OMG I Kant even.

@FDCLDN

9 жыл бұрын

SophisticatedBanjo you Kant

@Ben-rz9cf

6 жыл бұрын

Try to Kantrol yourself

For the sake of discussion, I'd imagine that even "ought" might be part of a human's programming. Yes, we have "ought" in our systems, but it could simply be in our brains to tell us that if Player 2 requires more health than we do, then we're obligated to give it to him. However, even that would require predetermination that would make us act that way every single time, and in real life that doesn't happen. Therefore, it may be that our brains our complex to the point where tons of different variables apply (mood, attitude, the situation itself, etc), so while it looks like we may choose whether take the health pack for ourselves give it to Player 2, several variables might be affecting both us and Player 2 that are too complex for us to obviously point out one by one, but in fact it is all some incredible equation that amounts to predetermination - we may just not be able to appreciate it yet. Personally, I believe in free will, but I certainly see where the predeterminists are coming from.

@mraligamer70

10 жыл бұрын

However you can chose to deny the person the pack, or the other. You think about both of them and ultimately choose one, however if you make a decision you can change it immediately, so you may offer the pack to Player 2, but as soon as he goes to get it, you refuse. Therefore if it was at any point, to any extent pre determined you wouldn't be able to change that decision.

@christophernewbold403

10 жыл бұрын

Ali Khan How exactly does changing the decision suddenly nullify predetermination?

@x3naurus

10 жыл бұрын

Ali Khan again, like he said, there's still even more variables there. I personally think that our variables come from such a laundry list of factors that play into our lives, and due to the fact that we can only begin to understand the exact effects of childhood upbringing and teaching, as well as the perception of that teaching, and whether or not the teaching was remembered, and how important that teaching is compared to other teachings... That's currently incalculable, but I think that it can be displayed, soon. How many neurotransmitters are sent out when...? Etc.

@x3naurus

10 жыл бұрын

Ali Khan another thing... You may see computers as "make a decision, complete that decision..." but, some computers, as well as us, are constantly re-deciding, and sometimes, on a random redecision, one variable increases, and we "change our mind." I see the AI of video games do this, already.

@christophernewbold403

10 жыл бұрын

Jadden Norman Random change does not constitute free will.

Do we have the ability to will, or is it just an illusion caused by our inability to identify and understand all the variables related to our decision making process? Impossible to answer, yet.

The great question is, does the contra code work on the human body?

@camazotzz

10 жыл бұрын

it made me void my bowels, don't try it.

@ZoanBlade90

9 жыл бұрын

camazotzz LOL

@ZoanBlade90

9 жыл бұрын

All it does is make you hyper. I wouldn't recommend it.

@kormannn1

6 жыл бұрын

what would b and a mean in this case? What if left and right are just turning around but not move in these directions?

I would argue that the desire to give something to someone else rather than ourselves has also been programmed into us through social engineering. We are social creatures, and in order to survive through the ages, we've had to take care of one another. If we didn't, humans would've been extinct a long time ago. The desire to provide for another could be programmed into our brains in the same way we care for the self. Animals also do this, just look at elephants, or mice, or even cats. The natural instinct to provide or feed is something almost all animals posses, and I think could be argued is a part of their own natural programming. After all, genes are nature's "binary code." You could also argue that deciding NOT to help the other person is a part of our programming, for the person could've done it for humor's sake (which animals also do) or even just a compulsive need to protect the self. So to answer the question, do we operate like computers? Well, we may not be like the computers we have today, but I think we share many similarities, and eventually computers could become exactly like us.

@DaemonEX0

9 жыл бұрын

CrimsonOptics Exactly. 'Will' goes beyond what is good for oneself on the short term. As a learning, social creature, we are not always immediately selfish. And even beyond social boundaries, we might have experiences that makes us make choices that seem incomprehensible to others. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that thought doesn't affect our decision-making, so simply mindlessly surrendering to fate is different from surrendering to the reality of a causal universe.

@Gabu_

8 жыл бұрын

+CrimsonOptics The fact that computers are modeled after ourselves, and that boolean algebra was made with human thought in mind, helps this argument.

@mariuszj3826

8 жыл бұрын

+CrimsonOptics If we were "programmed" by strict definition of the word some of us wouldn't raise aids treatment medication to 400 dollars while the rest thought the guy was an evil fuck. It's false diachotomy.

@snoopl2898

8 жыл бұрын

+Mariusz J Not everyone's programming is the same. #SimpleThought

I'm really digging these videos. They're great to watch and are fantastic little snack sized pieces of philosophy :)

Wouldn't a better question be: "are we designing the way computers act based on how we understand *ourselves* to act?" The behavior of allowing a socially accepted other to obtain the health pack over your own, lesser, need is explainable, predictable, and can be programmed into the actions of a machine. Our brains work with complicated input and reasoning. Computing can be just as complicated. Comparing computer programming to "me want food now" is disingenuous.

