The Enformationism thesis is indeed "exotic" and "non-standard". But that's only because it is on the cutting-edge of Information science & philosophy.
— Gnomon
A. In science, what specifiable problem does "Enformationism" solve falsifiably?

B. In philosophy, what non-trivial, coherent question does "Enformationism" raise without begging any (or translate into a more probative question or questions)? — 180 Proof

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

:fire:

As you can see free will is not an easy topic. The "breaking of simple laws of nature" like follow the path of least resistance or take the shortest route or minimize energy consumption by humans could simply be the wagon wheel effect (apparently rape but actually consensual sex). :snicker:

What if, just what if, the US has developed warp drives for FTL interstellar travel? The JWST is simply scouring the heavens for habitable exoplanets to explore colonize.

If I were perpetually grateful I'd be exhausted and feel unworthy of everything and start to stop driving my life in any particular way. — TiredThinker

:sad: "We can't do it, it's impossible! That's why we must do it!" said the idiot!

Thank you, and it's quite alright. We don't need to agree exactly every time, but we should understand each other, and be able to reason together. I may not know you, but i know the I in me is the same I in you. :-) — punos

:up:

Argument from efficiency for free will

Nature is lazy i.e. it wants to minimize energy expenditure for any given task. Rivers flow in such a way that it takes the shortest path down from it source to a sea/ocean/lake. That's that.

I remember zig-zagging my way from my bedroom to the bathroom even though the shortest path was a straight line. I defied and broke the laws of nature that says minimize energy consumption at all times and always take the shortest route and follow the path of least resistance. If I can do that, what else can I do? Do I possess free will? Do I?

I hope the OP isn't conflating translation with interpretation.

Particles don't need a medium, waves do. Do the math! Maybe when light travels in vacuum it does so in particle form (no aether) and once it enters a medium (air/water/glass/plastic/any transparent medium) it changes to waves (re wave-particle duality).

:chin:

The 3 magic words:

1. Please

2. Sorry

3. Thank you

Don't thank me yet! — Grace (Terminator Salvation)

:snicker:

@180 Proof @MAYAEL

Do you know the mysterious phenomenon known as Jerusalem Syndrome?

As per Wikipedia, some (susceptible) folks develop the Messiah complex aftet/during a visit to the holy city. Please visit Wikipedia for details.

There's something going on in that region of the world - Egypt to Mecca - and my hunch is there's an as of yet undiscovered "force" that affects the (koff koff) chosen ones and induces religious experiences in 'em. Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are the 3 well-documented cases of Jerusalem Syndrome. We need to send a team of scientists and have them do a thorough study of the Levant and surrounding areas for this unknown factor/force. :grin:

We'll finally be able to answer Christopher Hitchens' query: Why would God choose a bunch of illiterate, iron age folks in a barren desert to reveal himself to?

Maybe it's just friggin too hot to think straight! :lol: Heat-induced delusions! Hyperthermia lunacy.

Everybody in the matrix is a program except for the real people. — Tate

:lol: Indeed, excellent observation. I am an agent...of the system.

Noble intentions! Hats off to you.

I don't want to repeat myself and bore you to death. All I'm willing to say is my position is plain and simple - it could've been worse for our freedom, but it isn't and to my reckoning that counts for something. Mind you I'm not saying we possess free will, but suffice it to say that I'm not being coerced.

You were programmed you to think that, Smith. — Tate

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

Am I alone in being thus programmed or is everyone in the same boat?

Always — Banno

:up: Sorry about that. Hang in there!

What? — 180 Proof

Whaddaya mean "What?"?

I laid it out for you in as much detail as I could muster.

The prime suspect = Deus deceptor

Liar. — 180 Proof

:lol: I envy your confidence despite the fact that you come off as a hard-to-fool skeptic. How do you do it? Tell us your secret (PM me some hints and tips). :up:

A very detailed account of your objection to my views on free will. Let's just say that the scenario I presented highlights a difference that needs to be taken into account in re free will.

Merci beaucoup mon ami, I'll get back to you when I can; if I don't qui tacet consentire videtur.

@Joshs

The N-word isn't offensive when it's black on black but it is when white on black.

This sounds very routine. What some languages make explicit, others leave to context. The job of the translator in this case is to make the context explicit. — hypericin

Indeed, the problem is as old as the mountains.

Humans are highly sociable — Wayfarer

:snicker: Good one!

Consciousness = Awake/Alive - Sleep/Death (Death is the only religion and sleep is her prophet! @180 Proof)

The I is a pure mental construct, a concept of convenience like, like, like,...

