Okay, how do we come to a shared understanding of the definition and the meaning of “human autonomy” such that through this consensus we are able to determine if in fact we have it?
Is it more logical or rational that we should have it or that we should not?
In other words, given that language is a tool that the human species has acquired in order to facilitate communication, what are the limitations imposed on it? When do we reach the point where reason appears to give way to sheer speculation?
Also there’s an element of good will that we have to agree to… because our language isn’t precise and requires some interpretation
Exactly. So, what it often comes down to in exchanges like this is the part where some are so certain of the precision of their language/argument/communication skills that they completely lose patience with those you don’t eventually come around to their way of thinking.
Now, me, I am more than willing to sustain “good will” in any particular exchange. In part becasue I recognize that, in regard to questions this big, there is almost no chance that what I think I know is in fact what is entirely true.
In fact, from my experience, it is generally the objectivists and their ilk that tend to slide effortlessly into ad homs and huffing and puffing.
I will try to respond to the most charitable interpretation of you that I can think of… and I expect you to do the same.
Charitable? I don’t know how that connotes with you but with me it seems to be right around the corner from magnanimous. You patiently try to explain how you think about something but it is not sinking in. So you’ll be all that more patient.
And, sure, with some things that’s more or less understandable. After all, some things [relationships] can in fact be demonstrated as either this or that.
But questions revolving are human autonomy? around the is/ought world? around an understanding of existence itself?
How far can logic or rationality penetrate here?
What I mean is that starting with your first point…
“1. Systems are not slaves to the rules that govern their fundamental building blocks… they subsume those rules and build their own rules from them.”
…we focus in on a particular system in a particular context. One that most here will be familiar with. An economic system. A political system. A system that revolves around a business or a sporting event or a social gathering or a religious experience.
A system where actual men and women interact by making choices. Choices that others react to as either reasonable or unreasonable. As either moral or immoral. As either autonomous or determined.
What might constitute slavery in this particular system? What is the relationship between the rules that are or are not followed and what are deemed to be the fundamental building blocks?
I realize you’re engaged in many other conversations and may not recall the context… You and I seem to have a disagreement about whether or not choice can exist in a deterministic universe.
That particular tautology was meant to explain how one might have a system like say “human brains” be capable of things that the atoms they are made up of are not capable of.
A real world example for us to examine would be the computer in front of me…
My computer is made up of atoms and it can run windows, go online, do math, load up ILPHow can atoms run windows, go online, do math or load up ILP?
In other words, how are the interactions of the atomic and sub-atomic particles in the computer the same or different from the interactions of atomic and sub-atomic particles in the brain?
Well, the choices made by the computer seem to be entirely dependent on the computer program that has been installed in it. But when we Google something and it pops up on the screen the computer itself is not conscious of making this happen. It’s not like the computer can decide to bring up something not googled instead.
Now, with the human brain we have matter that is able to think that it is freely making the choice to google dog instead of cat. But if we live in a metaphysically determined universe what does that really mean? If I choose to Google dog instead of cat but I was never really able to google cat instead of dog, there’s still a choice.
But, come on…