Assassin
1. Life 30
2. Agility 60
3. Strength 40
4. Defense 60 — Agent Smith
If we decide we want to slowly re-arrange an individual into an entirely different organism, at what point can they no longer be considered the same "self"?
Both matter replacement and rearrangement occur in nature and prevent us from safely defining any solid, constant, material thing that we can call a "self". — tom111
Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist. — tom111
Your claims contradict mine. But all you are doing is assuming that artists are obliged to produce art and taking that for granted, even though that's intuitively false. — Bartricks
There are many things that do not show disrespect to any person or object and yet are morally obligatory. For example, reporting a robbery if you see one. So it seems that "does not show disrespect" is not enough to guarantee something is not obligatory — khaled
What's that got to do with anything? — Bartricks
1- Have very good reason to think that his art will bring about much good before they produe it.
2- Be able to produce it relatively easily. — khaled
First, you clearly know nothing about art or artists if you think any of those artists I mentioned didn't know they were creating era defining work. Believe me, most great artists - most great anything - knew full well they were great at the time. — Bartricks
You have provided no evidence to the contrary. — Bartricks
it is not morally required. Why? Because omitting to create such works does not show disrespect to any person or to any object. — Bartricks
There are many things that do not show disrespect to any person or object and yet are morally obligatory. For example, reporting a robbery if you see one. So it seems that "does not show disrespect" is not enough to guarantee something is not obligatory. — khaled
Believe me, most great artists - most great anything - knew full well they were great at the time. — Bartricks
we can just as well imagine an artist who knows full well that were they to exercise their artistic ability, they would create great art (for there is no contradiction involved in the supposition). — Bartricks
If the artist could magically create era defining pieces of art at the snap of his fingers, and chooses not to do so, then yes I’d think he’s in the wrong. — khaled
it remains as obvious as ever that there is no positive obligation on the person to exercise their ability. — Bartricks
it is not morally required. Why? Because omitting to create such works does not show disrespect to any person or to any object. — Bartricks
I have offered an explanation. The job, then, is to test that explanation. — Bartricks
There are many things that do not show disrespect to any person or object and yet are morally obligatory. For example, reporting a robbery if you see one. So it seems that "does not show disrespect" is not enough to guarantee something is not obligatory. — khaled
Oh, what a brilliant distinction......not. Same applies. See? — Bartricks
How do you draw that conclusion? No, none of them were obligated to create art, because none of them could have known their art would have been worth creating. — khaled
They didn't have the benefit of hindsight. — khaled
An artist cannot know that his piece will bring much good. But if he did, and he could create it easily, then yes he would be obligated to do so. — khaled
That is to say, if the artist can produce art he knows will be good (and can do so very easily). Which never actually happens. — khaled
Jeez. You said that if an artist could produce art with the click of his fingers — Bartricks
Most importantly it requires one to understand that unethical behavior always comes from a place of suffering — Tzeentch
Punishment, and severity of punishment have never stopped people breaking the law. — Vera Mont
Punishment and rejection further alienate an already disaffected member of society; severe punishment can turn him into an active enemy of the existing structure. — Vera Mont
To imprison large numbers of disaffected men in harsh conditions for years on end is to build a hostile army in the very heart of one's nation. — Vera Mont
But John Singer Sargent or Picasso did have an obligation to produce art, as they worked very quickly and with ease (as much ease as clicking one's fingers). That just seems prima facie false — Bartricks
Because omitting to create such works does not show disrespect to any person or to any object.
Is there any reason to reject that analysis? — Bartricks
There is cohesive form. — neonspectraltoast
Jane 'deserves' X, does not mean the same as "we ought to give Jane X". — Bartricks
A rapist deserves to be raped (according to the lex talionis). — Bartricks
There are lots of things that are unnecessary, yet morally permissible.
And a person who has an artistic ability and is in perfect health, mental and otherwise, is still not under any positive obligation to exercise their ability. — Bartricks
It seems clear enough that you have not. It seems a good thing if you exercise your ability. It might be praiseworthy. But you are not doing wrong if you do not. — Bartricks
Note, even if you think that we - those of us with an ability to produce beautiful things - are positively obliged to exercise our abilities, surely even you admit that it is far more wrong to destroy a beautiful thing than it is to fail to create one? — Bartricks
"Person" does not have the sort of sharp and unambiguous meaning as — SophistiCat
A 'person' is a legal human entity. — noAxioms
I'd say there are important questions unanswered. — Art48
Grice? — Banno
So that's not uncontroversial. — Banno
What an author intends by an utterance can vary over time, as that utterance is put to other uses. — Banno
Do we get an award or at least a certificate of completion?! :smile: — punos
I you think free-will is emergent then to understand a little better your stance can you tell me if you believe it's soft or hard emergence? — punos
Observe how our freeways resemble and function like veins and arteries transporting all manner of things around the system. Notice how our electrical transmission lines resemble a nervous system along with the internet as a giant distributed neural network (brain), or how our mining operations are like the digestive system, and the factories are like the organs that produce commercial products like an organism might produce organic products for the body of the organism. — punos
"free will" means "indeterminate determinism" — punos
Etymologically 'coerce' means to restrain by another. — punos
The meaning can be used in other contexts much as poets do — punos
Are you saying that free-will only happens in humans or animals. — punos
If i were to teleport to another location it would not be the exact same me before teleporting, but the new me wouldn't be able to tell any difference (unless something drastic happens). What the new me doesn't know is that i was just copied and the original remains at the original location; so which is me the copy or the original? Remember to consider Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that the teleported version of me is not exactly a perfect copy. Even if it were an exact copy, the difference in location of my original still being around would give us instantly different quantum 'signatures' aka different identities in respect to the universe. Also, as soon as my copy walks off the teleporter he will acquire a unique identity by virtue that from that point on he has different experiences. — punos
What is happening fundamentally differently in beings that have low intelligence like bacteria and higher intelligence like an arthropod. What is fundamentally different about arthropods that is not happening in the intelligence of lower life forms. — punos
Notice how AI gets more intelligent the more parameters and hidden layers are added; nothing really new but more nodes for the neural network. If this trend continues then according to your definition of free-will; AI will reach a level of intelligence that would result in the formation of free-will. — punos
Wouldn't it be reasonable to say at that point that free-will is an emergent property dependent on the components directly below it? — punos
The only difference that it can possibly be is just a more complex way of processing information, a more integrated way of processing information, than is possible with lower intelligence. — punos
I don't believe you had a free choice in what you wrote, your choice was determined by the specific activation weights and thresholds in your nerve cells as your sensory signals propagate through the system. — punos
All of this is "coerced", even though you don't feel coerced — punos
Do you have a simpler lower level example of free-will? — punos
Try doing this: Stop breathing for 30 minutes, and tell me if you feel coerced to breath at some threshold limit? — punos
A "person" is a physical system made of atoms and molecules like everything else, and cells, tissues, and organs like every other organism. — punos
A definition of free-will doesn't automatically make it real, it simply allows us to recognize it. Children define Santa Claus all the time, but it doesn't mean he's real. — punos
Do you think AI has free-will, or if not yet will it ever? — punos
But again, is this all there is to life? existence? It still feels pointless, in the end, in the grand scheme of things. — niki wonoto
Nothing special. It's the same with human life. — niki wonoto
Provide me with an example so i know exactly what we are talking about, not just a definition. — punos
I believe in 'will' not 'free-will', and will is constrained by the laws of physics like anything else — punos
Does it use another force from somewhere else outside our universe — punos
I seem to have the same definition for free-will that you do. — punos