Comments on: Rudy as World-Spirit

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:55:06 +0000

Hey, engels, I was just trying to make a joke.

Still, I don’t understand, again, why chemical and electromagnetic processes in my brain should constitute a different category of constraints than, say, handcuffs.

If everything indeed is already predetermined, then the notion of a set of hypothetical options that would’ve been available to me had I been a different person (or rather a set of different persons) seems totally frivolous.

By: Faber

Faber — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:54:56 +0000

Re: the ceding of decision power to some common authority—Baruch Spinoza also spoke of this, noting that the best such common authority is a republic.

Re: scanners. In terms of hardware capabilities, almost anything you get will be over-engineered for the job. I’ve had very good luck with the Canon LiDE, which, since it uses LED rather than fluorescent illumination, requires no warmup time, and also derives all its power from the USB connection, obviating the need for yet another “wall wart.” It’s compact, TWAIN-compliant, reasonably speedy, and a good performer.

By: engels

engels — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:41:05 +0000

What do you care, there’s not been a single on-topic comment here for 2 days. Are you a law&order kinda guy yourself? How does it feel to be one, I’m curious?

Ok, abb1, you’re just trolling. If I’d known that, I wouldn’t have bothered responding.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:38:54 +0000

Going back on-topic:
These are worthwhile issues but they are off-topic here.

What do you care, there’s not been a single on-topic comment here for 2 days. Are you a law&order kinda guy yourself? How does it feel to be one, I’m curious?

By: engels

engels — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:00:52 +0000

It seems that if you want to accept determinism and remain materialistic, it should be logical to assume that all there’s there is just a machine without any ghost inside whatsoever.

But that’s exactly what compatibilists like Sam do assume. Everything may be pre-determined; there is no “ghostly” causality-violating free will. Such a position is not “dualistic” and it does not “contrast” human will with “material phenomena”. Willed action, on this view, is a special kind of physical phenomenon. These are worthwhile issues but they are off-topic here. If you do want to learn something about them, you might start here:

http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014

By: roy belmont

roy belmont — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:07:02 +0000

“You can’t prove that there is a single possible alternative to the universe as it exists at this moment.”
This universe. One of an infinite number. Also this one and most of the others probably cycle in a temporal sense, so that at some point in the future they contract backward through time, toward what some myopic astro-physicists are still calling the “big bang”; then, with minor and major adjustments and tweaks, coursing right back out through these and adjacent, parallel, and alternate iterations of “universe”. Rinse, repeat.
Free will in an ordered universe is an impossibility, like bringing something new into an hermetically sealed chamber without breaking the seal; as is conscious participation in a predetermined, totally mechanical reality – and yet, here we are.
Possibly the conflict is built in to, or arises as a result of, the inaccurate terminology we use to ask these questions about where we are. Possibly the main error is in our framing.
Giuliani’s riding similar misapprehensions, of human purpose and fixed essence, toward an end that has more to do with the personal survival of his fellow neo-fascists and their bovine resource-aggregate, than the preservation of anything high and noble in the human continuum.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:40:58 +0000

I understand that this is OT and has little to do with politics, except, perhaps, that a good dose of determinism could help balance the messianic complex most American politicians and many ordinary Americans suffer from.

Now, maybe ‘idealism’ is not the right word, it’s probably ‘dualism’ or something. This approach contrasts material phenomena against this “will” you mentioned. Sorta like ‘the ghost in the machine’ idea, even if the ghost here is a deterministic fella.

It seems that if you want to accept determinism and remain materialistic, it should be logical to assume that all there’s there is just a machine without any ghost inside whatsoever. But hey, what do I know?

By: Sam C

Sam C — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:25:30 +0000

The distinction is between the proximate cause of one’s action being one’s will and the proximate cause being something else. This isn’t arbitrary, just because it’s generally very important to creatures like us to be able to exert control, i.e. to be able to act on one’s will. I don’t understand what you mean by ‘idealistic’, nor do I know what ‘illusion’ I’m supposed to be maintaining. Again, compatibilism is background to the political point that we need to know not what ‘freedom’ really means (there is no such real meaning) but to decide which freedoms are important.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:15:14 +0000

I read what wikipedia has to say about compatibilism. Best I can understand, you differentiate between ‘external’ constraints and the ‘internal’ (psychological) ones. Combined they only leave one single possibility, but you would prefer to minimize the external kind. Correct?

I don’t find it convincing. The distinction seems arbitrary, the approach is idealistic. In fact, all the constraints are of the same nature. You can’t fly because of gravity and you can’t watch Channel 5 because of the way electrical currents flow inside your brain. Both constraints are due to the physical laws of nature, they are not different in any significant respect. It seems that it’s only useful to differentiate this way if you want to maintain the illusion.

By: Sam C

Sam C — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:59:17 +0000

abb1 at 71: ‘Well, Sam, you’re still assuming that there is a set of options, but what if, due to all the known and unknown constraints, there’s only one single option. For example, while reading these words right now, you feel that you could’ve chosen to do something else instead, but I don’t see any evidence to that. You can’t prove that there is a single possible alternative to the universe as it exists at this moment.’

I’m not assuming that, and I don’t understand how you could read what I wrote and suppose that I am. To repeat: the ‘set of options’ I refer to is not the range of things which really might happen, depending on which way some utterly mysterious act of free will turns out. It’s the range of hypothetical actions which are not closed to someone by constraint, coercion, lack of capacity, lack of resources, etc. Freedom is not a matter of being uncaused, it’s a matter of being caused in the right way.

This is a standard compatibilist account of free will, and intended only as background to the on-topic point I was making, that the political argument is not going to be settled by arguing over the definition of ‘freedom’. The political question is, Which freedoms are important?

You’re quite right that I ‘can’t prove that there is a single possible alternative to the universe as it exists at this moment’, but this doesn’t concern me at all, since I don’t want to prove any such thing: I’m a compatibilist. I think the ‘possible alternative’ claim is almost certainly false.

By: Tim McG

Tim McG — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:25:43 +0000

Getting in such a tizz about one line of Giuliani’s is rather silly, but thankfully some people here (Belle at 17: Bravissima!) are pointing out the big picture. Yes, he’s said one thing that could be interpreted in a somewhat interesting light. BFD. Little Al Capone liked his milk and cookies, too.

Dang, Richard beat me to posting my advice about OCRing.

By: Tim McG

Tim McG — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:21:23 +0000

When you’re scanning for ocr purposes (or taking digital photos per slocum’s good advice), if the pages are thin, you’ll do well to slip a sheet of black paper behind the page you’re scanning to reduce noise from the back of the page.

By: Tim McG

Tim McG — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:11:18 +0000

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:05:11 +0000

Well, Sam, you’re still assuming that there is a set of options, but what if, due to all the known and unknown constraints, there’s only one single option. For example, while reading these words right now, you feel that you could’ve chosen to do something else instead, but I don’t see any evidence to that. You can’t prove that there is a single possible alternative to the universe as it exists at this moment.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:05:11 +0000

With respect to a scanner and OCR, I’d suggest using your digital camera—it’s much faster and you already have one.

This is quite true, IF: you’re very disciplined about getting the pages straight and flat, and you have a good, even, bright lamp setup (and you put a bit of black paper underneath the page you’re currently photographing. Ideally you want some good, small, heavy weights to hold the pages in place and a special booth for doing the shooting.

I’ve wasted a few hours on this, and wound up spending a couple of hundred dollars on a scanner.