Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I should  have answered my own question. I asked, " Suppose I like the taste of pizza. What good is that going to do, if I am just a domino?

Answer: I could go to Dominos Pizza.

I believe the Dominos Pizza analogy was first proposed by Henri Bergson in his Time And Free Will With A Large Pepsi, Please. Be more original.

Boru

[Jal]

(anyway, you're missing option C - it happened deterministically...which seems like a hell of an oversight as you argue against determinism.)

I was talking about options for First Mover, i.e, the first movement. Ok let's consider option C.
(A) Chaotic occurrence, no rhyme or reason, Nature spasms unpredictably.
(B) Self-locomotion by free will, "I go there because I choose to go there.".
© Cause-effect determinism? That just begs the question as to what was the First Mover.

In other words, option C leads to an infinite regress of prior causes/dominos, in tandem with an infinite past.
Which doesn't seem very plausible, indeed it's gibberish.

[The Grand Nudger]

Existing systems leverage "cause-effect determinism" to initiate all sorts of action.  Your house is full of them.  You're using one.  Isn't it funny how you have to concentrate really hard to do math?  It doesn't.  It's better at it than you are and spends less effort to be so.

The bloodgod is such a joker.

(anyway, you're missing option C - it happened deterministically...which seems like a hell of an oversight as you argue against determinism.)

Your extrapolation of household electro-mechanics to mammalian behavior is unrealistic. Or one might call it an unlikely analogy.

For example, computers do not make decisions, even if AI LOOKS decisional. A computer is just a flow of electricity through circuits, and these ON-OFF circuits are arranged strategically. So for example two circuits ON and OFF mean the binary number 10 which is 2 hence the computer could output  "2". This produces a consistent, predetermined result.  It's involuntary, it's unaffected by desires, feelings,and emotions. 

Mammals are not involuntary participants caught off guard, knee-jerked by surprise. My stomach is empty? Guess what, if the cook spiced the food a bit too much for my preference, I won't even eat it. I'm in control, I am not just a passive wire carrrying electric current through a computer circuit.

Or if there is a bad smell in the house, I lose my appetite.  How would you like it if your computer, your electricity, and all equipment in your house stopped working due to a  smell? In a cause-effect system, that is no concern. Whereas, in a libertarian system, our feelings, emotions, and sensations are a huge concern, "viz. Sally is dying from anorexia due to depression." 

What is the benefit of subjective feelings in an electro-mechanical system? I can't think of any. In fact, the last thing needed is that my car stop running on account of feeling depressed. Suppose I like the taste of pizza. What good is that going to do, if I am just a domino? As such, I won't be able to voluntarily move by body to the pizzaria. 

Determinism isn't a likely theory of real-life phenomenology.

Who cares about mammalian behaviors?  You're making a grander claim, that "the deterministic universe" can't do x y or z...but it can, and does, and does it with regularity.  The claim you say your logical justifications hinge upon is demonstrably and trivially false.... and in the very world your god allegedly created this way, no less.

As for the good in subjectivity to an electromechanical system...first, whatever else you believe about yourself..you are one..and it seems like you think it's doing you some good.  That said, this is one thing you at least flirt with something true and profound about.  You actually do want your car to be aware of itself and of itself in an environment and of the most crucial bits of it's inner workings, at least....and it is.  I get that you don't want it to annoy or inconvenience you on account of this...but it already does, doesn't it?  Endless hiccups and misfires and trips to the shop.  Phantom caution lights.  The proximity sensors hallucinating.  Update after update turning the ui into gibberish and back into something resolvable as sense.  All of that before it gets slammed into by another car at 60mph. Real pain in the ass after damage and age starts piling up.

