| IIIIITHE1IIIII said: It's amazing how much has changed since that happened. People are finally finding their way out of the maze, it seems
![]() |
lol this is the thread I keep talking about XP
I was a bit too busy to participate in that one :B
Will you be Joe? | |||
| Yes | 3 | 20.00% | |
| No | 10 | 66.67% | |
| Other? | 2 | 13.33% | |
| Total: | 15 | ||
| miz1q2w3e said: That's simply not true, or at the very least you can't be certain they aren't. I've seen and read my share of presentational videos and articles, studies have been done on the subject, look some up if your interested. @learning & instinct: How is that so different from humans? We're basically the same but on a higher/more complex level. @second sentence: Why the "theoretical"? It isn't that complicated to create a computer program that adjusted itself based on external factors. You say self-programming but I never claimed that. Building one that was able to emulate what the human brain does, although complicated, is certainly NOT impossible. Either way, what's you point? The examples you mentioned aren't on the same level as humans, but that doesn't have much to do with the hypothetical at hand. |
Humans can think about how things "ought" to be, whereas there's absolutely no evidence that animals are even remotely capable of making anything like a value judgment. For one thing, even if they were smart enough, they fundamentally lack the ability of detachment. Everything an animal does is in pursuit of its own survival or comfort, or the survival of the pack/species, and it can never deviate from that. A person, on the other hand, can live a life of selflessness and altruism because he believes that's the way he should live - even though doing so is completely antithetical to selfish human nature.
I say "theoretical" because while you say it's possible to make one, and theoretically it is, if there is a computer program as complex and byzantine as the human mind, I've never heard of it.
badgenome said:
1.) But a hard determinist either has to live his life hypocritically - pretending he's making choices that he knows he isn't really making because he could never have done anything else - or would else fall into a fatalistic torpor and may as well not be living at all. 2.) Humans are conformist by nature, this much is true. That's precisely why culture is so important, and why a culture of conformity, of failure, of beating down the tallest nail, of "don't ask, don't think, don't try" is a waste of countless potentially brilliant minds, whereas a culture of free inquiry allows everyone to make the most of his mind and his "free will". |
badgenome said:
Humans can think about how things "ought" to be, whereas there's absolutely no evidence that animals are even remotely capable of making anything like a value judgment. For one thing, even if they were smart enough, they fundamentally lack the ability of detachment. Everything an animal does is in pursuit of its own survival or comfort, or the survival of the pack/species, and it can never deviate from that. A person, on the other hand, can live a life of selflessness and altruism because he believes that's the way he should live - even though doing so is completely antithetical to selfish human nature. I say "theoretical" because while you say it's possible to make one, and theoretically it is, if there is a computer as complex and byzantine as the human mind, I've never heard of it. |
@First paragraph: like I said, maybe you should try checking some stuff out if you want/are interested. For example: link
@Second paragraph: Yeah ok, theoretical was appropriate. I thought you meant it in a sarcastic way.
So what's your take on the OP's hypo? I think I misunderstood part of the OP, but either way I'm in the deterministic camp.
| miz1q2w3e said: @First paragraph: like I said, maybe you should try checking some stuff out if you want/are interested. For example: link |
Thanks for the link. It was interesting, although not anything terribly new to me. (I work in lab animal science and so read a lot of science journals and talk about this sort of stuff a lot.) But it's important not to anthropomorphize these behaviors too much. They are not an example of animal morality. They are more like a primitive system of ethics that is entirely practical for the survival of intelligent, highly social animals.
| NintendoPie said: No, I wouldn't enjoy this thread. ![]() |
Jay520 said:
Kinda random, but okay. |
Nice job covering up your tracks, Jay5PostOnWallsAboutMyNewThreads20.
NintendoPie said:
Nice job covering up your tracks, Jay5PostOnWallsAboutMyNewThreads20. |