Forging Additional Chains of Slavery

"With political fund raising, campaign advertising and organizing taking place in full swing over the Internet, it may just be a matter of time before the Federal Election Commission joins the action. Well, that time may be now.

A recent federal court ruling says the FEC must extend some of the nation’s new campaign finance and spending limits to political activity on the Internet.

Long reluctant to step into online political activity, the agency is considering whether to appeal.

But vice chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said the Internet may prove to be an unavoidable area for the six-member commission, regardless of what happens with the ruling."

Did you catch that word “unavoidable” in that last sentence above?  Evidently slavery is unavoidable.  Can’t have free people out there doing what they want.

“FEC May Regulate Web Political Activity."

Bite me FEC, and the horse you rode in on.

Via Drudge.

Update: "The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society, in order to enhance the relative voice of others, is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."

The above quote was lifted from Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam)

Posted by on 10/13 at 06:14 AM

  1. OK, let’s seperate this one out a bit, and just for the moment, rise above the (excellent) question of political money being the embodiement of free speech. Let’s view this problem from the arguments they’ve given us so far, as see if we can devine their intent, here.

    Within this context, and interesting question raises up: Will I and my blog be restricted? Or is simply those operations funded by the parties and the various 527’s?

    I make the distinction here, because one area they arguably have jurisdiction, and in the other, they clearly do not. The answer to the question seems to me important, given that limiting the activities of the partys and 527’s on the web is in effect, a logical branch of trying to control the money being pured into politics these days… and controlling my blog would be considered limiting an *individual’s* free speech, which seems a rather seperate item.

    Posted by bithead  on  10/13  at  07:26 AM

  2. "I make the distinction here, because one area they arguably have jurisdiction, and in the other, they clearly do not. The answer to the question seems to me important, given that limiting the activities of the partys and 527’s on the web is in effect, a logical branch of trying to control the money being pured into politics these days… and controlling my blog would be considered limiting an *individual’s* free speech, which seems a rather seperate item."

    Bithead, I understand the distinction you are making in your comment.  But I think the distinction you are making, in the context of the State controlling groups of individuals’ free speech, rather than a single individual’s free speech, muddies the clarity of free speech in any context. I submit that the State has no jurisdiction over speech whatsoever, if they do, it is not free speech.

    Posted by  on  10/14  at  04:10 AM

  3. Mr. Venlet I would assume that you would agree with me that an Individual has the right to self-defense? And I further assume that you would agree if some Individual were trying to kill you (or someone in your family (or a friend)) that lethal force would be a legitimate potential response?

    Now suppose that I have invented a new type of “bullet” (a meme). And suppose that unlike your bullets, when my bullet strikes its target it gives the individual (“the Aggressor/Attack”) an option. The bullet will either kill them, just like a normal bullet that you are accustom to, OR it will make their will (consciousness) subordinate to mine. They will never again be able to act in a manner that I would perceive as “harmful”. In effect they will have become “my Slave”.

    Could you explain why you believe your bullets are superior to my bullets?

    John Venlet: Evidently slavery is unavoidable.  Can’t have free people out there doing what they want.

    In your assessment is it always better to be dead (i.e. “cease to exist”) rather than be “a Slave”?

    What if you suddenly discovered that you were already “a Slave” (i.e. without “free will”)? Does that mean you would become suicidal?

    Posted by  on  10/14  at  07:05 AM

  4. What if you suddenly discovered that you were already “a Slave” (i.e. without “free will”)? Does that mean you would become suicidal?


      The question denies its own premise.

      Subsequent the discovery, he couldn’t “become” anything else but what he was pre-determined to become.

    Posted by RKN  on  10/14  at  03:50 PM

  5. Serpent, you are wandering off the subject, once again, in your questions directed at me, above.  I decline to entertain them any further than this reply.  But, thanks for asking.

