (True)
Thus non-deterministics can create deterministics. (Has to be true)

They are not deterministic, though. It's a simulation of a deterministic system within a nondeterministic universe. You are looking at a slice of an artifact of intelligent design and ignoring the rest. The deterministic systems we design are like the tips of icebergs with nondeterminism making up the gargantuan hulk beneath the surface.

These concepts kind of blend together. The universe is nondeterministic, but until we have quantum computers, our computers are "deterministic" in the sense of how they compute. We can then simulate nondeterministic machines on our deterministic computers, as well. There really is no solid distinction in practice when it comes to artifacts of intelligent design.

Which leads to the other problem with your argument. We DESIGNED deterministic-behaving machines. There does not exist such a thing in nature. There are systems that behave very regularly (like the beam of a pulsar), but there are reasons for that, and you can't then argue that the pulsar itself is deterministic (it's not).

But most importantly: determinism as a philosophical project is fucking dead. Science killed it.

The universe and everything in it is, at the fundamental level, nondeterministic, which is the opposite of determinism.

[jediuser598]

If the universe itself is nondeterministic, then humans are nondeterministic.

Unless you want to argue that determinism emerges from nondeterminism..

Why couldn't it?

You're arguing it yourself. You're saying we're non-deterministic, yet we can make deterministic systems.

I can make a program which produces the same result every time, thus being deterministic. I'm non-deterministic you say, so by your reasoning there is no way I as a non-deterministic, can make a deterministic. That's unreasonable.

So yes, non-deterministics can create deterministics, by your own reasoning.

Simply put: (your argument)
We're non-determitics. (True)
We can create deterministics. (True)
Thus non-deterministics can create deterministics. (Has to be true)

They are not deterministic, though. It's a simulation of a deterministic system within a nondeterministic universe. You are looking at a slice of an artifact of intelligent design and ignoring the rest. The deterministic systems we design are like the tips of icebergs with nondeterminism making up the gargantuan hulk beneath the surface.

These concepts kind of blend together. The universe is nondeterministic, but until we have quantum computers, our computers are "deterministic" in the sense of how they compute. We can then simulate nondeterministic machines on our deterministic computers, as well. There really is no solid distinction in practice when it comes to artifacts of intelligent design.

Which leads to the other problem with your argument. We DESIGNED deterministic-behaving machines. There does not exist such a thing in nature. There are systems that behave very regularly (like the beam of a pulsar), but there are reasons for that, and you can't then argue that the pulsar itself is deterministic (it's not).

But most importantly: determinism as a philosophical project is fucking dead. Science killed it.

The universe and everything in it is, at the fundamental level, nondeterministic, which is the opposite of determinism.

No deterministics exist, period?

[Speaker to Animals]

Not in a strict sense. It's more like a simulation of determinism within a nondeterministic system.

If you look at it from the perspective of theoretical machines, like Turing machines, a nondeterministic machine can possess extensive deterministic submachines. That's really what is going on here.

[Hwen Hoshino]

You need a meaningful identity, and a reason for living. This is what the tribe provides for you.

Neo-liberals see everything in terms of the individual, which is wrong. It's every bit as wrong as how the Marxists see everything in terms of the collective.

You need a tribe. The tribe gives you belonging and meaning. It is within the context of the tribe that your individuality is truly able to manifest itself. The greatest individuals in human history belonged to an ethnicity. They had nothing in common with the neo-liberal individualist.

It seems to me that, when you lose identity as happens in neo-liberalism and in any form of Marxism, that is when the truly horrendous crimes are committed. The hype-individualist is beholden to nobody and the cog in the collective machine is disposable.

Yeah because most of history was tyranny, illiteracy, madness, murder, rape and strict codes to obey nobles and the clergy.

I like ideas and discussion like these. For me though it seems like the primary axiom for "identity" and/or meaning is something like father, mother, child. Not really "tribe".

Why would you want your identity to be strictly tied to your fathers or mothers?

It's not about wanting it to be. It simply is. A priori fact

In most of the US it isn't and it shouldn't.

[GloryofGreece]

Yeah because most of history was tyranny, illiteracy, madness, murder, rape and strict codes to obey nobles and the clergy.



Why would you want your identity to be strictly tied to your fathers or mothers?

It's not about wanting it to be. It simply is. A priori fact

In most of the US it isn't and it shouldn't.

Why shouldn't it be?

What is it then in your reality?