You get the feeling that you’ve stumbled on something profound and important. — Clarky

:snicker: ...and it's neither!

but it’s clear it’s neither profound nor important. — Clarky

:grin:

You read my mind!

Self-reference in re the liar sentence, as you would've already noticed, is in the third person ("this"). Second, it involves negation of some kind that contradicts a property that's necessary to selfhood, assuming such a word exists and is imbued with the meaning that I have in mind.

Caesar used to refer to himself in the third person which is in a way quite noble of him - he alludes to the position that he holds (Emperor) instead of himself (Julius). Which leader can do that? :snicker:

I wonder what implications this has on the so-called hard problem of consciousness which is premised on the alleged restriction on consciousness to the first person mode?

@Wayfarer $\uparrow$

While you're not wrong, I'd hurry to add that it's not that simple. The more people involved, the more stages there are, the more complex it becomes to diagnose the problem, assuming the Sokal affair is one! Sometimes people think they're spewing gobbledygook, but it turns out that it makes a whole lotta sense.

We possess if not absolute, relative, free will. There's a difference between me giving to charity because I want to and me giving to charity because someone has a gun to my temple. This rather simple scenario demonstrates, quite effectively in my humble opinion, that it could be worse and hence it's better i.e. our cells are roomy. We gotta count our blessings mon ami, we gotta count our blessings.

Off the top of my silly head, things that are essential to being a human being are

1. Well-developed intelligence
2. Complex language
3. Suicide
4. Ethics
5. Opposable thumbs + bipedalism

C'est la vie! Like @schopenhauer1 often reminds us: we're arm-twisted into playing the game of life. Play OR Die!

Today we pretend to make philosophy with the technological mentality of being fast, quick, efficient, productive, clever, all things that make me think of just one thing: America — Angelo Cannata

:fire:

As for your thoughts on translation being, to put it mildly, not easy, I'd have to agree - e.g. there's a language I know in which like and love are not distinguished in any real sense. Don't get me wrong, this particular culture isn't ignorant of passionate love; it's just that it never got to the point where it invented a separate word for love. How that complicates translation is easy to infer.

Postmodernism tries to make everyone happy and ends up making no one happy.

Moral relativism makes sense to the extent that pleasure (happiness)/pain (sorrow), their antecedent causes differ from people to people, culture to culture, individual to individual and they do; however, the brain's pain-pleasure system is, to some extent, uniform with respect to what induces pain and pleasure.

All evidence is suspect (re Cartesian deus deceptor).
— Agent Smith
And your own "suspect" for this claim ... :roll: — 180 Proof

Cartesian deus deceptor. :chin:

For dogmatists,

First pitfall: Agrippa

Second pitfall: Descartes' deus deceptor

No dogmatists escaped SIR!!

It is intriguing that two separate points of view are "handled effectively" in the exact same way ( :zip: ).

It's kinda like how both border disputes and religious disagreements are "solved" by war.

@Banno@hypericin@180 Proof@Janus

Language is social (re Wittgenstein). Solipsism? :chin:

It's hard to lie about experimental findings in (say) physics for they can be replicated by other scientists in other labs - that, in fact, is the meat of the hard sciences.

What a mind job, eh? Everyone knows it's just a silly game, a game where everybody loses, and still they play it as though clueless! Intriguing to say the least. Merci beaucoup!

I would love to read up on any novel system of ethics, the ones floating around don't seem to be upto the mark.

Could you provide a synopsis of it? I have ADHD - short attention span! :sad:

Ludwig Wittgenstein: We use words correctly despite not knowing their definitions.

the Messiah complex — MAYAEL

Agent Smith makes a note of that! Danke kind person.

Grandiose delusions, right?

Lewis's trilemma: Liar, Lunatic or Lord.

Hint: It's got nothing to do with intellectual snobbery.

That's good. Kant definitely wasn't Platonic. The true "realists" seem to be those who take the world as it is and doesn't bother with what is "behind it" (as if essence can permeate beyond what we sense). There is much medieval baggage in how we talk though — Gregory

WYSIWYG!

"There's gotta be more" attitude/mindset $\to$ dukkha (dissatisfaction).

I'll try again. The essence is in the thing. The definition is in the words. — Banno

:lol: Having trouble with thick-skulled people again, Banno?

Gracias Banno for clarifying what essence means. It basically means definition. Yet the definition of essence I provided isn't exactly wrong is it? If water loses its essence, it ceases then and there to be water.

A definition tends to be applied in whole; essences can be in parts. There is, should be, one definition but there could be many essences.

Coming to neurolinguistics, I'd say it's a hairy problem. Our brains are capable of using a word correctly without knowing the definition of the given word. Reminds me of LaMDA (check out the thread, it's active).