    Posted by  on  10/14  at  04:38 PM

  6. John; True, and I’m not prepared to argue against your position; I do agree that’s a concern.

    However, my more immidiate concern, here, is are they simply maintaining their current power in the new venue, or are they going beyond that and establishing a new power, they heretofore didn’t have? If the latter, then this would seem to take them to an even higher level of illegitimacy, which I think would demand a response. If the former, then at least we see things no worse than they were.

    Follow?

    Posted by Bithead  on  10/14  at  05:00 PM

  7. Perhaps this will be more clear:
    Your post title suggests additional chains of slavery.

    So, my question, then, is focused on the issue of ARE they additional, or are they merely maintaining the ones they’ve got?

    Posted by Bithead  on  10/14  at  06:28 PM

  8. Bithead, I would argue that reaching into the internet is the forging of an additional link in the chain.

    Posted by  on  10/15  at  03:10 AM

  9. John Venlet: Serpent, you are wandering off the subject, once again, in your questions directed at me, above.

    Mr. Venlet you raised the concept of “Slavery” in your post. And You implied that slavery was always non-beneficial – never the desired option or “choice”.

    It is difficult to comprehend the point you are trying to make when you are unwilling to discuss your underlying premises. I merely seek some clarification.

    John Venlet (to Bithead): I would argue that reaching into the internet is the forging of an additional link in the chain.

    Yes, but isn’t “the Internet” also a new “link in the chain” (branch of the Worldtree)?

    Posted by  on  10/15  at  07:55 AM

  10. RKN: The question denies its own premise.

    I don’t follow RKN.

    Let me try wording it (articulate) a different way. What I am asking is suppose you discovered that your consciousness was an Algorithm … like a computer program.

    What do you suppose would be the ramifications (effects) of this discovery on your own consciousness? How would your algorithm be modified, by the perception this information?

    Perception = (to receive) Input

    Posted by  on  10/15  at  08:03 AM

  11. I don’t follow RKN.

      Premising no free will, one cannot become anything else but what they become after discovering their brain was no more than an implementation of an immutable algorithm.

      You asked John if he would “become” suicidal. That usage of “become” implied free will (to some extent), but that denies the question’s premise.

      Even if that wasn’t the usage of become you intended, John still couldn’t answer the question now, because he couldn’t know what would “become of him” without knowing the algorithm with precision.

    Posted by RKN  on  10/15  at  04:50 PM

  12. Premising no free will, one cannot become anything else but what they become after discovering their brain was no more than an implementation of an immutable algorithm.

    I understand where you’re going here, RKN, but looks to me like your response has a few flaws in it.

    Hypothetical; if inate talents can be considered pre-programming, then the rest follows;

    If I discover early on in life that I have no takent as a brain surgeon, does that eliminate many other chocies that I DO have a talent for?

    Posted by Bithead  on  10/16  at  08:19 AM

  13. If I discover early on in life that I have no takent as a brain surgeon, does that eliminate many other chocies that I DO have a talent for?

      The premise was no free will. Sans that, choice in the sense you mean it would be an illusion.

      Mind you, I don’t personally believe choice is an illusion, but in a world of strict physical determinism, choice—the ability for a human to do otherwise—would be an illusion. Has to be.

    Posted by RKN  on  10/16  at  10:54 AM

  14. You’re missing it, though that’s my fault.

    One’s inate talents, one could call a sort of pre-determianism. It does, after all, at least to some extent, limit one’s choices to a subset of the whole of human endevors, conditions and possibilities.

    Now at this point of course one might argue that this doesn’t of itself [prove this person was pre-determined as a consious effort by some entity, and as a logical exercise, I tend to agree.

    Yet, reconsider the exact wording of the question:

    ....suppose you discovered that your consciousness was an Algorithm … like a computer program.

    Now a computer, has the talents that are provided it, in it’s base coding.  It can perform a number of functions, all of which were provided it at it’s design level… pre-determinism at it’s most stark, I suppose.

    Yet, assuming it’s able to respond to outside stimulae, exactly what it does with those abilities has yet to be determined.

