She could be one of the strongest proponents of scientific determinism. For me, while not subscribing to either "extremes" of "free will" and "hard determinism," but looking for a "middle" that is beneficial, this is still an interesting video. I do think that the computer algorithm analogy is flawed in this context. Computer programs can produce outputs that are at least theoretically predictable. They are fully deterministic in the above sense. Yet when we use some of these it is more useful to work with probabilities and consider them as black boxes that can be trained rather than worrying about the underlying physics. Nobody can predict human behavior with such accuracy as a computer program, so there is no pragmatic value for convincing one about the underlying equations. No one can use those equations for any behavioral change. So, from a practical point of view, problems of self and value are not in the domain of machines. They are human p...
RB: Hello, I just finished reading After Finitude. I think its a very exciting book as it attempts to access and come into direct contact with the ”thing in itself”, escaping the Kantian prison. Meillassoux claims to achieve this by saying that contingency is the absolute principle behind everything, the very thing itself. My problem is that Meillassoux does not explain why contingency is the the thing itself. If this is so there must be some evidence or some logical argument to prove this. Why can the laws governing the universe change at any moment? Perhaps I missed something. Me: His argument is that the so called laws are not enforced by anyone. If one says that there is some condition that keep those stable then he can ask the previous question on the new 'law enforcement agency'. This becomes an infinite regression which discards the existence of any such entity. So he resorts to the eternal danger faced by all laws of sudden collapse. RB: Ok, so he disca...