@sirsimplexton3151

9 жыл бұрын

Pebkio Nomare A lot of philosophy seems to do this to me. It accepts complexity for granted as some mysterious, magical force, like "empathy" and "altruism". Both of those still break down to self-interest. We have enough data now to know that egoism seems unambiguously true with 3 types of altruism (reciprocation, group selection, nepotism) as well as the neurons that trigger empathic behavior. All of these recurse back to self-interest, but not necessarily "conscious self-interest", so it's not necessarily "psychological egoism" since that's focused on our conscious perspective. Free will strongly appears to be, for all intensive purposes, an illusion. It's an illusion that gets stronger as we grow into adults. Children are more like the "me want food now" case. They haven't accumulated the complexity and memory and machine training to obscure their behaviors to the point of having a strong illusion of "free will".

@PanicbyExample

9 жыл бұрын

Sir Simplexton isn't describing ego as objective impertinent? doesn't it suggest that there's something in it for science to discover that as human nature... there are things science describes as biologically evident but bridging the gap between objective evidence and subjective singularity isn't something science except as shorthand coding to understand what's been uncovered... this is an example of how sophisticated we are and also how beyond our own comprehension we are...computing can be more complicated than the human brain because math is more complicated than the human brain... but to someone uninformed, intensely difficult math isn't complicated it's foreign... yet despite their handicap in math their brain is still incredibly sophisticated, but there's no computing power that can sit them down and help them except another human it isn't a contest or anything... it's just economics is really complicated too but when everyone put there hearts into money that didn't go so well so i'm hesitant to get too bent on being overtly technophile

@sirsimplexton3151

9 жыл бұрын

I think merely asserting that we have this internal machinery which is self-interested is rather irrelevant in philosophy. However, we don't have to stop there. We can describe the universal shared characteristics of that self-interest, and here's the kicker where it might become relevant: satisfying those universal goals makes us happy. We don't have to state that we _ought_ to be happy. That's a tautology intrinsic to the system, and every _ought_ statement is a subset of that since it's coming from systems that seek nothing else. We can't help but seek what makes us happy. We have no free will to choose otherwise. Everything we do has that goal in mind, no matter how abstracted our behaviors become and how many sub-goals we build on top to the point of obfuscating it completely. The reason we have the illusion of choice is because our machinery is capable of abstracting our reasoning to indirectly pursue a goal, A, which indirectly fulfills another goal, B, which indirectly fulfills another, C, and so forth, leading back to an underlying goal Z which we're not even consciously aware is there. Because we build these branching goals on top of this human-universal root goal, we get subjectivity. If I say that women _ought_ to be treated equal because [...], that hits one of my sub-goals but that sub-goal might not be a branch for a Sharia-fundamentalist. Yet if we identify the universal human goal at the root which we both share, then I can frame that "because [...]" part in a way hitting the root human goal we both share. We get depressed when our actions are so abstracted away from that underlying goal that it is no longer effectively fulfilling it, and this is easier to do when our inputs become sufficiently complex to the point of making "life seem absurd" (a very complex civilization or as the result of maturity -- it's easier to be happy in a jungle just like it's easier to be happy when we're children). One of the things that makes the idea of doing everything selfishly perplexing and seemingly "oppressive", "anarchistic" is that many don't understand that we already have one form of altruism hard-coded into us: nepotism (having a natural predisposition to potential mates and family members still capable of reproducing, especially children). Deeper reasoning creating abstract concepts leads to other forms of altruism like reciprocation (Golden Rule) as being in this system's self-interest. Reciprocation is pseudo-instinctive as well, as we're equipped with things like mirror neurons that appear to drive it, but it seems to require a sufficient conscious reasoning capability as well (it seems to require more maturity and more intellect, as we only find it in smarter creatures like dolphins or great apes and only discover the need for it in older versions of ourselves if we don't condition our children to develop such traits prematurely by teaching them to share and so forth). That means that this machine-like notion of "self-interest" actually goes beyond your physical body. It's actually an "us-interested" machine. From this perplexing genetic point of view which eludes our consciousness, it's to your self-interest to sacrifice yourself for your child if the conditions are favorable for the child to survive without you (opposite if not). That sounds like an oxymoron but we developed all of our language relative to our conscious states. There's a drive there pulling your actions towards nepotistic altruism in the same way that your body is hard-coded to be pulled towards resting when fatigued. When we become more aware of these things and what makes us happy, then oughts cease to become a matter of appeal to opinions so much as something we can rationalize. We can start to figure out "better oughts". And I think that gets us somewhere. I'm in the engineering/scientific realm and many of us have recently become deeply annoyed by philosophy. In science we can clearly distinguish "better" and "worse". Like should we favor flat earth or round earth theory? There is an uncontested notion of "better" we can arrive at between those thanks to the aid of empirical data. It ceases to become a consensus of opinion but a consensus of reason that the conclusion supports the data, pulling us almost unanimously to favoring the idea that the earth is round. From a hardcore solipsist point of view, there is no such thing as absolute truth beyond existence. In that sense, even facts are subjective, but an impartial consensus among experts that the data unambiguously supports a theory often makes us confident enough to call it "fact". Yet how can we do such a thing when asking, "should we favor communism or capitalism?" on such rational grounds? We can't unless we recognize what the universal goal is so that we can start to see how the data relates to that universal goal. When we start understanding the self-motivated characteristics that seek happiness and the characteristics that satisfy it, we can begin to make a very rational case for what is "better" or "worse" in a given scenario without appealing to opinions. Opinions are just conclusions resulting from processing we can't fully articulate. The reason for it is that we're not fully "self-aware". We have introspection but not to the extent of fully understanding the machinery driving us to do one thing as opposed to another. I have seen some theists describe us as "souls experiencing our physical brain". It's more like we're "pseudo-self-aware machines not introspective enough to understand the full extent of our algorithms and inputs".

