You’re not predicting the shape of the terrain based on the map anymore than you’re predicting what someone’s face looks like based on a photo.

Someone else already created the map and took the photo, it requires no prediction on the reader’s part, and a map itself cannot predict because it is an inanimate objects.

[deleted]

That question doesn't negate the existence of an objective morality. If the scenario you presented was one possible way of life, we could all agree that it would not be the best one. It is objectively not as good for as many people as many other ways to live. Enslaving 60% of the population would be much better, and enslaving 0% would be much better than that. These are all objectively better than each other, and that thought process can continue into pretty much anything else that we encounter.

It's not that it wouldn't be a hard question to answer, but it's not an impossible one to answer and there are metrics along which that decision could be made.

One of the assumptions in the Libet experiment is that free will (however it is defined) requires consciousness. The fact that we may not be immediately aware of our decision does not mean it is not free. It just means that it takes some time for thoughts to occur—for our “conscious” mind (however that is defined) to arrange itself into focus. It takes time for ALL mental processes to occur. I’m not saying this has any bearing on the existence of libertarian free will. I happen to think libertarian free will is an illusion, a beautiful and useful illusion—and the illusion ITSELF is real. (See my book Free Will Explained.) But even if I am wrong, the Libet experiment (for all its strengths and numerous weaknesses) does not prove determinism or disprove libertarian free will. It just demonstrates something fascinating about how the brain works.

I think you underestimate the task. The possibility space of nonsense is so unimaginably huge, and the thing is, they don't matter one way or the other to your survival.

And what kind of data would you be looking at? Just to make sure you are not using an outcome to predict an outcome i.e., a tautological model.

Why should I trust chemical reactions to unfold in a way that “references truth”? Reason requires a rational agent, not a biorobot.

It's not just reliigous and political motives. I have a "compatibilism is obviously the most sensible approach" motive. Also wtf, your last paragraph is unhinged.

What makes you think chemical reactions can't have reference to truth? Also, yes, you can be fooled, that just means you aren't a perfect reasoner.

An interesting question is: why does the truth have to be immediately useful? Why would it be that truth must benefit you, or me, or any of us?

And- if it must be useful— is it not useful to have an idea, an inexact but working model, of the way the world exists independent of ourselves?

^That’s ^kinda ^his ^point

[deleted]

It's not a thought experiment; it's literal, to an extent.

Within the 'god is dead' conceptual framework, Nietzsche needed a post-christian metaphysical formulation - eternal reoccurrence was his best shot at that.

I specify "to an extent" because Nietzsche's reliance on the theory in his work was limited by his inability to make it logically bulletproof, but he really did believe in the idea of a cyclical universe.

[deleted]

That's, I think, and intuition i had about it but hadn't consciously thought about thus far. Indeed, in a way it forces you even to really sniff that rose on your way to work and appreciate even just sitting there with nothing to do a bit more if you apply it the right way - it tells you that's all you'll ever get; better make it worth something.

[deleted]

I know, I deviated on purpose. Just wanted to state what I discovered while performing this thought experiment.

Btw m, Reliving the same life for eternity is a torture no matter how pleasurable ur life was. If u’re to relive a luxurious life then I’ll find it only “less painful”. Part of the joy in life is its spontaneity

>The person holding the map can use the map to understand what the earth will look like when they get to the portion of the terrain the map is meant to represent.

Yes and this is prediction. I am using a map to predict what I might find if I go walk in a certain direction. This is precisely what a map is used for, allowing us as individuals to predict things we do not have immediate perceptual access to, and is in the same spirit as what any model is for. Maps and the notion of a "useful representation" are meaningless without this notion of prediction.

>It doesn’t predict where the roads might move to, what the buildings will look like in ten years, or how a new hill might form.

Neither does any other model. Models can be wrong, then you just change the model.

Time is a flat circle.

The point of the exercise is you don't change anything every time. It's the same life for infinity.

same as most other things, libgen.rs

If my life was reset I’d certainly make better decisions. That’s enough for me to know that I have grown through my mistakes. And then I’d probably make more mistakes through the new choices that I would make.

We need to make choices to grow, if we wait for life to make a choice for us, it would be also letting our environment decide who we will be.

Ubermensch….

Every time I talk philosophy with someone versed in it, I leave more confused than before.

The philosophical equivalent of "well, that's just your opinion, man."

Was shouting at your dog really the worst thing you ever did or ever experienced? If so, good on you.

Well thats analytic philosophy in a nutshell.