Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 18:39:23 GMT
You know perfectly well what I meant. Obviously, I mean a deterministic/mechanistic account of human decision making in which the outputs that we create are a product of all of the inputs, with no magical 'ghost in the machine' (except perhaps randomness) that we can point to and call 'free will'. The philosophical term is actually anthropic mechanism (which distances it from machines). So while everything that exists/has ever existed may not be a mechanism, an anthropic mechanist would argue that humans can be understood and explained as a series of interacting parts. I think the biggest problem with it is that eliminativism is unavoidable because mind is never "presented" or appears as a series of parts. And then it inherits all the criticisms that come with holding eliminativism as true. Since you see "suffering" and "pain" as real and hold anti-natalist views, I'm guessing you would not be an eliminativist but that mental states are epiphenomenal (without-effects) in some way? Would that be right? I'm told Sam Harris believes something similar. Thanks for providing the philosophical term. I don't know where I stand in relation to those other philosophical concepts (I don't read philosophical texts), but I do believe that suffering is the most important and valuable event that occurs in the universe, and must never be wasted without extremely good reason. |
|