    Similarly, let’s take me. I’m a pretty fair computer tech; I support servers at a multi-national bank. I’m also a DJ, and a damned good one..... I was 15 years in the radio busienss, and I still play parties and whatnot… I’m a veteran of about 25 years of being behind the mike. I’m also a fair enough writer when the mood strikes. Hence, I’ve been doing an online political column since the late 70’s. (BBS’s and then the ‘net)

    I have a few other talents, but none quite so pronounced as these.  I suppose one could call this talent set one that’s pre-determined my life’s course thus far. Yet within those talent boundires, I retain my ability to chose. I still don’t know how it’ll come out. What I do with those talents is still TBD.

    I guess what I’m suggesting here is that there is no strict determanism… that even where my talent set seems to be pretty well shaped, I’m still left with the choices of what to DO with that talent set, you see.

    That’s a point that repeatedly strikes me when I read arguments between the ‘free will’ crowd and the ‘pre-determined’ crowd. I suspect the truth lies somwhere between those two extremes, is all.

    And John; Yes, I’ll shut up now… the string of comments, just kinda clicked my switch, is all.

    Posted by Bithead  on  10/16  at  07:21 PM

  15. Bithead, no need to shut up, here.

    Posted by  on  10/17  at  06:48 AM

  16. RKN: Premising no free will, one cannot become anything else but what they become after discovering their brain was no more than an implementation of an immutable algorithm.

    Okay … I agree. In Determinism everything is Determined.

    RKN: You asked John if he would “become” suicidal. That usage of “become” implied free will (to some extent), but that denies the question’s premise.

    I disagree. You assume it implied “free will” because you want “free will”.

    But my question was analogous to asking:

    Suppose you have Explorer version 5.0 and you download and install the upgrade (i.e. input and process new information) to Explorer version 6.0. How do you anticipate your program will behave afterwards?

    RKN: Even if that wasn’t the usage of become you intended, John still couldn’t answer the question now, because he couldn’t know what would “become of him” without knowing the algorithm with precision.

    So in other words, you are saying that it is pointless to ask a child what they want to be when they grow up?

    Since you are asserting that consciousness is a “non-algorithmic” process could you please elaborate as to what a “non-algorithmic” process looks like? How it functions?

    Would you describe yourself as a Mystic?

    Posted by  on  10/18  at  08:27 AM

  17. RKN: The premise was no free will. Sans that, choice in the sense you mean it would be an illusion.

    Computer programs make choices. Are you asserting that computer programs have “free will”? Are the choices that computer programs make only “illusionary” choices? In what way specifically?

    Posted by  on  10/18  at  08:32 AM

  18. Bithead: One’s inate talents, one could call a sort of pre-determianism. It does, after all, at least to some extent, limit one’s choices to a subset of the whole of human endevors, conditions and possibilities.

    You say “Limits”; I say “control’s completely”.

    Bithead: Now at this point of course one might argue that this doesn’t of itself [prove this person was pre-determined as a consious effort by some entity, and as a logical exercise, I tend to agree.

    So a “non-conscious” force (entity) controls a conscious force (entity)?

    Kind of like saying when you drive (control) your Car, it is really the Car that is driving (controlling) You?

    Does the Moon control TLOP, or does TLOP control the Moon? Which statement is more accurate?

    Bithead: Now a computer, has the talents that are provided it, in it’s base coding.  It can perform a number of functions, all of which were provided it at it’s design level… pre-determinism at it’s most stark, I suppose.

    Yet, assuming it’s able to respond to outside stimulae, exactly what it does with those abilities has yet to be determined.

    The Program/Algorithm is made of information (code). It receives inputs from TLOP (the system). It processes that information according to the logic contained in it’s program and it generates outputs.

    Although it is possible that the inputs also modify the algorithm via its processing.

    Posted by  on  10/18  at  08:43 AM

  19. Computer programs make choices.

      No they don’t.

      I’ve been over this before and don’t care to go into it too deeply again.

