HavocWorks

Aggressive blades, designed with purpose and made in Ohio.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

Seems like a list of options framed by presuppositions that themselves don't really hold up under scrutiny. The dichotomy itself requires explanation and even most compatibilists are stuck within its dictates. Why are the options libertarian free will or naïve bottom up determinism?

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

I think it's better to think of consciousness as a (potentially) causal node in self referential loop. That when viewed through the lens of operational closure; the constitutive primitives of causality itself are system products from distinction to temporality as experienced. Even the base distinction from the perspective of an aware entity (self/world) is constantly enacted as a grouping of local peturbations at a mechanical level. Your view only works if you treat the no volitional parts of the system as "not me". In this frame, free will and naive determinism are a category error rooted in the structure of how we treat experience for the purpose of coherence. Instead I think the reality is far stranger; that operationally closed meta aware systems are determined by determining themselves (within viability constraints). Causality is circular locally and consciousness is part of what alters/constitutes the next iteration of the loop as it feeds back into the whole.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

The basest of distinctions; where the self-as-system groups some perturbations into environment and some into self. The evidence will always be performative because the experience of experiencing, let alone articulating the distinction is far downstream of what constitutes its possibility; necessarily - in the blind spot of the articulator. That doesn't make it an illusion but it places it as a node in a process - and one that sits beneath the presumptions that allow one to ask the question at all.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@Major_Leoo It's hilarious because karambits don' cut that way...he would have been done 10x over.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

I think this kind of perspective comes from assuming that humans, as operationally closed systems, are naively linear. Instead, if you think of us as a non homogenous collection of operationally closed systems and the narrative/meta aware self as a node in that kind of complex loop; the presuppositions of the question itself dissolves by implication. Constructivism becomes a mechanical reality, not a philosophy; causality, locally is circular and "free will" is that node in the loop being causal (or not); altering the next iteration of the totality of the system. Not free, not linearly determined but self-determined as circular causality. Philosophy has spent a lot of time projecting the properties of the lens onto the "thing itself" - but insofar as we know; the constitutive pre-requisites of causality at all can only exist within a kind of system with a self as a fixed perceptual point, temporal awareness, memory and abstractive capability.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@KMGallagher5 @Aqui_mi_casa Not if any kind of signature is required; which was the case with my package

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@MgmMgmp @Aqui_mi_casa The buyers "contract" is with the seller. The couriers contract is with the seller. That's what shipping insurance is for and why it can only be purchased by the sender.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@vividvoid Please. With AI support whose sole purpose is to deflect. We need an arms race. (last week alone I got stuck in a deflection loop 3 times)

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@matterasmachine The basest requisite of experience itself is distinction. That math in all its forms would follow from a system that is self aware, and whose awareness itself requires the drawing of boundaries isn't surprising, it's inevitable.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@sadhavi Even without all that, it's the epistemic equivalent of a godel sentence. There isn't anything in nature, insofar as I can tell, that can itself be used to explain the mechanism of its own genesis.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@substraeta Have kind of come to see the trilemma as codification of the nature of the structure of experience itself and then Godel as the formalization of the same thing.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@Sara_Imari We just don't have any other frame but the one that makes experiential coherence possible in which to even ask questions 🤷‍♂️

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@substraeta It certainly makes purpose a lot easier to hold on to.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@Sara_Imari At the meta level, operational closure and awareness require mechanical constructivism. The very nature of enacting the base distinction intrinsic to this creates an unclosable gap, meaning is the process of seeking to close that gap, perpetually.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@Romy_Holland It's a framing error, such that the question presupposes things that makes it unanswerable. Remove the assumption that "I" is homogenous, perpetual and exists independently of the substrate it emerges from and it becomes a lot less difficult to conceptualize potential answers.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@Sara_Imari @MacGraeme42 The first problem is conflating our "success" with "have to", the second is presupposing the experiential lens we're making the determination through has any bearing on the-thing-itself beyond a need for local coherence.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

Yes, lots of logically sound philosophical and rational reasons why...but first one has to accept that all facets of what is experienceable are epistemological. That logic itself is an emergent property of coherence making within experiential space - it is not the territory, "thing in itself" or anything else that we must assume it is in order to maintain viability. Once that is done - it is easy to simply become agnostic "I can't know, in any groundable way, what exists beyond my ability to perceive it " then any story or belief about that space becomes plausible in nature. In fact - the meta parallels between religion and science become apparent; that all meaning systems must terminate in axiom or process as axiom.

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

Well for one, a platonic realm can't exist, at least insofar as what we can divine of physics. Logical closure, at a physics level, is impossible. Imagine though, an operationally closed system whose entire basis for experience is built on distinction, division, negation; would both the inevitability of math really be surprising or that it was effective in describing a reality that is by necessity entirely epistemic?

[HavocWorks @HavocWorks]

@Sara_Imari The only thing that could possibly allow the illusion of universality. Learned/imposed symbolism we cram both ends of every duality into. Not just outward communication but internal classification and bounded, persistent meaning.