2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterWell, given that your program determines your course of action, I cannot understand how you cannot provide your deliberative path.
I did not know what the outcome was going to be because I cannot see the future or read my own mind before i think what I am going to think. Basically as I told you I gave in to fatalism and let whatever was going to happen happen. The whole deal of making a choice appeared illogical because there was no real choice anyway , just programmed inevitabili t that moment the 'cause a shock' routine must have been running , and it continued to run.
It is not evident how 'giving into fatalism' yields 'not caring about the
welfare of others.'
As a mere meat computer without the computational capacities that you
have, I can provide a litany of deliberations that explain the actions that
I take. How is it that you cannot?
Why did the sudden (if erroneous) knowledge that 'fatalism' was your
destiny result in the loss of desire to avoid causing suffering? Connect
the dots for me.
To be clear: what I am asking is, given the assumption that 'you
couldn't have done otherwise' as per your programming, what was the
sequence of subroutine thoughts that led from fatalism to finding it
permissible to incur suffering to another entity.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWhy did the sudden (if erroneous) knowledge that 'fatalism' was your
Well, given that your program determines your course of action, I cannot understand how you cannot provide your deliberative path.
It is not evident how 'giving into fatalism' yields 'not caring about the
welfare of others.'
As a mere meat computer without the computational capacities that you
have, I can provide a litany of deliberations that e ...[text shortened]... om fatalism to finding it
permissible to incur suffering to another entity.
Nemesio
destiny result in the loss of desire to avoid causing suffering? Connect
the dots for me.
...simple , there was no reduction in my desire to avoid causing suffering. There was a reduction in my belief that I had any power to choose my actions one way or another. If I was destined to cause suffering then there was nothing I could do to alter it , if I was destined not to cause suffering then I need do nothing. No action was needed by me. All is destiny. It was not to do with my desire but my bleief aboutb whether I had it within my power to stop myself doing something.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis is why you deserve punishment. Your concluding that 'fatalism' ought to yield 'a reduction in
there was no reduction in my desire to avoid causing suffering. There was a reduction in my belief that I had any power to choose my actions one way or another. If I was destined to cause suffering then there was nothing I could do to alter it , if I was destined not to cause suffering then I need do nothing. No action was needed by me. All is destiny. ...[text shortened]... my desire but my bleief aboutb whether I had it within my power to stop myself doing something.
desire to avoid causing suffering' is illogical (and borders on stupid). People should be protected from
such ignorant lines of thought and one can hope that such punishment will encourage a different
line of thought such that when presented with the same situation, your programming will lead you to
another course of action.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYour concluding that 'fatalism' ought to yield 'a reduction in
This is why you deserve punishment. Your concluding that 'fatalism' ought to yield 'a reduction in
desire to avoid causing suffering' is illogical (and borders on stupid). People should be protected from
such ignorant lines of thought and one can hope that such punishment will encourage a different
line of thought such that when presented with the same situation, your programming will lead you to
another course of action.
Nemesio
desire to avoid causing suffering' is illogical (and borders on stupid).
COMP- "I did NOT say that my desire to avoid causing suffering was reduced in any way . I simply said that my belief in my ability to choose against the inevitable was reduced. The fact that you do not want millions in africa to die of aids does not mean that you don't alos feel powerless to stop it does it? If you felt powerless then would that mean you didn't care? This is how I felt , powerless , not uncaring. If what I choose makes no difference because it's all inevitable anyway then why choose? "
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhy do you believe that it was inevitable that you shocked the individual?
I simply said that my belief in my ability to choose against the inevitable was reduced. The fact that you do not want millions in africa to die of aids does not mean that you don't alos feel powerless to stop it does it? If you felt powerless then would that mean you didn't care? This is how I felt , powerless , not uncaring. If what I choose makes no difference because it's all inevitable anyway then why choose? "
Why does your sudden (if misunderstood) knowledge of 'fatalism' entail that this person had to have
been shocked?
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt sounds like you made a mental jump from "The future is fixed and predetermined" to "I know what the future holds and I will make sure it happens".