@PanicbyExample

9 жыл бұрын

i finished reading your comment but stopped the section by section approach but i'll paste it beneath my more immediate reaction cuz the scientists get annoyed by philosophy just... awww uhh... it's not a contest y'know? i have to think the first talkers were annoyed to shit over people who couldn't pronounce their dipthongs THAT'S A CAVEMAN JOKE... y'know... we're all just people in a world that's been changing every status quo but the one we can't quite to death our fingers on i love this 8-bit series, the camus video is my fave so far, and i'm gonna pick up the biography on him by todd frustration is not good in any light, i sympathize with philosophers because they can get no jobs, me i'm just a janitor i can get a job anywhere, but still as a scientist you have to redress your lingo and technical wherewithal for a lay people who are trying their damnedest, orange? f-no, scientists are the new black and everybody is getting their terms wrong i'd be afraid you would think i tangentially sprang from my primary reply to this as a way to reproof my dissent toward your opinion on free will, that frustrates me, i would feel like if i could prove the epigenesis? of my frustration it would provide whatever epiphany to prove my point instead of defeat yours but nevertheless i hereby copy and paste my thing: that it isn't irrelevant is my key point which we can disagree about but paradoxically (if not erroneously) makes it philosophical you're determining what a human is scientifically excluding the unscientific as rhetorical and rhetoric as baseless and sentimental by contrast one could assert that that is the ongoing definition of what a human is as there are no other species bound to the element of linguistic dillemmas and naturally what makes us happy does satisfy a philosophical calling and controversy, but philosophy doesn't have to get caught up in being right or wrong, only philosophers do albeit not necessarily i wouldn't suggest, and maybe you aren't either, that happiness is the keystone of what people ought to be striving for, or the common theme that people can agree on as a monolithic, ruling principle but i do find that happiness only has power in respect to one's experiences science, and by extension invention, is subject to the interpretations and complexity of form often condoned as spirit, similar to the emotions expressed by lay people nothing seems more inheritably profuse than the freedom to express oneself into a corner, as such the human condition doesn't have to be like, doesn't have to suffer the trappings of invention, it can exist as its own thing or be subject to whatever confines we would undergo the experimentation of respectively to each person, but that experimentation would need to reflect that individuation as a disclaimer of typification of the non-exploited willing person not the typification of people at large or 'types' of people normalcy is the problem here, where you define the norm and the group reacts to the unexpected as such and in lockstep what i'm suggesting is that the obfuscation you're referring to, and naturally we can disagree about this but that it is a scientific blindspot of the process of distancing itself as a body or whatever number of justifying (though certainly authentically invested) departmental bodies establishing a hyper-double-blindness to confirm what it, i suppose wants to suspect this is the ways cult form so the idea that that is the right idea, 'give up cuz you will', is a sound affirmation for me that if i read enough of Dianetics it would lead to cyclically-engaging conclusions that ouroboros as you please feed a synergy to the developmental mitosis of the blindspot that creates the capacity for will for the collective brownian motion was always the only evidence of free will i ever needed, evidence of humanity is i don't intend to wait and hear on but i know the answer isn't just computers... unless god is real and that's the joke i don't think people share human goals, i think relativism has always blown us away because it's childish and offers a sense of a fountain of youth... i think any form of convincing oversimplifcation does that but i believe that isn't necessatily cultural relativism as in sharia to democracy as much as it is intrinsic relativism and extrinsic relativism where people begin to believe in 'whatever' (in that resigned sense of forfeit) individually and expect others to endorse that belief developing social footholds for people 'lucky enough' to get exploited by someone with a plan i don't get depressed by abstracting my goals, which i believe is simply another point of disagreement not contention the nepotism as altruistic and egoistic is interesting. i'd suffered with the idea of being as impartial as possible and also concluded there has to be room for (at least) a gentle nepotism just for the sake of social lubrication (yes a motor metaphor) that sense of maturity seems anthropocentric, i'm not going to get into it except to say that in terms of robotics there is room to debate disagreements differently than contentions. if there could be such a computer that could willingly accede a convincing play at being a devil's advocate for something it didn't actually believe in... something like that is what i would need from a robot to have an objective point of comparison as to the natures of our respective intelligences a case could be made for being too smart to be so conniving, but in any case i would be remiss in not acknowledging that this goes nowhere for me it is purely linguistic and i fear the disdain toward that contention and the indulgence of that disdain would prove either of our points missing the point that what is in our self-interest is necessarily perceivable beyond hindsight i can't accept that things are self-interest driven because i can't accept that argument of competitiveness or the pitch of the spirit of that eureka this suggests i am only in denial and it is in my self-interest to live whatever this lie is and i can't think that was the intention of the research, so i chalk it up to scientific fallacy that will conform in time

