ZzzleepingBear

Determinism is what you favour when it comes to reaching a result. In other words, if you have a goal in mind, you have to be determined. And getting the facts right usually helps even if luck also is a factor in results. Free will is when you want to explore something or anything beyond rhyme or reason. Your goal is not tied to any particular result other than what may show itself before you. Determinism and free will is in a constant mutual relationship. And that is why they can't be separated from each other. If you look at any of them as the prime source of existence, then you will have a endless debate about what is more right than the other. (duality)

I just want to point out that "just as good or better, in any intellectual domain" is a very broad statement. And can even be a misleading statement as well. When we speak of AI as being capable, we typically lump together intellectual capacity (knowledge) with intellectual freedom. AI is a pattern machine that is limited to whatever has been discovered and acknowledged as important before it's calculations even begins. Since the AI lacks its own sentience and therefore has no will on its own. The results that it comes up with, will merely result in a wide range of variations of some sort. But AI is not capable of original ideas without major human intervention. So we will not be able to see any new ideas like those Einstein brought us, coming from an AI. Even though in theory, it should be more than capable with its massive computing power. An AI can at best, replicate knowledge inorder to get from point A to B and so on, but there is no original source of understanding that any knowledge of an AI rests in. It's main source of "understanding" comes from specific targeted goals. Some may think this is a negative assessment of AI but my main point is not about hating on AI. My main point is to adress common assumptions about AI that will stubbornly cling as truths before being looked at from a more in depth philosophical point of view. Even alot of people in the tech space view their own sense of thinking as that of a robot/machine, and while they may be the leading experts in their field. Something to keep in mind here, is that they may not be leading philosophers at the end of the day. So while AI may bring in alot of new results, it may not necessarily bring about alot of new understanding.

To "defeat" the mind seems like a very arbritary goal. I'd guess alot can be said about this topic based on how you choose to interpret it.

I have no idea what this talk about peanuts is suppose to prove or show, lol. Can someone please elaborate on this topic for a poor peanut brain like me, pls.

To say that a educated mind is full of junk, is at best a uneducated bias. Let's be honest, there is delicate middleway to approach most subjects without see everything as black or white.

I'll leave you with this. A map is a visualization tool. Nothing more nothing less. And inorder to follow or create a map in the first place, there needs to be a initial incentive to do so. Good luck with mapping this out.

Consider a map to be a object of interest. It's not that much different from searching without a map, if you look to what the behavior itself alludes to, (Looking for rewards). So a established map in your mind is tied to prior raw experiences through some reward response on your part. I'd even go as far as to say that, no map would be possible to form without a reward response of some sort. Notice that for NLP to be a way to change in your behavior, you already need to have the urge to change from those past memories that you investigate. So it's more about a latent change that can be brought forward imo. Direct experience on the other hand, can bring about a change in you whether you want it or not. So the imprint part on the mind is more about raw data being taken in, as opposed to the process part that already is in play. So any processing of memories with NLP is linked to our already established behaviours and inclinations to act for that change if we want it enough already.

@Razard86 I get the gist of what you are saying. And the last part is a solid advice. BUT, I'm not so sure that clear definitions is going to be the remedy for pure motivation itself. While clear communication is a valid and good thing to strive for. I think the emotional response is a total different beast in most cases. You can for example act out of anger from temporary confusion, and you can act out of anger in willful ignorance of your own wrong doing. But the anger itself may not belong to any definition. You may act from a moment of righteousness, and that would in a sense transcend the limiting definition of right or wrong depending on who you ask. Banks steal alot of money, so are bank robbers heros or villains for robbing the banks? You see, the motivation behind different actions may not always be guided through what the definitions tells us.

I think the linking process comes from way back in the development of language through pain and pleasure responses, that later works as cues in the mind from the external stimuli that has translated into an inner imprint on the mind. To experience is different because it can cause new impacts on the imprint, while the imprint (map), is a isolated version of a particular experience recalled as memory patterns.

If you turn left enough times, you get it right eventually. It sounds like your clarification of confusion could be summarized as, 'Get your shit together, and get on with it'.

I'd say that a map is interlinked cues for the mind to envision a path that is about to be experienced/discovered. The map is not the territory because the map itself don't contain the experiences that it supposedly points towards.

The "missing out on life" is also known as, lazy philosophy. It's quite a generic view to hold. Alot of people will probably agree with it, since everyone can understand it in a general sense without giving it much of a thought themselves. A better word is regret, that's atleast a honest reflection on certain choices or lack there of.

@rachMiel Rather, what ever the truth is. It will show itself just the way it is, in one way or other regardless of our own conclusions about it. Truth is.

I'd say it's a acceptance statement to let an unknown truth be what it is regardless of speculative thoughts about it. Iiit iiis what it iiiiiisssss...

@Razard86 It sure is'nt rocket science. But talking to much about it can make it seem like it is rocket science. That's why I believe that solipsim should be talked about very sparingly, since it may create more confusion than it solves. One of the more mature approaches of Leo was to take that video of solipsim down for exactly those reasons. There is many other ways than just focus solely on solipsim to get it.