Conscious Robots If We Really Had Free Will What Would We Do All Day? edition by Paul Kwatz Politics Social Sciences eBooks
Download As PDF : Conscious Robots If We Really Had Free Will What Would We Do All Day? edition by Paul Kwatz Politics Social Sciences eBooks 
"Easy to understand and persuasive", "Lives up to all the hype", "An absolutely necessary book", "Should be taught in schools", "Dynamite, this is a brilliant book
107 minutes to change the way you think about everything.
In March 2017, Jeff Bezos announced he'd be spending $1 billion a year of his $75 billion fortune on the Blue Origin Space Rocket company.
Which suggests he hasn't read Conscious Robots. By reading, you will discover
It won't be free will, but it will be what we would do with free will if we really had it.
Praise for Conscious Robots
"One of the closest-to-the-truth arguments I have read in a while."
"Tells it like it is with no punches pulled."
"Offers another resolution of the Fermi Paradox that made me smile."
"A unique, concise argument."
"Bad-Ass."
Conscious Robots If We Really Had Free Will What Would We Do All Day? edition by Paul Kwatz Politics Social Sciences eBooks
This book is short and makes it points forcefully. On the surface this book is a presentation of the hard determinist argument for no free will which includes an underlying evolutionary structure. The evolutionary view underneath is essentially Richard Dawkins's classic argument for gene replicators, being the reason for why "survival machines" or robots exist and have evolved.If the book was just this well worn argument it would not be all that special. What makes it interesting is the attempt to link determinism and no free will to an evolutionary need for emotions or as he writes: feelings. Emotions are usally ignored in such discussions or considered irrelevant but the author's argument that feelings of happiness or misery are evolved functions in the human brain and are under determinist control is a compelling one. He advances the concept that pleasure and pain are under genetic control and used to make us do things to get our genes replicated which we may not do otherwise. The idea of emotions being strictly regulated by genes for the end of replication is very interesting. Total happiness or extreme pleasure, induced naturally or as euphoria from drugs, are regulated by the brain because extreme such states do not help reproduction in the long run. It is an interesting argument that both a heroin addict or a person in an endless contented state just don't feel compelled to do all the work of reproducing the species. A little happiness is necessary but not the total deal. Interesting.
I feel that the arguments for and against free will and determinism are still in play and not totally settled scientifically or philosophically. Yet having said this, I see this book making a compelling addition to the determinist and no free will perspective in a very entertaining manner. It makes you think.
Product details
|
Tags : Conscious Robots: If We Really Had Free Will, What Would We Do All Day? - Kindle edition by Paul Kwatz. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Conscious Robots: If We Really Had Free Will, What Would We Do All Day?.,ebook,Paul Kwatz,Conscious Robots: If We Really Had Free Will, What Would We Do All Day?,Philosophy Free Will & Determinism,Science Life Sciences Evolution
People also read other books :
- Masters of Science Fiction Volume Eight Milton Lesser Milton Lesser 9781612871288 Books
- Overcoming the Orphan Spirit Restoration for Self Society eBook Danita Ogandaga
- Ecce Homo German Edition Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche 9781542649179 Books
- Hunters V and Other Deer Camp Stories eBook Gerald Zoromski
- Miller the Green Caterpillar Darrell House Patti Argoff 9780615467771 Books
Conscious Robots If We Really Had Free Will What Would We Do All Day? edition by Paul Kwatz Politics Social Sciences eBooks Reviews
This book tries to explain that we are conscious robots that are not controlled by free will or decisions but by evolutionary determinism. He claims the arguments for and against this hypothesis are either based on personal experience or "science". Personal experience tells us we have a free will and the ability to choose. Personal experience as he points out can be grossly mistaken such as the notion that the earth is flat. Our senses seem to tell us that it is but we know it is not, Therefore personal experience cannot be trusted. The inference is that science is the only reliable source for argument. But has scientific evidence always been correct? Science over the years has made blunders too. "Science" is not a finished book of knowledge but a hodge podge of working hypothesis and theories; some proven to be very accurate and useful and others not so much. We must not forget that "evolution" is a theory and not the final word. In so far as deterministic evolution goes his logic seems to be sound but what if his assumptions regarding evolution are demonstrated to be incorrect? Than it would follow that his conclusions would likely also be incorrect. I will point out 4 possible assumption errors that would show his conclusions are incorrect.
1) Assumption We live in a deterministic universe. Cause leads to effect. In theory if we knew all of the causes and their effects we could work our way back to first cause and we could also work our way forward and accurately predict the future with certainty. The universe and all thats in it are a well greased machine. The logical conclusion of Newtonian physics.
Modern Physics points us in a different direction. More recent science shows that we live in a universe of probabilities. A cause leads to certain probabilities not absolute certainties. There are some things we cannot know until they occur. If we go back to first cause i.e. big bang , and could repeat it say 100 times and let it run its course over several billion years, the probabilities are we would end up with 100 different universes. Determinism would conclude we'd end up with the exact same thing each time. Determinism rightly concludes there is no room for free will but a universe of probabilities does not make that conclusion. Interestingly, a universe of probabilities would be required for free will.
2)Assumption If we organize matter in a certain way and have exactly the right conditions/circumstances, this matter would become "alive". Based on our current understanding of things this had to have happened. Its seems to be the only way to explain things.
Problem is, that has never been seen before in the environment and it never has been demonstrated in the lab. Does that prove it didnt happen? No but it may suggest we need a paradigm shift in our understanding of matter and our understanding of life. Until we can demonstrate that leap, evolution as we know must remain a theory only. There may be better explanations by looking elsewhere.
3) Assumption Consciousness is a byproduct of organized matter specifically our brain. Therefore it is the byproduct of evolution.