@PanicbyExample

9 жыл бұрын

Sir Simplexton plus chance (back to brownian motion)!! chance has to disprove determinism, or rather chance would define the validity of determinism in any given moment that's what i more personally? intensely? believe is true that it can fluctuate according to will and fluctuates by chance over any lifetime which i can understand how that pertains to self-awareness but wouldn't expect that to define free will as much as appreciation for will in general

I was actually majoring in phlosophy but had to stop due to personal problems long ago bu I can say I love the vids and I love the fact weather people agree or don't agree with some philosophies they can all get together and either argue about them or talk about them or try and understand it or tear down but the point is that people can get together and talk about philosophical ideas which is pretty much basically one of the points of philosophy in general to get you thinking to get you to explore thoughts to get you to think what if ir what of or why or how to search for answers ty

Love the graphics on these Wisecrack posts. Keep em 8 bitty.

These videos are fantastic! I love that the overall idea is so simplified and made accessible to the average student. Keep up the great work!

awesome! As usual... Breaking down long descriptions into short and fun videos :D

What an intriguing paradigm of thought. Good job Thug Notes, I can always count on you to stimulate my gray matters instead of just staring at a video.

this one of the best philosophy series that ive ever seen ... pls make more and never stop !!!

Holy... I just realized that I subscriped a Channel for something I didn't even know existed. Unexpected but wow, now I love this channel even more.

I just love this series,please never stop,thank you buh bye!

Well, the philosophy here assumes that a computer can not observe benefits of letting others take what we could. It was incredibly over simplified. From the example, the health pack gave +4 health on pick up. For the computer in question to take it, then it would waste 3 health, diminishing its value, where as if it was given away, it gets maximum efficiency. A computer with only the goal of getting maximum efficiency would choose to let the other have it. But...then what if the other person subsequently attacks the computer, with the newly boosted health. They each lose 1 health each attack, and attack at the same time. Now, if the computer gives the health pack away, there's a loss of 8 health, as well as the loss of the computer's life. wah wah. If the efficiency computer could think of this, then clearly the best tactic is to take the health pack, so that there'd be a net loss of only 1, rather than 8. But how do you determine the chances of you being attacked, rather than teaming up? And what about running? ...and it gets more and more complicated, but it can be simplified and quantified by deduction. Although then there's uncertainties, which are handled by chance prediction and determination, and defining what is an acceptable risk.

@actually.imsanta5383

8 жыл бұрын

Exactly!

@SangoProductions213

8 жыл бұрын

+Jamie Barnett Glad someone appreciates my work.

@SangoProductions213

8 жыл бұрын

To expand on this further, just for argument's sake, the "health" can also be weighted by "desire". Let's say this computer is super greedy, but wants to "pass on it's genes", so the "desire" multiplier for it and its family is 100%, friends would be about 60-70%, and strangers a mere 10%. Thus, in this case, if the computer both wanted the desire as above, and the efficiency, then if the other person was a friend/family, it would give it away, as it's a +1 benefit (for itself), or +4 benefit (for the other). If the other was a friend, then it would still give it away, as its ~2 weighted benefit for it to give it away. And for a stranger, he would take it because 1 > 0.4

@SolusBatty

8 жыл бұрын

+SangoProductions213 You arent correct, it doesnt matter what computation a computer can do (like your suggestion of counting hp gained), it's that it cant trancend it. It cannot be moral, cause it has no free will. The question asked here is "are humans different from machines" in the way that they CAN trancend whatever formula is determining their actions. The difference would be free will (even though it may be unclear what that free will is).

@SangoProductions213

8 жыл бұрын

UchihaDualStorm define transcend, and how humans do it. And if you are suggesting that morals are based on free will (and since many consider humans as having morals...well, some of them), then you need a definition of free will, in order to argue that sufficiently sophisticated robots don't have it. (based on what I assume you mean) You can make a variable mutable due to experiences of the unit. These are called learning computers. Have you heard of Watson? He's currently working in the medical industry. Want to throw in the "human component" of not being entirely logical? Just throw in a random number generator. More logical units have smaller ranges, and less logical would have larger ones.

This is 8-bit philosophy is pretty sweet! Never have I heard a more clear description of philosophical works.

IMO the human brain ultimately works like a computer of sorts, just with a radically different architecture and complexity. It also doesn't compute precise mathematical values and logic, but fuzzy one.

@roosta655

9 жыл бұрын

Nope, neural nets don't use fuzzy logic, they use connectionist logic.

@Suyamu

9 жыл бұрын

roosta655 Maybe - I'm not experienced in biology. In computer science some simple neural network models are using fuzzy logic in an attempt to mimic biological models on binary computers.

More please. This is freaking good

If a computer could be programmed to choose between two outcomes based on more than just it's own well-being, then it is up to the programmer to determine what the preferred outcome is. Humans operate the same way, but there happens to be a much, much larger number of programmers at work, in both a literal sense (our family, friends, etc), and a figurative sense (observations, environment, etc). In the case of a sociopath, the individual has been programmed for a variety of values outside the norm of other individuals, but they are just as programmed as the rest of the population. One could argue that such a person, or even the rest of the population is not as deliberately programmed as a machine, but I don't see how it can be argued that our decisions are not the sum of societal and environmental programming.

