A "Transhumanist"?!

[Amine]

You're welcome.

I can't be bothered with it either. I've got shit to do. I do think it could be worthwhile for training conscious attention though.

It's cool that he acknowledges how taboo it is. He's a supremely honest human being. To be honest in the secular sense that he uses the definition of "enlightened" I believe he is to an extent, in the sense that he's intellectually and consciously much more lucid than the vast majority of people.

I agree. I think letting go of free will is enlightening.

It's fascinating, although currently there are problems with it.

Massive respect to you for also recognizing this. I also know very few people who recognize the illogicality of aggregation. You are already one of my favorite forum users intellectually speaking. You're deep. I hope you'd make an awesome friend too.

Agreed. I'm familiar with the Repugnant Conclusion and I have also read that very same LessWrong article that you speak of.

I agree 100% with all of this.

It's not quite that simple, because he believes that, of course, illusions are still part of conscious experience... so qualia in one sense exists and another sense it doesn't. He's all about "In one sense yes, in another sense no.".

Anyway, you're truly epic to talk to and discuss with. You're deep. I fucking love it. I'd massively love to text chat with you on Skype about these deep concepts and topics.

For sure, glad to find similar and provocative minds! I've never really used Skype. Maybe just PM or something?

[...]Emily Ratajkowski[...]

Never heard of her... I googled her and her images please me very much. She's hot as fuck.

Haha yeah, she's my current go-to example of a ridiculously beautiful woman. I dunno if you ever saw the "Blurred Lines" music video, but she was the brunette from that. Protip: there is also a version where she is topless.

That seems to me to be different from simply wanting to believe in it. How would your choices be more limited if you didn't believe you had free will?

Personally I think that if he thinks he can believe something "because he wants to" he misunderstands how belief actually works.

Either he is convinced by the idea of "free will" or he isn't. Besides Contra-causal free will is logically incoherent and compatabilist free will is redundant and misleading.

He's probably confusing determinism with fatalism. He is just as open to all choices without a belief in free will, provided that he is not a fatalist.

I'm sure you agree, but it would be fascinating if you don't. Hope you don't mind me chipping in, I do this

Not at all.

I see what you are saying about the fatalism, though. A lot of people hear about determinism and immediately think, "well then I would just stay on the couch all day", not understanding that deterministically, they would not actually want to do that.

Also, you hear this "choose to believe it" argument from Christians a lot. Recently some woman kept telling me I could just choose to believe in Jesus. I could only insist that if I did that, I would be lying.

---

Welcome!

I am certainly a fellow fan of this elegant interpretation of QM. As a particle physicist however, I am a bit confused what you mean by reducibility to balls bouncing around or some such... explain!

Thanks!

My current understanding is that QM replaces billiard-ball-like particles (with individual identities) with the idea of amplitude distributions in configuration space, which are inextricably linked to one another. Which I guess would be why, for instance, the whole "worlds" "split" in MW.