Many modern scientists believe this is exactly backwards. Matter and our brain may be the byproduct of consciousness. What if evolution was the intent of consciousness? Could evolution be the result of conscious intent and not just some predetermined cause and effects? There is scientific evidence to support that theory. Intent by definition is choice. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that even things without brains such as plants have a basic level of awareness. That would be further evidence that consciousness is not limited to the functioning of the brain.
4) Assumption We are slaves to pain and pleasure. They control our programming. All decisions are controlled by that. We cannot transcend the control of pain and pleasure. Pain and pleasure are there to direct us to passing on our genetic codes.
Ever listen to Tony Robbins? He teaches this about pain/pleasure too. Sort of. He does state that pain and pleasure are the driving force of lives, but he comes to completely different conclusion. He teaches people how to take control of those two driving forces so that we become their master instead of us being their slave. Lives have been changed by his teachings and methods-not that he's the only teaching these things and the only one getting results. Determinism doesnt allow for that to occur but free will does. Determinism would tell us these results are illusions. It would be interesting to have a study done on this subject. To my knowledge none have been done.
We are governed by laws it would seem and yet we can manipulate them to our own purposes. We do this all the time. Ever turn on a light? You just used electricity. You manipulated a law of nature. Even something like breathing can be manipulated. Although breathing is usually involuntary we can bring it under control and breathe with intent. Science is even showing that with intent we can control things such as heart rate etc. That shouldnt be possible with the author's conclusions. Just because a law governs us doesnt mean we cant manipulate it to our advantage. Slave or master? With somethings it can be both. It doesnt have to be all or nothing. Yes many of us live our lives slaves to pain and pleasure but it doesnt have to be that way. We can learn to use them instead of them using us. With intent we can determine what causes us pain and pleasure. Or is that all an illusion too? Its interesting to note that the author uses Buddha to make his point. Buddha claimed that life is suffering. Thats as far as the author would take it. What he didn't say was that Buddha taught there was a way to transcend suffering. And if you are a follower of Buddhism you believe he provided you that path. Without free will that shouldnt be possible. Not only that but the author concludes that deterministic evolution cant even ever produce free will. Finally the author says that pain and pleasure are there to guide us, so to speak, to the passing on of our genes. How do contraceptives fit into that theory? If we follow his strict adherence to determinism then human beings didnt create contraceptives through choice or free will, but by mere cause and effect and countless years of evolution. Yet isnt the very point of contraceptives to enjoy sex WITHOUT the prospect of creating new life i.e the passing on of genes? Seems to me contraceptives are the result of choice to engage in pleasure without the consequences of offspring, completely contradicting the "purpose" of evolution of pain and pleasure.
To wrap up, I dont argue with the conclusions of this book. If you take his premise to be true I think his conclusions would be true. I have a problem with his conclusions because I believe his premise is false. Too many assumptions Im not willing to agree with. But hey, if you think Im wrong and he's right, dont get mad at me, I just evolved this way.
Plugging into a machine that stimulates the pleasure center to generate bliss is not a new idea. When I first read about it 50 years ago in the book mentioned in the title it seemed appealing. I realized I didn't want to turn control of my bliss over to anyone else after reading the book "Ringworld Engineers". I have studied Buddha's teaching to be able to generate a mind of bliss and emptiness born from the wish to stop suffering for all sentient beings instead of plugging in and becoming a wire head. There is no reason you can't be blissful all the time even if you are having babies and supporting them. No need to become a monk or spend all your time in bed.
However this book makes a lot of sense. It is a good argument against the idea of free will.
I really liked the idea of this book, and looked forward to reading it. But the writing turned out to be a deal-breaker for me. It is like reading an email or a blog, that style of writing. And all the italics, annoying. Also, the publishing seems very diy. It is priced right, however, for what you get, and I appreciated that.
I bought the actual book. Perhaps I should try the version and adjust my expectations.
I thought this short book was excellent for some very thought provoking ideas. It's an in your face, no fluff type of book which brings the concepts to you without sugar coating. I enjoyed it very much. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the subject of consciousness and what I find to be probably one of the closest-to-the-truth arguments I have read in a while. I look for to more of books in the future.
This book is short and makes it points forcefully. On the surface this book is a presentation of the hard determinist argument for no free will which includes an underlying evolutionary structure. The evolutionary view underneath is essentially Richard Dawkins's classic argument for gene replicators, being the reason for why "survival machines" or robots exist and have evolved.
If the book was just this well worn argument it would not be all that special. What makes it interesting is the attempt to link determinism and no free will to an evolutionary need for emotions or as he writes feelings. Emotions are usally ignored in such discussions or considered irrelevant but the author's argument that feelings of happiness or misery are evolved functions in the human brain and are under determinist control is a compelling one. He advances the concept that pleasure and pain are under genetic control and used to make us do things to get our genes replicated which we may not do otherwise. The idea of emotions being strictly regulated by genes for the end of replication is very interesting. Total happiness or extreme pleasure, induced naturally or as euphoria from drugs, are regulated by the brain because extreme such states do not help reproduction in the long run. It is an interesting argument that both a heroin addict or a person in an endless contented state just don't feel compelled to do all the work of reproducing the species. A little happiness is necessary but not the total deal. Interesting.
I feel that the arguments for and against free will and determinism are still in play and not totally settled scientifically or philosophically. Yet having said this, I see this book making a compelling addition to the determinist and no free will perspective in a very entertaining manner. It makes you think.
0 Response to "[SN8]≫ PDF Conscious Robots If We Really Had Free Will What Would We Do All Day? edition by Paul Kwatz Politics Social Sciences eBooks"
Post a Comment