Darn, were not getting through to them. Quick, increase the subliminal content! Bring in the bearded, intelligent looking man!
First. What does determinist mean? I was guessing, and I think I goofed.
What you said is that my humans would work automatically. I said they wouldn’t because they would have to guess at the benefit and detriment. Because both the benefit and and detriment are caused by the action, they have to come after it(chronologically). Thus, humans can only guess what the consequences will be, based on past similar events. It is up to the human to decide.
This is not theology. It is my project. How elegant can you make the world? The question here is how elegant can you make humans?
What Occam’s Razor refers to is elegance. Elegance is a pretty word for efficiency, which is the most benefit for the least effort+detriment. Evolution encourages elegance.
In case you haven’t noticed, I don’t understand your misunderstanding. Please help me. What is wrong?[/i]
Okay, you’re looking for a simple model. If you start out that way, you’ll end up that way. I think my question has been (and I think someone else has had this question, but I’m not scrolling up to find out who) - would that make it correct? Correcter? Does it make your model a more accurate reflection of the world? Of humans?
Determinism vs. Free Will is an aged theological debate. Has to do with sin. You can google this, I’m sure. Do we have the free will to make the choices that may lead us to sin, or are we predestined to. Google Protestant work ethic, Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, the Enlightenment, um, er, why are you using the method popularised by a 14th-century logicitian/nominalist/theologian to support your model in the first place?
You seem to be throwing darts on a board. I gotta at least get high for this.
I screwed up, bad. At what point were you still understanding? Forget I said determinism.
Forgive me, but yes. I think. In the evolutionary world, a simpler system is a better system. As long the simple and the complex achieve exactly the same thing the simple one is better. Because it takes less energy and that energyt can be applied to further things.
What I think this is is an ethic. But a fundamental ethic, the base of all human thought.
Think about the formula.
if (increase in chance of survival) <= (decrease in chance of survival)
The fields are “increase in survival rate” and “decrease in survival rate”. All sensory organs are an attempt to fully evaluate these two fields.
You know what? I’m in a rut. I have to think some more, and report back. Bye.