This is how I felt , powerless , not uncaring. If what I choose makes no difference because it's all inevitable anyway then why choose? "
You claim to have given up on choosing, yet nevertheless did actually make a choice to shock people. Its as if you claim to have known that you were going to shock them and felt powerless to stop it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadCOMPUTER---Do you think I could have stopped it? If so how so? Wouldn't that mean that there were two possible outcomes to this story A) me stopping myself and B) me not stopping myself . But how could this be , I am a machine remember governed by the laws of determinism. If I know what the future holds then that's it game over. If I choose don't choose , nothing will make any difference. I can't change the future , the future is set.
It sounds like you made a mental jump from "The future is fixed and predetermined" to "I know what the future holds and I will make sure it happens".
You claim to have given up on choosing, yet nevertheless did actually make a choice to shock people. Its as if you claim to have known that you were going to shock them and felt powerless to stop it.
Originally posted by NemesioCOMPUTER- I was running the shock sub routine when the thought about fatalism hit me. Then I gave up to whatever fate had in store. I have no power to change things one way or the other because that would imply that two outcomes were possible. Under determisnism only one outcome is possible.
Why do you believe that it was inevitable that you shocked the individual?
Why does your sudden (if misunderstood) knowledge of 'fatalism' entail that this person had to have
been shocked?
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterYes. I agree. So what determined that the shock subroutine would
Under determisnism only one outcome is possible.
transpire. You said you gave in to fatalism. Why should this necessarily
have led to shocking an individual.
You are being incoherent by simply saying, 'Fate made me shock an
individual.' This is not determinism. Something determined it. What
was it?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioCOMPUTER----Within me exists the possibility to consider all sorts of actions good and bad. I was thinking about shocking when I had my crisis of fatalism. Think of it a bit like having a thought just before you go to sleep that creates a dream.
Yes. I agree. So what determined that the shock subroutine would
transpire. You said you gave in to fatalism. Why should this necessarily
have led to shocking an individual.
You are being incoherent by simply saying, 'Fate made me shock an
individual.' This is not determinism. Something determined it. What
was it?
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat happened to thinking about how causing suffering is a bad thing?
COMPUTER----Within me exists the possibility to consider all sorts of actions good and bad. I was thinking about shocking when I had my crisis of fatalism. Think of it a bit like having a thought just before you go to sleep that creates a dream.
What happened to desiring to minimize suffering?
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe future was determined by your program. We both agree on this
I would have moved on to considering these as well but I gave up believeing there was any point because my future was pre-determined anyway.
point. Please stop repeating it. You were presented with a situation
and, after weighing variables within the given situation, the program
directed your action. We agree on this point.
What I want you to do is go from the observation of fatalism and trace
me down the path of your program until the shock. It is not evident to
me that, 'Given the realization of fatalism, the shock must occur.'
Given that you are a computer, you should be able to explain why the
knowledge of fatalism provided programmatic impetus to cause a shock
greater than the existing desires not to cause shocks that you had within
you previous to your 'recoginizing fatalism.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioCOMP- It wasn't that recognising fatalism provided the impetus to shock , it was that it took away the impetus to prevent the shock. The impulse to shock was not constrained because sub routines were not being activated that could have been if I had not succumbed to fatalism.
The future was determined by your program. We both agree on this
point. Please stop repeating it. You were presented with a situation
and, after weighing variables within the given situation, the program
directed your action. [b]We agree on this point.
What I want you to do is go from the observation of fatalism and trace
me down the path of ...[text shortened]... o cause shocks that you had within
you previous to your 'recoginizing fatalism.'
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by knightmeisterOkay. Why did recognizing fatalism remove the impetus to 'avoid causing suffering?'
COMP- It wasn't that recognising fatalism provided the impetus to shock , it was that it took away the impetus to prevent the shock. The impulse to shock was not constrained because sub routines were not being activated that could have been if I had not succumbed to fatalism.
Keep in mind that your actions are determined by your program, not by some outside dualistic force.
So, an input yields an output based on your program. So, show me how this input logically resulted
in this output.
Nemesio