The Free Will Debate (2020) by Daniel Sanderson - #Googleplanksip

This controversy began ex nihilo between Anscombe and Lukasiewicz regarding the principle of individuation on the works of Aristotle (see Anscombe et al. 1953). At the beginning of any discussion related to Free Will or Determinism, I try to preface all opening remarks with a definition of Individuation and bring attention to the potential pitfalls of isolating any position into an unfalsifiable point-of-view. Are you ready? Ready for the paradigm shift? Our comprehension and artificial manipulation of information structures are changing the landscape of life. The evolution of our species is already millions of years in the making. The definition of consciousness is a delta function, a change over time of the mind over matters of perceived reality. Time is an important dimension to the definition of consciousness and I am surprised that it doesn't filter into every discussion. Did I back myself into a corner? How do we test this theory? The arrow of time moves forward in cadence with our thoughts. Defining consciousness should be easy if time was irrelevant. 500,000 years in the future human consciousness will undoubtedly be different than it is today. In Rene Descartes’ famous phrase, Cogito ergo sum, we dropped the prefix of doubt from this thought concept. Few people realize the context that this was written. It should be represented as, “I doubt I think, therefore I am”. Why did we drop the doubt? Purge it like an appendage, an unnecessary extension of cognition? Really? Doubt is a pillar of Reason. Do I really need to justify that claim and how it relates to consciousness? It seems like an impossibility that the “lights” will turn on in the same way without a doubtful, thinking self. AI researchers and number theorists should keep this in mind if replicating human consciousness is their “prime” directive.

Support Your Friendly Neighbourhood Atelier Today!