@Lambda_Ovine

5 жыл бұрын

Evolution programmed us with a bunch of glitches. I think we are in in the Alpha stage of development: We can be executed but with risk of crashing the system.

DAMN. That was DEEP!!! I'm getting educated onto a whole other level. Thanks ThugNotes!!!

Brilliant, please always make these forever.

Keep it up, these are fantastic refreshers in a nutshell!

"Men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined.” - Baruch Spinoza

Cognitive Psychologist would certainly agree

The human mind is what we hope computers will someday be, might be a little early in the development of computers to be making these comparisons. Advertising and marketing bank on us being more like computers, a given stimulus will return an expected result, in general. I think the hard question is, could we handle knowing who we are, and that something could know us to the point it knows our reactions, better than we do? And the moral issue, can we blame people for being who they are? I don't think that'll ever be a problem, blame isn't the point, its usually that persons effect on society that is the problem. Loving the weekly inspiration to turn the mind on, thanks, keep up the good work.

@JasonPruitt

10 жыл бұрын

David Balduino I agree, its very possible, no matter how far we dig into the human mind, and map its behavior, for our own good, or for more nefarious reasons, it has the capacity to evolve a step ahead of our understanding. Which I guess by definition, the more we learn, the more we create something new to understand about our mind. I've wondered how psychology changes our minds, as it attempts to define certain things, which we then accept as being how it operates, and then have a tendency to operate that way. It's starting to sound like an infinite loop or chasing our own tail will keep our consciousness and minds one step ahead of our understanding of it perhaps? Since you can not analyze it, with out changing it basically.

Dude that was that freaking insane like imagine how long making all that art took alone

Contra seems to have been chosen purely because the first syllable sounds like Kant. I was right, then, in the first episode when I called out the connection between Plato and LoZ as superficial and contrived - LoZ was merely a game with caves in it, and thus was more-or-less arbitrarily chosen as the source of visuals for the episode. Similarly, Megaman was chosen for its name's similarity to the "superman" concept of Nietzsche, despite that episode not really talking about that. This episode stuck out to me, in particular, because there *are* videogames that work well with the concepts talked about in this episode. Western-style computer RPGS (like KOTOR, Mass Effect, or Fallout, for example), with (relatively) complex and interesting non-player characters whose behavior depends on what you do around them, are natural examples of the sort of thing this episode talks about. In a more direct relationship, there's Bioshock, which played with the idea of being controlled despite feeling like you had free will. Megaman, from the second episode, would have been a pretty good choice here - he is a robot with the appearance of free will. Contra, on the other hand, has nothing to do with Kant. All you are doing is randomly triggering nostalgia while simultaneously talking (in a superficial, fairly uninteresting way) about something completely unrelated to the subject of the nostalgia.

@chelsea-chee

10 жыл бұрын

There's just one problem with your suggested video games: they're not 8-bit.

@DontMockMySmock

10 жыл бұрын

chelseachee32 Well, maybe when this show was conceived, they shouldn't have limited themselves to one tiny sliver of gaming history.

@kotkaconforza

10 жыл бұрын

There is a kind of a idea behind why this game is chosen to be the back drop of man/machine dilemma, and it is referred at the end where we see the split screen of a man and a machine. Contra was known as Contra only in the US. Japan and Europe knew it as Probotector. That game was identical to Contra with only one diffrence, you playd as a robot soldier insted of a hunky beefcake commando.

@marcemelow

10 жыл бұрын

Please go watch something else.

@pkingo1

10 жыл бұрын

Its called 8-bit philsophy which rules out KOTOR, Mass effect, Fallout etc. I like the idea of illustrating the concepts in 8-bits, it's "simplified" to fit the graphics. If you want more analysis of games and philosophy I suggest a channel such as MrBtongue.

i cant help but praise the delightful experience of watching those videos ! you guys are awesome

i love this series so much...thank you.

If I ever have to teach a philosophy class these videos are going to come in handy.

I platonically love these vids. Lol epic job Thug. Speaking to my childhood, adulthood, and creatively revamping the NES style graphics and splicing in philosophy. I'm more then happy to help spread it into being viral. Would love to see something on Nikola Tesla, Dr.Mario and viral infections, TMNT and evolution, or hell batman and criminal psychology. Regardless of my request. Epic vids man.

Great video guys I miss this

Perhaps part of our algorithms include a desire to improve the greater good. Choosing what's best for the group over yourself may not be free will, but a simple calculation, depending on the person's disposition.

Amazing episode as always!

This is the best idea i've ever seen on youtube, and so well executed. liked & subbed!

@MarcianusImperator

10 жыл бұрын

Yeah, there are a lot of channels doing various scientific (as in physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry etc.) stuff, but very few GOOD videos on philosophy. And this is SO well explained.

@TheGenericNerd

10 жыл бұрын

MarcianusImperator That, and the bit-sized format and the video game theme make it very accessible and absorbing for even the laity to watch.

This channel is pure quality.

