Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 5 months agoThose books are different from how I remembered…lemmy.worldimagemessage-square73fedilinkarrow-up1932arrow-down110
arrow-up1922arrow-down1imageThose books are different from how I remembered…lemmy.worldFlying Squid@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 5 months agomessage-square73fedilink
minus-squarebrrt@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up4·5 months agoI don’t understand what you are getting at. You are either saying that you can predict where a fly is going to go when you set it free or you are saying that a fly has internal agency.
minus-squareUnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·5 months ago You are either saying that you can predict where a fly is going to go when you set it free or you are saying that a fly has internal agency. If the fly lacks agency, you would be able to predict its movement given a sufficiently accurate set of information. If it has agency, you could not.
minus-squaremerc@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up2·5 months agoIt’s difficult to predict the path of a leaf floating in the wind, but I don’t think anybody would say a leaf has agency.
minus-squareUnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·5 months ago It’s difficult to predict the path of a leaf floating in the wind Orders of magnitude less difficult, as the leaf can’t glean your intent and respond accordingly.
minus-squareUnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·5 months agoThat the movement of a leaf in the wind is less complex than the electro-chemical processes of a human brain? With enough time and math, certainly.
minus-squarebrrt@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·5 months agoYou missed the point while drawing your circular argument. Take what you said and replace fly with human. Wait here I’ll do it for you: If a human lacks agency, you would be able to predict its movement given a sufficiently accurate set of information. If it has agency, you could not. Now tell me how you will acquire a sufficiently accurate set of information about a human and its environment to test your hypothesis.
minus-squareUnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·5 months ago Now tell me how you will acquire a sufficiently accurate set of information about a human and its environment to test your hypothesis. You can’t. That’s a significant problem of identifying the existence or absence of “Free Will”.
I don’t understand what you are getting at. You are either saying that you can predict where a fly is going to go when you set it free or you are saying that a fly has internal agency.
If the fly lacks agency, you would be able to predict its movement given a sufficiently accurate set of information.
If it has agency, you could not.
It’s difficult to predict the path of a leaf floating in the wind, but I don’t think anybody would say a leaf has agency.
Orders of magnitude less difficult, as the leaf can’t glean your intent and respond accordingly.
Can you prove that?
That the movement of a leaf in the wind is less complex than the electro-chemical processes of a human brain?
With enough time and math, certainly.
You missed the point while drawing your circular argument.
Take what you said and replace fly with human. Wait here I’ll do it for you:
Now tell me how you will acquire a sufficiently accurate set of information about a human and its environment to test your hypothesis.
You can’t. That’s a significant problem of identifying the existence or absence of “Free Will”.