      More precisely computer programs implement the selections of a programmer who is constrained by a pre-determined set of strict rules. You are of course free to say a computer program “chooses” the moves it makes, and in most contexts most people would understand what you mean by that, but drilling down into the language in this context of free will vs. determinsim the usage becomes an error of personification.

      Everyone understands that computer programs don’t really “choose” anything, they cannot do otherwise but fulfill the choices of the programmer. Programs don’t make choices, they fulfill the choices of the programmer, and that’s not just semantics in this context.

      None of this matters to my original comment on your post. You asked John to do something he couldn’t possibly do. Your question denied its own premise. It’s not a moral error to have made a mistake you know.

    Posted by RKN  on  10/18  at  01:34 PM

  20. So in other words, you are saying that it is pointless to ask a child what they want to be when they grow up?

      In world of strict physical determinism (SPD), of course it is, because the child’s future isn’t determined by her wants or choices, that’s all an illusion in a world of SPD. It has to be.

    Posted by RKN  on  10/18  at  01:44 PM

  21. You say “Limits”; I say “control’s completely”.

    I think not.
    What is DONE with those talents, those properties… remains a choice.

    Posted by Bithead  on  10/18  at  05:47 PM

  22. RKN,

    Were you “programmed” to speak English, or did you “choose” to speak English of your own “free will”?

    Serpent (prev): Computer programs make choices.

    RKN: No they don’t. I’ve been over this before and don’t care to go into it too deeply again.

    Ahhh, I see … so I should just “take your word for it”?

    I notice you failed to link to the post where you had “explained this all before”.

    I wonder why?

    RKN: More precisely computer programs implement the selections of a programmer who is constrained by a pre-determined set of strict rules.

    Exactly like saying:

    More precisely Homo Sapiens implement the selections of a programmer (The “Big Bang”) who is constrained by a pre-determined set of strict rules (TLOP – The Rules of Physics).

    RKN: You are of course free to say a computer program “chooses” the moves it makes, and in most contexts most people would understand what you mean by that, but drilling down into the language in this context of free will vs. determinsim the usage becomes an error of personification.

    You are of course free to say a Homo Sapien “chooses” the moves it makes, and in most contexts most Fatalists/Determinists would understand what you mean by that, but drilling down into the language in this context of free will vs. determinsim the usage becomes an error of personification.

    What makes you assume that Your atoms have more “free will” then the Moons atoms?

    I’d say that your atoms obey the laws of Physics to exactly the same degree that the Moons atoms obey the laws of Physics. You seem to want to avoid/evade this point. Perhaps the inherent nature of your algorithm prevents you from addressing it?

    RKN: Everyone understands that computer programs don’t really “choose” anything …

    Everyone? … Everyone? So you speak for everyone now? Is that because you believe that Solipsism is true and none of “us’ actually exist in the same manner that you do?

    RKN: … they cannot do otherwise but fulfill the choices of the programmer.

    Which is why programmers can anticipate everything that their programs (creations) will do. Every possibility, every contingency.

    This is why all programs are always completely and totally “bug” free.

    RKN: Programs don’t make choices …

    Yes, I heard you the first 3 times. Perhaps if you repeat it enough (like a mantra (or a prayer)) you can convince yourself that is how reality functions. Your magical “free will” creates reality after all.

    RKN: … they [algorithms] fulfill the choices of the programmer, and that’s not just semantics in this context.

    You mean in an analogous fashion to the manner in which you fulfill the choices of your programmer – TLOP?

    RKN: None of this matters to my original comment on your post. You asked John to do something he couldn’t possibly do.

    I disagree, unless you are saying that algorithms can’t produce Outputs based on incomplete Inputs.

    RKN: Your question denied its own premise.

    I disagree. You simply refuse to accept the premise (even for the sake of argument).

    RKN: It’s not a moral error to have made a mistake you know.

    I couldn’t agree more. Articulate my specific error and I will gladly concede it.