For some reason I'm reminded of the Chinese room (the thought experiment about the difference between a human inputting answers mechanically without understanding the nature of those answers and a computer doing the same)

I think Kant really meant that "if there are occurences where we ought to do something, but do something else instead - that means we have freedom". Because in situation where you REALLY feel you ought to do something (not because someone told you, not because someone forces you, but you geniunely believe you ought to do it) - you are kinda "determined" to do it, since the decision that it is a right way is "already made". Still, besides being made, this decision must be also "carried out" - and sometimes, mysteriously, we do not carry it out. And afterwards, looking back, we may think that we were free - we did wrong, but we were free, because, after all, there was no reason for us to "do wrong", so it must be this mystical un-determined freedom. Actually, it is not quite correct, though - psychology teaches us that there are many unconcsious processes that we are not aware of, so even if all the thoughts and feelings we REGISTER tell us we "ought" do something, we end up not doing it because of something that we do NOT register, but which is as potent, or even more potent. But at the time of Kant it may very well have been unknown about unconscious processes. So the situation where a person knows what he is going to do, but then does otherwise, could hardly be interpreted some other way than "mystical freedom from determinism"

Great idea of using contra and probotector for this episode

The trouble with Kant's idea here is that it supposes some special magic which makes our neural algorithms different from what can be done by computers. Unfortunately for his philosophy, our brains ARE computers. They're matter arranged to store and process data according to a particular algorithm. There is no reason, of which I'm aware, to think we can't perfectly replicate human reason, empathy,and other decision-making factors in a computer algorithm, because they already ARE computer algorithms.

@vlogerhood

10 жыл бұрын

One reason to think we can't replicate human reason is quantum effects on neurons. It is possible we aren't deterministic machines, but instead probabilistic.

@George.Redacted

10 жыл бұрын

Check out Sam Harris on free will, then check out Hameroff on conciousness and the his studies of conciousness in accordance to the ways in which analsthesia inhibits it.

@Lemenks

10 жыл бұрын

vlogerhood What makes you say quantum mechanics isn't deterministic? I know this is a debated topic but many physicists argue quantum mechanics is deterministic using the fact it is based on probabilities as there base. There is no reason why a system which we calculate using probabilities is not deterministic in nature.

@videotrash

10 жыл бұрын

vlogerhood well, "quantum machines" can also be built. so it would just be a different technology from the computers we are using today. furthermore: the original poster simplified matters a bit too much, in my opinion. we are "computers" only in a very rough sense- the actual mechanics of interacting neurons are rather different from every information-processing technology known today. but yeah, it's definitely possible that we are probabilistic quantum machines (but in my opinion unlikely). we would still be determined though, only the physical law determining us would be a stochastic one. this wouldn't bring us any closer to "free will".

@Ghostofmonk

10 жыл бұрын

At every stage of scientific development, humans compare their bodies to the most advanced technology available. There was a time when people earnestly thought of brains as complex plumbing systems. If you're still hung up on the idea of brains being computers, consider that computers are serial processors while humans are parallel processors. Humans are self programing, and the you that says "I think this" is only one part of your brain process, and generally the only one you're aware of.

Cause and effect affect us and makes our brain work. There is only one possible choice for one person in the exact same situation. You could think that means you have no free will. However, you are not dissociated from the physical nature of your brain. Your personality is defined by the state of matter in your brain. Therefore, when you make a choice, it was physically impossible to make another, it is still a choice, as, had you had another personality (configuration of matter within your brain) you would have made a different choice.

Another really good episode!

I love these! Please, keep doing them.

the line between man and machine is simple: machines are tools, extentions of a conscious operator.

@lotus-prince

10 жыл бұрын

Perfect artificial intelligence would blur that line at best, or break it completely in the most extreme case.

@CryptidHunter13

10 жыл бұрын

Well, if you're overly objective and cynical, you could say that the lower and middle classes are the tools of the government to sustain their better quality of life. Or, for a less cynical idea, that we are all tools of each other to provide function to the machine that is society. Either way, this is not a simple quandary that can be resolved with a single definition of a machine.

@Mattteus

10 жыл бұрын

Valgaav19 At that point, I don't think it would be right to call them machines. If they have intelligence, reason, desire, but are still viewed as tools used by an operator, that would make them slaves.

I had this theory myself before addressing the consciousness unit of philosophy class! By looking at it from this perspective, I reasoned that it is possible for a computer to be conscious (in the future, not yet obviously), because human brains are really just incredibly complex organic computers that send electrical signals around.

this series is amazing

more Kant please, about aesthetics.

the end was a bit rushed in my opinion and compared to the beginning of the video

just the fact that we can ask the question "do humans operate like computers?" means we are more than just computers. it is classical conditioning, especially in our formative years is what programs us. the way we become a human is to question and if need be change the way we react and think about things. like when we make the hard decision to change our view on a variety of things we were programmed to be true on purpose or by our social milieu. we gain a "soul" when we do this. i'm not talking religion here either.

How do you make those 8 bit animations? :D:D:D:D

The argument for free will this is referring to goes something vaguely like this, IMO: Premise 1: There are things which we haven't actually done, but ought to have done. Premise 2: Ought implies can. If we ought to have done something different then we could have done something different. Premise 3: If we could have done something different from what we actually did, then we had free will, because (Kant thinks) that's what free will means. Conclusion: Free will, free will, rock you, rock you.

