Philosophy

It's crazy to me that we can all agree on relativity. Time moves differently in different locations you are viewing from.

Yet we believe free will is something that either exists or doesn't. 

Clearly, like relativity, it changes based on where you are looking from.

Many such cases of things where the truth changes based on where you are observing from.

Former neuroscientist working in AI and distributed data. https://relativereality.substack.com Writings.


Recursive nature of human experience: /mirror-loom

So… is it still proper to evaluate the truth or falsity of generic claims or can we just dispense with the bullshit and start using the language of dynamics to talk about everything?

building, spreading good vibes, having fun

tipping $.05 with likes via @tipn and 1k $m00npapi.eth via @noice

/evermark

Yes, I mean essentially you're talking about diving deeper into the subjective view.

The subjective view seems to be making a comeback in the age of AI and we think hard about what subjectivity actually is, what the experience of consciousness actually is. The world cannot be understood purely objectively.

A few among many examples: https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Spot-Science-Cannot-Experience/dp/0262048809/

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/12/observer-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-2162920

It’s situationally oriented. So instead of talking in the abstract about whether we have free will, we explore the specifics of cases in which people have more or less free will… or, to pull a term from ecological psychology, it makes more sense to talk about the affordances available to animals via direct perception. 

Free will discussion < exploration of affordances in relation to animals in their environments

tell me more about the language of dynamics.