    Posted by  on  10/19  at  06:34 AM

  23. RKN: [asking a child about the future – pointless]In world of strict physical determinism (SPD), of course it is, because the child’s future isn’t determined by her wants or choices, that’s all an illusion in a world of SPD. It has to be.

    I agree. Perception does not create reality it merely observes reality. But that doesn’t mean an algorithm cannot produce an Output based on incomplete Inputs (incomplete information/data).

    Posted by  on  10/19  at  06:35 AM

  24. Serpent: You say [TLOP] “Limits”; I say [TLOP] “control’s completely” [human behavior].

    Bithead: I think not.
    What is DONE with those talents, those properties… remains a choice.

    Suppose we had a film of your entire life. Suppose that a camera crew had been following you around since the day you were born filming every event and aspect of your existence.

    Now if I watch this film today, I am going to see you making “choices” based entirely on your experiences … your conditioning.

    And it doesn’t matter how many times I watch that movie; every time I watch it you are going to make the same exact choices, and perform the exact same sequence of actions in response to the exact same sequence of events.

    So if this is definitely true in regard to your past (it’s fixed/unchanging) … then why should I believe it is not true about your future?

    Isn’t your future also a film (fixed/unchanging)?

    You just haven’t seen that movie yet. That’s the only real difference – isn’t it?

    Posted by  on  10/19  at  06:45 AM

  25. Serpent (prev): Computer programs make choices.

    RKN: No they don’t. I’ve been over this before and don’t care to go into it too deeply again.

    Ahhh, I see … so I should just “take your word for it”?

    Surely not, so I’ll explain.

    I write computer programs, have been for about 20 years. There isn’t a single computer program, regardless of how of complicated it is, whose output cannot be completely and precisely predicted in principle and in practice. Often times this a very difficult endeavor, for sure, but it is nevertheless a matter of fact. The reason? Because any competent analyst can look at the source code, discover the algorithm (in the sense you mean it) and from that she can predict the output given any input.

    So why do programs have bugs? Simple: because the analyst hasn’t considered all the possible inputs. Perhaps she never considered that input A and B could sum to a value less than zero. Hence, when the value is passed to method C which evalutes the square root, the program faults. (Btw, good programmers catch faults, careless ones don’t).

    Surely it’s not your position that the program I just now wrote, which happens to sum two positive integers, “chose” (in any meaningful sense of the word) the value of the result it rendered on the screen!

    Reading the rest of your comments it seems to me that you are confused by the difference between predictable in practice vs. predictable in principle. Computer programs are predictable in both senses. Note that this fact doesn’t depend on whether or not we’re alive in a world where strict physical determinism is true.

    On the other hand, if strict physical determinism were true, then human behavior would be in principle fully determined—not necessarily in practice, but at least in principle. This is what the philosophy of strict physical determinism posits.

    If and only if that were true, then what we now refer to as free will would have to be an illusion. Because systems which are fully determined from time zero (like computer programs), obeying the law of causality (like computer programs), cannot “do otherwise,” i.e. they are physically incapable of selecting an alternative future. In such a world of strict physical determinism it may seem like we could do otherwise via what we today call ‘free will’—“Hmm, maybe I’ll take a bath today, maybe I won’t”—but that would be simply the way reality would seem to us. Human beings have seemings, computer programs don’t.

    In fact, in such world of strict physical determinism, your daily ablution would have been known since time zero. Your bath, and every chain of brain states that led up to it, would be seen for what they actually are in that case—nothing but a very complicated implementation of TLOP. Slighty more complicated than the moon, but nevertheless in principle fully determined like the moon.

    Posted by RKN  on  10/19  at  12:20 PM

  26. And it doesn’t matter how many times I watch that movie; every time I watch it you are going to make the same exact choices,and perform the exact same sequence of actions in response to the exact same sequence of events.

    Faulty argument.
    In what you describe we’’re dealing with history. Of COURSE it’ll be the same.

    then why should I believe it is not true about your future?

    It’s not happened yet.