Keep up the good work y'all

Wow, another great video. Keep it up! This is easily one of the highest quality channels on youtube!

This reminded me of my Theory of Knowledge class :) !

Great video, isn't that Briareos at the end representing machine though?

I love this. :D Keep it coming!

Altruism in humans and other animals is predetermined to some degree because the trait has been selected over time to increase the circulation of a variety of genes in a species

I love this! Keep it comin'!

Great job guys, really insightful and fun to watch. I was wondering if you can make some existentialism (sartre and camus), Heidegger or maybe some Wittgenstein, i mean, i would go nuts if you guys actually tried to explain Wittgenstein in the fun way you do, cause altought he seems to be "right" in what he writes, he is hella confusing and boring. Anyway, peace and keep up the good videos yo!

1:47 Player 2 gets shot and doesn't lose his last bar of health? Seems legit.

love these shows.....dude keep makin em...this is the only one i haven't watched..for some reason

How about if we create an advanced AI, so advanced that it can make its own choices and such the way we do. The AI was programmed, it was designed. If, or when, we can create an AI that thinks and reasons like humans do, the question will be answered: Either we are like a machine, with every type of predetermined outcome programmed into us, or we were just programmed to not be like a machine. Or something else.

@zZE94

9 жыл бұрын

Persona Ohnlyne You should read this. And also the 2nd part. waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

The line that divides human and machine is a simple and ancient one, that of chakras and energy bodies.

I know you Kant resist dat cause and effect mentality, but even the weakest of men has free will.

In a deterministic universe, nothing can transcend cause and effect. Everything is a pattern, and all patterns can ultimately be described with mathematics. The brain, existing within the universe, is also deterministic and, therefore, a pattern. Because all patterns can ultimately be described with mathematics, and computers can theoretically process any mathematical pattern, people can be simulated within computers. People may argue that the simulated person is not actually conscious, but that would mean that we would have to assume the existence of some property of the universe tied to physical matter (biological matter, in particular) providing consciousness, which, in my view, adds unnecessary complication to the issue. Regarding responsibility for actions, it is important that we do not draw a distinction between ourselves and patterns. We are not stuck following patterns, we are the patterns.

Make one of Frankfurt on Hard Compatlism and D'Holbach on Hard Determinism.

Everybody sing it with me! OHHHHHHHH Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable...

@737Wow

10 жыл бұрын

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table. David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel, And Wittgenstein was a beery swine Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya' 'Bout the raising of the wrist. SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED...

@Maniax467

10 жыл бұрын

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. Plato, they say, could stick it away, Half a crate of whiskey every day! Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, and Hobbes was fond of his Dram. And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am." Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

Great show! Looking forward to see your take on Descarte.

8-bit philosophy should be its own Chanel.

1:24 you can program ai to let you have the health pack if you need it, you can also program it to choose randomly whether to give it to you or not Edit: Example pseudo code; if player2.hp { //Ignore the healthpack } else { //take the healthpack }

Combining Contra/Probotector to illustrate Man/Machine. Perfect game to use

Do 16 bit philosophy next that would be beatiful and awesome I know this video is old but ok plz do it

Wooooww that was an amazing video!! I love many aspectd of it

I KANT imagine what it would be like without Wisecrack.

love these videos!!! :) :)

Amazing animation work So Immanuel Kant is basically the Matrix?

I think that free-will is just our ability to repress instinct, and that that is what makes us human. Though on the other hand, I usually land closer to the "We are just biology" side of the line.

Do one on the mind-body problem with Maurice Merleau-Ponty.

ought (verb): (1) used to indicate duty or correctness. (2) *used to indicate something that is probable.* Let's assume (for the time being) that humans are like machines, and a sense of duty or morality doesn't exist. In this case, the word "ought" can only imply probability, or that a person is merely *likely* to do something. Machines are already capable of this approximate response though fuzzy logic, where binary logic is not always used and partial knowledge is allowed. While this does not completely confirm that humans are like machines, it does allow the possibility that this is the case. This conclusion may be faulted for it's circular reasoning, or it's overly linguistic nature that potentially distorts the meaning of the word "ought." I merely present this so that it may be criticized.

But is the choice of the healthpack a real choice? How do we know that previous experiences and perception haven't already determined what player 1 will choose? After all we always choose the "best" option. What that "best" option option would be is surely determined by our perception. Do we OWN our own perception?

I hope this doesn't sound mean, I like the 8 bit phil. vids, but I'd like a separate channel for them.

Wow! Great use of Contra and Probotector. Some one knows their games inside and out. :)

This is pure AWESOME!!!!

I'm confused... When I see the question of what I ought to do in a given scenario is no different then ask what is the most efficient action in a given scenario. Isn't that how all basic Artificial Intelligence is programmed to do?

@sirsimplexton3151

9 жыл бұрын

iwanttoknowmore Yes, Kant didn't recognize this, but then again he didn't have modern scientific knowledge from fields like evolutionary biology, psychology, and neuroscience. We're always perplexed by our own complex behaviors, and the fact that we don't understand our own subconscious drives motivating us to do things has made many philosophers use magical words like "free will".

