May 8 2011: Joshua, this is one of those Pandora box type discussions. The philosophy, AI and neurobiology guys who get into this get so complex so fast that when I was slogging my way through a single paper, it involved reading several books just to pick up the basic argument.
The existence of qualia, zombies and quantum effects in color perception all seem to be involved, and I am going to have to admit my continuing inability to even have a decent opinion on this stuff.
But anyway, this wont get in the way of my readiness to deliver one :D. Consider a quick reversal of the argument. Is it possible to replicate 100% of any genetic information, and 100% of any environmental experience? As I understand it, current biological and physical sciences sciences say no to both. If not, is any form of determinism possible? If nothing is truly replicable, then every circumstance, action and decision must be unique. From this you can deduce that it is impossible to predict any decision until the decider has made it, which sounds quite a lot like free will to me.
May 7 2011: Alisa, applying a dialectic to human behaviour and cognition hasn't worked well for historians, philosophers or politicians. Consider that perhaps the world and the actions of the people in it are far more complex than being objectively and entirely good, evil, positive or negative. Also consider that defining any set of motives, actions and outcomes in those terms is inevitably subjective and too general. Or to put it differently, simply wrong.
There is no shortage of current affairs where motive and action are seen as both good and evil, depending on the values and beliefs of the witnesses. From what I understood about what Richard Dawkins has to say, evolution doesn't deal in best or ultimate solutions either. Something about a version of chlorophyl being more efficient if it were orange, for example.
I imagine good, evil, positive and negative in a relationship similar to primary tastes or colors. The experiential consequences to mixing and iterating them transforms them, and something entirely different and far more complex such as a painting or a great wine can emerge. I love ideas like humanism, egalitarianism, democracy, and so on, but all of them are evolving and dynamic concepts.
Good and evil, positive and negative, exist as abstract concepts, and surely most people apply them according to taste as filters when they make judgements. I believe that the wise and tolerant choice is to allow for some variability in the definitions and be prepared to make even more adjustment for specific situations.
TEDCred score: +0.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: If I had 100% of your genes and 100% of your environmental experience I would be you.
The existence of qualia, zombies and quantum effects in color perception all seem to be involved, and I am going to have to admit my continuing inability to even have a decent opinion on this stuff.
But anyway, this wont get in the way of my readiness to deliver one :D. Consider a quick reversal of the argument. Is it possible to replicate 100% of any genetic information, and 100% of any environmental experience? As I understand it, current biological and physical sciences sciences say no to both. If not, is any form of determinism possible? If nothing is truly replicable, then every circumstance, action and decision must be unique. From this you can deduce that it is impossible to predict any decision until the decider has made it, which sounds quite a lot like free will to me.
A comment on Conversation: Can good win?
There is no shortage of current affairs where motive and action are seen as both good and evil, depending on the values and beliefs of the witnesses. From what I understood about what Richard Dawkins has to say, evolution doesn't deal in best or ultimate solutions either. Something about a version of chlorophyl being more efficient if it were orange, for example.
I imagine good, evil, positive and negative in a relationship similar to primary tastes or colors. The experiential consequences to mixing and iterating them transforms them, and something entirely different and far more complex such as a painting or a great wine can emerge. I love ideas like humanism, egalitarianism, democracy, and so on, but all of them are evolving and dynamic concepts.
Good and evil, positive and negative, exist as abstract concepts, and surely most people apply them according to taste as filters when they make judgements. I believe that the wise and tolerant choice is to allow for some variability in the definitions and be prepared to make even more adjustment for specific situations.