    Posted by Bithead  on  10/19  at  03:08 PM

  27. RKN: Surely it’s not your position that the program I just now wrote, which happens to sum two positive integers, “chose” (in any meaningful sense of the word) the value of the result it rendered on the screen!

    The program “chooses” the value of the result in an analogous fashion to you “choosing” to STOP (result) at a RED (value) traffic light.

    Yes, that is precisely what I am asserting.

    It sounds like you are trying to assert that 2 apples + 2 apples equals 4 apples only because of your “free will”.

    RKN: Reading the rest of your comments it seems to me that you are confused by the difference between predictable in practice vs. predictable in principle.

    You seem to believe that one must be Omniscient (know all outcomes) in order to prove Determinism. But not knowing the outcomes doesn’t in any way imply that the outcomes are not the result of a completely logical and deterministic process (mechanic).

    That’s equivalent to asserting that any unexplained phenomena are the result of magic.

    RKN: Computer programs are predictable in both senses.

    So is your behavior, and your actions, you are merely unaware (or in denial) of this fact.

    RKN: Note that this fact doesn’t depend on whether or not we’re alive in a world where strict physical determinism is true.

    No … You are wrong, that is exactly what it depends on.

    If the universe is fundamentally “random” (and meaningless) as you assert, then wouldn’t that result in the words of your posts being totally random, and meaningless?

    You can’t have a “partially random” system. It’s either one way, or the other.

    RKN: On the other hand, if strict physical determinism were true, then human behavior would be in principle fully determined—not necessarily in practice, but at least in principle. This is what the philosophy of strict physical determinism posits.

    I agree, but once again this isn’t an explantion of how a non-determined system could operate. You are merely asserting it is non-determined, but you offer no evidence for this claim other than the fact you are not Omniscient.

    Maybe your subconscious is Omniscient? Your subconscious certainly seems capable of generating a reality when you dream at night. What makes you assume that your subconscious isn’t similarly generating this reality including me (these posts)?

    RKN: If and only if that were true, then what we now refer to as free will would have to be an illusion.

    “Free will” is an illusion.

    Atoms obey the laws of Physics, and you are made of atoms and nothing else.

    RKN: Because systems which are fully determined from time zero (like computer programs), obeying the law of causality (like computer programs), cannot “do otherwise,” i.e. they are physically incapable of selecting an alternative future.

    So when you approach a traffic light you are asserting that your decision to STOP or GO is entirely “random”? … the result of your magical “free will” powers?

    Because I would assert that your decision to STOP or GO is entirely the result of a deterministic process and based on your Algorithm (core program (initial state)) and past experiences (i.e. the information you carry in your database).

    Posted by  on  10/20  at  07:06 AM

  28. [continued ...]

    RKN: In such a world of strict physical determinism it may seem like we could do otherwise via what we today call ‘free will’—“Hmm, maybe I’ll take a bath today, maybe I won’t”—but that would be simply the way reality would seem to us. Human beings have seemings, computer programs don’t.

    Actually many computer algorithms follow the same logical sequence in making decisions that you do. They assess their options by parsing information in their database, they rank their possible options, and ultimately they select (choose) the option of maximum perceived benefit/highest rank/what is most True (as defined by their code).

    RKN: In fact, in such world of strict physical determinism, your daily ablution would have been known since time zero. Your bath, and every chain of brain states that led up to it, would be seen for what they actually are in that case—nothing but a very complicated implementation of TLOP. Slighty more complicated than the moon, but nevertheless in principle fully determined like the moon.

    That’s exactly right.

    Conversely Solipsism could be True, in which case you really would have Free Will. Of course that would mean that me and everyone else were merely figments of the reader’s imagination.

    Just like when we had this same conversation in your dream the other night.

    Posted by  on  10/20  at  07:07 AM

  29. it doesn’t matter how many times I watch that movie; every time I watch it you are going to make the same exact choices,and perform the exact same sequence of actions in response to the exact same sequence of events.