You experience these things yourself for much the same reason.  You're a vulnerable legacy system with a particular architecture and all of the bugs and unintended interactions that come with that as a consequence of your genetic lineage.  In addition to this, your environment is changed drastically from the environment you are adapted to operate in.  There are many evolutionary explanations of depression...but maybe it's just a malfunction.  In "the deterministic universe" this is, as you say, just how the dominoes fell.  The specific behavior or function either increased our fitness or it was a secondary byproduct of something else that did. In whatever god breathed world you hope to live in it is truly inexplicable and not just a little bit sinister.  Bloodgod having fun at our expense again? It creates a world full of things that can do x y and z without this added wrinkle..and it produces a reality in which many more things that it didn't create - that we now have..can do them even better than we can.....but for us, it's very special boys....it adds depression. Rage. Pain. Despair. Hunger. Suicidal ideation.

If your god existed the way you've painted it, it wouldn't be worthy of worship, it would be worthy of contempt. I wonder what a god like that would do to you for talking so much shit? Are you in control of it? Can you stop?

[The Grand Nudger]

(anyway, you're missing option C - it happened deterministically...which seems like a hell of an oversight as you argue against determinism.)

I was talking about options for First Mover, i.e, the first movement. Ok let's consider option C.
(A)  Chaotic occurrence, no rhyme or reason, Nature spasms unpredictably.
(B) Self-locomotion by free will, "I go there because I choose to go there.".
© Cause-effect determinism? That just begs the question as to what was the First Mover.

In other words, option C leads to an infinite regress of prior causes/dominos, in tandem with an infinite past.
Which doesn't seem very plausible, indeed it's gibberish.

Lies.  

It's not like have a million options here, if a piece of matter moves without being pushed>
(A) It happened randomly/ arbitrarily/ chaotically, no rhyme or reason for that particular direction and destination.
(B) It is self-locomotion by free will.

C - It happened deterministically.  You believe that A is determinism.  It is not.  You are malfunctioning.

Drawing it all together with the quoted text above, determinism is a very good description of "real world phenomenology" - things that happen at our level of appehension...at this scale of interaction and organization....but that doesn't seem to extend to the fundamentals, where things are much more like your option A. A probabilistic universe where the insights you gain from your deterministic existence do not map well or at all. You imagine that for a ball to move or change direction it must be hit by another ball. I guess that's intuitive, but is it true? Balls fall. You imagine that some some causally exterior x must push for you to act - but self re-enforcing closed loop systems defy this intuition just as gravity defies the other.

Carl Sagan said it best-

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

Don't you think it's tragic that you cannot see the hand of your own god in the world as it is? You say that you clearly saw the flaws in mainstream theology - well okay - are you doomed to repeat one of it's most shameful flaws? Can the things you believe in simply not be true if the world is as it seems? If evolutionary biology is true, is god false? If gravity exists, is god false? If deterministic processes can create specifically human experiences, is god false?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

(anyway, you're missing option C - it happened deterministically...which seems like a hell of an oversight as you argue against determinism.)

I was talking about options for First Mover, i.e, the first movement. Ok let's consider option C.
(A)  Chaotic occurrence, no rhyme or reason, Nature spasms unpredictably.
(B) Self-locomotion by free will, "I go there because I choose to go there.".
© Cause-effect determinism? That just begs the question as to what was the First Mover.

In other words, option C leads to an infinite regress of prior causes/dominos, in tandem with an infinite past.
Which doesn't seem very plausible, indeed it's gibberish.

If an infinite regress is ‘gibberish’, why do lawnmowers need replacement blades? Got you!

Boru

[Ravenshire]

Holy fuck. The home school drop-out is still spamming it's idiocy?!?

[Belacqua]

Holy fuck. The home school drop-out is still spamming it's idiocy?!?

*its

[Ravenshire]

Holy fuck. The home school drop-out is still spamming it's idiocy?!?

*its

When grammar nazi's get all bent out of shape, I just pat 'em on the head and say there, their, they're.

Your game is fucking weak as shit, Bel.

[Fake Messiah]

Belacqua siding with a guy whose mental capacity can't comprehend gravity is the least surprising thing ever.

[awty]

*its

When grammar nazi's get all bent out of shape, I just pat 'em on the head and say there, their, they're.

Your game is fucking weak as shit, Bel.

I think it may be the best post by Bel yet.

Nice to see him admit he has nothing to add.