Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

its 45 min long... but I bet someone will respond before watching the whole thing

I was there for the speech, so I don't really need to watch it. He doesn't understand perspective. The notion that design is distinct from chance is based upon a flawed understanding of consciousness.

Essentially, we see design where we can attribute causation to our agency. However, when that agency is seen as nothing more than one causal factor amongst many there is no distinction to be made.

If we have free will, then so does everything else. If nothing else has free will, then neither do we.

dogma wrote:I was there for the speech, so I don't really need to watch it. He doesn't understand perspective. The notion that design is distinct from chance is based upon a flawed understanding of consciousness.

You like to hide behind the words "flawed understanding of consciousness." Maybe you're view is flawed and his isn't? Wait that's a slippery slope argument.

But seriously now. Why didn't you state this at the talk then while you were there?

frgsinwntr wrote:
You like to hide behind the words "flawed understanding of consciousness." Maybe you're view is flawed and his isn't? Wait that's a slippery slope argument.

Not really. I believe his understanding of consciousness is flawed. He hasn't taken into account much the recent research in neuroscience which is the bread and butter of philosophy of mind. My view may be incorrect, but it is correctly my view and I act/think in accordance with it.

You're treading awfully close to a matter of rehearsed prejudice.

frgsinwntr wrote:
But seriously now. Why didn't you state this at the talk then while you were there?

Because it would not be polite to do so. You don't 'state' things when people give talks, you ask questions. Idiot children state things.

dogma wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
You like to hide behind the words "flawed understanding of consciousness." Maybe you're view is flawed and his isn't? Wait that's a slippery slope argument.

Not really. I believe his understanding of consciousness is flawed. He hasn't taken into account much the recent research in neuroscience which is the bread and butter of philosophy of mind. My view may be incorrect, but it is correctly my view and I act/think in accordance with it.

You're treading awfully close to a matter of rehearsed prejudice.

frgsinwntr wrote:
But seriously now. Why didn't you state this at the talk then while you were there?

Because it would not be polite to do so. You don't 'state' things when people give talks, you ask questions. Idiot children state things.

Nice hidden flamebait again. Am I your target tonight?

Sooo basically you're saying your thoughts on metacongnition would be otherwise unrelated to the science he was discussing in his talk? You're not really stating an argument except... "EVERYONE IS FLAWED! MY philosophy professor told me so! "

What is your POINT?

Are you saying that chance and design are the same thing?

frgsinwntr wrote:
Nice hidden flamebait again. Am I your target tonight?

Persecution complex? Is everything that is not a ringing endorsement tantamount to a flame?

frgsinwntr wrote:
Sooo basically you're saying your thoughts on metacongnition would be otherwise unrelated to the science he was discussing in his talk? You're not really stating an argument except... "EVERYONE IS FLAWED! MY philosophy professor told me so! "

I'm not making an argument, I'm simply stating that his argument is flawed. If I were making an argument I would lay down my case via symbolic logic.

The vid dude is making an attempt to eliminate design from the question without properly acknowledging that the distinction between design and chance is dependent upon the existence of both.

frgsinwntr wrote:
What is your POINT?

What's yours?

frgsinwntr wrote:
Are you saying that chance and design are the same thing?

I'm saying that design is an illusion foisted upon us by the limitations of perspective. As such, when discussing metaphysical notions, it is only proper to refer to them all as the result of design, or the result of chance. Anything else should be reserved for matters of greater egotism.

You really like to hide behind big words to make yourself feel/appear smarter : )

Let's analyze this...

Chance... happens randomly

Design... something through deliberate action sets out to do something and does.

are you saying then that all random actions are therefore designed to happen and everything is planned out ahead of time?

This is my guess to what i think he meant. Designs are equal to chance.
Because we arnt exactly genetically programed to replicate same designs. There would be variation in such designs .
thus variation = random chance.

But if i interpret it wrong , dododo ... *runs away

frgsinwntr wrote:You really like to hide behind big words to make yourself feel/appear smarter : )

You can believe that if you like. I speak/type in accordance with the vocabulary that I possess.

frgsinwntr wrote:
Let's analyze this...

Chance... happens randomly

Design... something through deliberate action sets out to do something and does.

What do you mean by deliberate? How is that distinct from chance? I may 'deliberately' poor myself another drink, but that 'deliberation' may be the result of a partiuclar electron binding itself with a particular proton within the larger structure of my cerebellum. As such, the action itself is nothing more than the result of a chance association. Unless, of course, those sub-atomic particles are capable of intent.

frgsinwntr wrote:
are you saying then that all random actions are therefore designed to happen and everything is planned out ahead of time?

No. Read my post again. I made no committment to either possibility. You're associating me with one particular position on the basis of emotional need.

dogma wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:You really like to hide behind big words to make yourself feel/appear smarter : )

You can believe that if you like. I speak/type in accordance with the vocabulary that I possess.

frgsinwntr wrote:
Let's analyze this...

Chance... happens randomly

Design... something through deliberate action sets out to do something and does.

What do you mean by deliberate? How is that distinct from chance? I may 'deliberately' poor myself another drink, but that 'deliberation' may be the result of a partiuclar electron binding itself with a particular proton within the larger structure of my cerebellum. As such, the action itself is nothing more than the result of a chance association. Unless, of course, those sub-atomic particles are capable of intent.

frgsinwntr wrote:
are you saying then that all random actions are therefore designed to happen and everything is planned out ahead of time?

No. Read my post again. I made no committment to either possibility. You're associating me with one particular position on the basis of emotional need.

Oh, so what you're saying is that that electron bonded by chance and that this chance occurrence brought about a designed response? But then... is it really chance? Subatomic particles behave certain predictable ways.

frgsinwntr wrote:
Oh, so what you're saying is that that electron bonded by chance and that this chance occurrence brought about a designed response? But then... is it really chance? Subatomic particles behave certain predictable ways.

Indeed they do, I've studied a bit of physics myself, but so do humans. What I'm saying, really, is that the boundary between design and chance is nowhere near as impermeable as many seem to think.

In alternative language: If we do not grant intent to the particles which constitute out substance we cannot grant intent to ourselves. At least not without some form of mind-body dualism (which takes us into theological territory very quickly).

Edit: There's also the issue of emergent property theory (basically, the whole is more than the sum of its parts), but that gets into highly technical territory.

dogma wrote:

Edit: There's also the issue of emergent property theory (basically, the whole is more than the sum of its parts), but that gets into highly technical territory.

Go for it. Make your argument if this is where the topic is going. I'm curious now

Alright, please bear with the typos, as I'm currently drinking.

Beginning with emergent property theory (Searle's, as that is my area of knowledge) we can approach the notion of design as something that emerges from more simplistic processes.

Obviously we are composed of atoms, and atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles. While these objects are governed by certain rules, we do not consider them to be subject to intent. The electron does not choose to be bound to a proton, it does so because it must.

We also take certain actions. We believe that intent is generally behind those actions, but that is largely a product of convention. There is no particular reason that we should be considered subject to intent, while the atoms that constitute us are not. In essence, we might be approached as though we are subject to a wave function that is comparable to that which governs the electron (I generally refer to this as 'bounded possibility' in order to avoid prejudice).

If we (we references humanity as a whole) cannot be described by a wave function, then we must view our minds/selves as emergent properties of our biological substance. Searle intended this to be a way of escaping theological influence, but it doesn't really do so. No matter what, if we are not simply variables within the scope of chance occurrence, we must derive our essence from a source which can only be considered as mystical (in the sense in which mystical references that which is not known).

Edit: This isn't meant to do away with intent, not necessarily anyway, but it is meant to force us to reconsider intent.