    Bithead (Binary-Minded?): Faulty argument.
    In what you describe we’’re dealing with history. Of COURSE it’ll be the same.

    You imply that it is so simple.

    Excellent. Then you should have no trouble explaining it to me.

    How does the magically random future become the fixed and determined past? By what specific process/mechanic?

    Serpent: why should I believe [your future is not also fixed/unchanging and determined]?

    Bithead: It’s not happened yet.

    You mean Relative to You.

    But maybe relative to some other entity it has already happened?

    Posted by  on  10/20  at  07:15 AM

  30. How does the magically random future become the fixed and determined past? By what specific process/mechanic?

    Occurrence.

    And yes, it IS that simple, unless you’re going to argue that time isn’t linear.

    Posted by Bithead  on  10/20  at  05:25 PM

  31. Bithead: [The Relativity of Simultaneity …]Occurrence.

    And yes, it IS that simple, unless you’re going to argue that time isn’t linear.

    Ohh no, not me my Brother. Time is definitely linear within (internal to) an individual Graviton. I would not dispute this fact.

    But some friends of mine would definitely argue that Your sense of (linear) Time is not an (The) Absolute (Omni) sequence.

    I’d add that it is possible your seqeunce could be the Absolute sequence, but that would necessitate that Solipsism were True, and only the consciousness perceiving this post exist in reality. Do you believe that is the case?

    Most people are unaware that Gödel and Einstein were close friends …

    extraordinary properties … closed, timelike curves that allow … time travel to become a scientific reality …

    For Gödel the reality of time travel signals the unreality of time. If he’s right, the real meaning of the Einstein revolution remained a secret for half a century and is only being revealed now …

    Posted by  on  10/21  at  07:40 AM

  32. ME: In fact, in such world of strict physical determinism, your daily ablution would have been known since time zero. Your bath, and every chain of brain states that led up to it, would be seen for what they actually are in that case—nothing but a very complicated implementation of TLOP. Slighty more complicated than the moon, but nevertheless in principle fully determined like the moon.

    YOU: That’s exactly right.

    Conversely Solipsism could be True, in which case you really would have Free Will. Of course that would mean that me and everyone else were merely figments of the reader’s imagination.

       You’re wrong about this last. What I wrote doesn’t imply solipsism, not at all. Among other things, solipsism implies that other people are only a figment of the workings of my mind, not real. But that doesn’t necessarily follow from strict physical determinism (SPD). In such a world of SPD you and everyone else would still appear to me to be very real implementations of TLOP, just like I was. One robot can recognize another robot, no problem.

    And posessing free will or not has nothing to do with solipsism. If anything the philosophical position of solipsism contradicts free will.

    Posted by RKN  on  10/21  at  03:26 PM

  33. You have it backwards my brother.

    Imagine an ordinary coin (reality) it has two sides. You only get to choose one side – either HEADS or TAILS.

    If you choose HEADS you get True Free Will (action without consequence) at the cost of Solipsism.

    And if you choose TAILS then you get True Individuality at the cost of your Free Will (i.e. Determinism is True).

    If myself and other entities are real then it is only logical to assume that sometimes your (real) Will must subordinate to the (real) Will of other (real) entities.

    Whereas if myself and all of the others are merely figments of your imagination (i.e. Solipsism is True) then you can do whatever you want to/with “us” and there will be no ultimate ramifications (consequences) as a result. I mean, how can anyone retaliate against your actions if no one else genuinely exists?

    RKN: One robot can recognize another robot, no problem.

    (ahhh, my Master … this Graviton begins to perceive.)

    That’s it my Brother (robot) … an algorithm could prove that Solipsism was False (by positively establishing the existence of other Algorithms fundamentally no different then himself (yet unique in their programming also)). However an entity with “free will” would have no possible escape from that particular H-Moebius-Loop (essentially a halting problem (infinite loop) for the conscious mind).

    Posted by  on  10/22  at  12:54 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Two Worth Reading

Previous entry: Expanding Chinese Superiority

<< Back to main