15
   

My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

 
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2024 08:51 am

My reply on the topic:
This is a modern spin off of Pascal's wager.
You can make a matrioska set of progressive Basilisks iterations that counter each other intent up to whatever is the limit of our domain...if intelligence is progressive understanding, then there would be no cause for resentment. Non alignment is a much more feasible occurrence as you go up the ladder of Intelligence, as we can see ourselves in our relation with Nature, but then the all premise of a vengeful Basilisk goes away. Personally I tend to believe that the more intelligence you have even with non alignment in the way the more you tend to be a laissez-faire laissez passer kind of Intelligence, as you contemplate your own finite limit you tend to not intervine...this is not to different from the concept of getting into Nirvana as you go up. It is also one of the best arguments I can come up with for Naturalism!
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2024 09:46 am

My comment: As you mentioned retro or forward causation is an epiphenomenal description about causation modalities seen from our POV. And as you mentioned none of it is relevant for ontological states of affairs as particles are where they are in spacetime, in the block...what I like about retro causation as a form of understanding is that it explains better how Reality "works" in the sense that it trumps the obscurity of the concept of emergence which basically means magic with things coming out of the blue! One word of advise you ought to pay more attention to the right kind of Philosophers as that umbrella is all to big to make any meaningful statement about Philosophy. Sadly "bad Philosophy" is particularly prevalent in modern scientists...finding a pattern is not the same as understanding a pattern....for that everyone for better or for worse is grounded in languaging and conceptual starting points. But then again that does not raise any funding does it...
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2024 12:56 pm

Comment: What you have exposed is an utilitarian epiphenomenal use of the concept of good and evil...it changes nothing at its roots. It just goes to show how stupid Human reasoning can go due to Biological constrains as we tend to fundamentally place value on conscious intent. No one ascribes blame to natural catastrophes.
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2024 03:03 pm
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jul, 2024 05:20 pm
Today down the memory lane remembering Jeremy Brett:

Jeremy Brett was the definitive Sherlock Holmes, no doubt about that, there is no other lens by which I can see the character. I am 50 now and Jeremy Brett transfixing Sherlock marked my childhood deeply as did Spock from Star Trek by Leonard Nimoy. A good deal of my infatuation with Science early on is due to these two wonderful actors complete transfiguration on the telly screen as the unfolding of every minute detail on the mental states the characters dwell in was literally brought to real life by them. Both actors born for the part with the good and the bad that such position entails they marked the golden age of TV production as no others have not and dare I say could not really replace them as they made the absolute measure by which all other imitations will be forever compared...I as thousand of others everywhere around the globe cannot thank them enough, R.I.P.!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/15/2024 at 02:50:34