It is very easy to prove determinism as a fact of the universe. Imagine that a mind knew the position and velocity of every particle in existence: because those 2 values are not subject to random variance and are the cause of every effect, the mind would accurately predict the future. All decisions made by agents are the result of collisions between particles in the brain and because those collisions can be predetermined by positions and velocity, free will does not exist.

@SangoProductions213

9 жыл бұрын

***** Except...that, even under the presumption that it is possible to conceive the position of all particles, you couldn't know it for long due to quantum mechanics. If you are able to isolate the position of a particle, you lose the information on the speed and direction, as the mere process of finding the information changes it.

@XanderKarr

9 жыл бұрын

In my hypothetical, the mind doesn't uncover that information through a process (which would be complicated by quantum mechanics) but rather simply knows them at all times in a god-like omniscient sense. This is of course impossible according to our current understanding of the universe, but my point remains.

The difference lies more or less in programming. Once we can get computers to "understand" vague concepts, programming in morality won't really be that hard.

Can't our sense of "ought" and obligations be broken down to complex but nonetheless explainable algorithms too? They are definitely much harder to quantify but can't they be seen as just other forms of decision making?

This was awesome.

This is great!

Sparky Sweets, this is great! I keep thinking, are you guys doing this for free? How are you funding such great work? I'd like to chip in if you need it. It's probably through all the sweet merch, but I wouldn't mind just chippin' in like the VlogBrothers do with subbable.

Sort of assumes the machine would subscribe to "individuality," and does not take into account its ability to see another as a valuable "comrade" (i.e. extra source of damage, information, external function). Is it not possible there could be varying degrees of hive mentality? In a way, couldn't human empathy work in the same way, some type of incredibly low-lying hive mind resulting in cooperation, and thus, the success of a species?

If I coded a computer to recognize other's suffering, and help it heal them if they are more hurt than itself, then it has a sense of right. If I then teach it that it can identify if that person will be able to help himself to have the machine help itself, then it has a sense of ought. Therefore we are complex machines, and that's fucking scary.

@sirsimplexton3151

9 жыл бұрын

StraightJacketRED We're not coded in such a way. We're the result of brute force trial and error and a kind of multigen machine learning process that has gone on for billions of years. We developed the capacity for notions like second-order inequality aversion (altruistic fairness) through a higher-level reasoning facility. And you only have to knock the intelligence down a few notches below a great ape to get back to the reasoning capabilities to only favor selfish fairness (to complain when you're mistreated, but not when others are mistreated).

@SangoProductions213

9 жыл бұрын

Sir Simplexton I doubt he was arguing for creationism, but rather that, conceptually, we are machines. Machines borne of different processes than how we create the majority of programs, but machines none the less. And yes, there are actually programs that randomly generate other programs. Most don't work, but occasionally, it does something interesting. Give that a couple billion years....and some factors which determines what is "successful" or not, rather than simply "is it working" [aka. factors that determines which ones don't die], and we could have something resembling intelligence by pure chance. Of course, that same intelligence could just get killed off because it wasn't "successful" in that environment, but meh. I said it might happen.

What Kant didn't seem to get, at least in this accounting of his beliefs, was that the inclination one gets as to what they 'ought' to do (such as give up the health pack) is just another inclination. This inclination competes with the inclination to use the health pack itself, and may win out. 'Oughts' are programmed in to someone during their formative years, which, to me, makes an individual seem even more computer like. The natural desires of your physical body can be 'recoded' to be superseded by more socially conscious ones. Would Kant still have this sense of duty if he was raised in a box and had no past experiences to draw on? I doubt it.

@myusernamewasinuse

10 жыл бұрын

This, so much this.

@George.Redacted

10 жыл бұрын

Check out hameroff on conciousness. I have written some articles on this matter on my website if you care to see uncoveringsuperman.quora.com

@MarcianusImperator

10 жыл бұрын

I haven't really read about Kant, but perhaps he believed that qualia indeed exists within sentient organisms and that it is excluded from the determinism that characterizes this world.

@LolJayl

9 жыл бұрын

Let's just hamfist psychological egoism and totally solve the free will issue guys! Science is so great we never have to read any of these philosophers!

My Ghost is whispering to me, therefore I am

The difference between destiny and free will could be a matter of perspective. If one were to observe the multiverse from outside any one timeline, it would appear as an infinite number of timelines. What is the difference between the singular timeline you experience and the infinite number of others? Each can only occupy one place in time, make one choice, have one outcome. From the perspective of each individual bound to the perspective of their timeline, destiny is a foregone conclusion. From the perspective of someone observing the infinite multiverse it would appear that free will is fundamental.

Well, what makes a person choose to give that health to the other person? There are a chain of events in the universe that has lead them to feel like they "ought" to give it to the other player. So, therefore, the universe controls us, but that doesn't mean we can account for all the details and come at the most conclusive conclusion.

That Kant guy looks badass

So AWESOME!!!!!!!!

The anomaly of free will is effected by fear. Computers can't feel fear. Fear of death or loss being big factors on governing our actions. For example, if I am "forced" to do something or I will die and I choose death because I do not for it; then the force that is threatening tries to find another fear to exploit. It could be the death of another you love like your child. Feelings and apathy towards others governs decision making just as much as fear.