On Mon, 09 August 1999, "Cameron Reilly" wrote:
> Paul Hughes wrote:
> So another way of looking at nanotechnology is as a
> complex set of atoms (us) manipulating
> themselves for their own end in a *bootstrapping*
> process. So the question is, what or who is doing the
> manipulating? Subquantum processes?
> Sub-sub-quantum processes? And what happens when we can > manipulate those as well? Until this question can be
> answered, the verdict on still out on free will.
>I would argue that whether or not we manipulate the >“Sub-sub-quantum processes” is not important. We have no >choice over that manipulation. That action (or the
>opposite non-action) is the result of either genetics or >conditioning.
Genetics has no bearing on our decisions if we've already uploaded our brains into computronium structures and completely re-written or erased any residual memetic processes that originated through blind genetic evolution.
What is conditioning if we are re-wiring that as well? I have been quite sucessful in reprogramming a whole series of conditioned responses. So who is doing the re-conditioning? We find ourselves in an infinite regress, so there is no remaining merit in your answer.