My position from the very beginning is that this debate amounts to little more than intellectual masturbation,Of course it is - this is the philosophy section!
Indeedly
free will
Posts
Total:
712
-->
@keithprosser
It is exactly the same mechanism that causes a chicken to go crazy when you show them a painted reddish-brown tile.It often strikes me when I look at a brightly coloured object. For example, right now I'm looking a bright blue carrier bag.
Humans have evolved to associate certain colors with particular brain states. Sky-blue for example increases your general alertness, this is because we are mainly diurnal creatures and that color dominates the sky during the day.
Orange is associated with the morning sunrise and evening sunset, times when we traditionally consume food. Many restaurants use this color to amplify feelings of hunger in their customers. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
All true, but that isn't Chalmer's 'Hard problem'.
There is a particular way that red looks which is different from how blue looks. I can't describe how redlooks in words, but if you look at ared obect you will experience red and that experience is different from the experience you get from looking at blue things.
The experience of red is also different from the experience of the smell of a lower, or of note C#. The challenge isto get a mchine or computer to have identical (at least in kind)experiences to ours.
Why doesthat matter? It's because those experiences happen in brains and unless they can be implemrnted in a machine somethig very oddis going on in brains - undermining physicalism.
I may repeat there is no issue that itseasy to implement something functionally eqiuvalent to subective experience in amachine. onecan mesure the wavelength light and use that measurement to control the behaviour of a device. But we do not experience light as having diferent wavelngths - we experience light as being of different colours. Getting a machine to the same is 'the hard problem'.
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
Next the debate should be whether or not robots that pass the turing test should be allowed to vote.
-->
@Mopac
Next the debate should be whether or not robots that pass the turing test should be allowed to vote.
Passing a test is not the same as actually experiencing subjective feelings. Should a person who lies while taking a lie detector test and passes anyway be considered to be telling the truth?
-->
@TwoMan
Should a non-criminal psychopath be allowed to vote?Passing a test is not the same as actually experiencing subjective feelings.
Are "subjective feelings" a prerequisite of democracy?
Should a person who lies while taking a lie detector test and passes anyway be considered to be telling the truth?
How are you going to determine this individual is a liar?
Hypothetically, no system is going to be "perfect", but you should trust your "best" method and accept your margin of error unless you have a practical way of screening it out. [LINK]
-->
@keithprosser
Why doesthat matter? It's because those experiences happen in brains and unless they can be implemrnted in a machine somethig very oddis going on in brains - undermining physicalism.
Can robots have "very odd" (psychedelic) experiences? [LINK]
-->
@keithprosser
You are notwrong - without free will we are robots, or slaves.
Humans --that created AI-- have access to greater degree of freedoms/options/factors than AI ever will.
The truth exists for those humans that seek it. AI will never have does not have the faculties to ascertain the largest amount of relevant truths and the most relevant truths.
-->
@mustardness
Never is a long time...
8 days later
-->
@mustardness
Humans --that created AI-- have access to greater degree of freedoms/options/factors than AI ever will.
I like having wheels for feet. [LINK]
-->
@keithprosser
False. Never is eternally ergo beyond time limits.Never is a long time...
Long time is relative to short time and not relevant to eternity{ forever }.
Humans have the most trouble grasping ---get their head around---= eternity and infinitity as well making the distinction between the two.
Eternal is to time { /\/\/ } as infinite is to space { ...( )( ).... }
-->
@3RU7AL
I like having wheels for feet. [LINK]
Ha, cool! Most likely your a speed freak. :--)
This tensegrity video below leads into a video of lightweight tensegrity that is replicating tensegrity nature of the individual bioloigic cells and not the whole human and they all revolve around space bound robots to other planets to be dropped in on a planet from orbit to collect data.
-->
@mustardness
False. Never is eternally ergo beyond time limits.
No,never is never going to happen,enough with your complicated nonsense!
Eternal is to time { /\/\/ } as infinite is to space { ...( )( ).... }
Eternal and infinite don't mix
More nonsense!
18 days later
Eternal is to time { /\/\/ } as,
Infinite is to space { ( )( ) }
Eternal is is beyond time and its periods-of-time limits { parameters }.
Eternal is no-time ergo a 2D slice { area aka | } of a dynamic 3D volume { /\ }.
.....< past < out < ( time ) I ( time ) < in < Future
....< past < out < ( time ) ego ( time ) < in < Future
....< past < out < ( * ) ego ( * ) < in < Future
....< past < out < (>*<) i (>*<) < in < Future
Consciousness is observed time { \/\/\/\ }
Metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts are beyond time.
42 days later
If you hold a stone in your hand and let it go it will fall to the ground,
This is 'cause of gravity.
but if you hold a bird and let it go it may not land for minutes, or hours.
This is 'cause.... birds fly? Also, I don't think any bird can fly for hours without landing. Birds can and will eventually get tired of flying.
All freedom is limited and all spatial freedoms stem from the root core, 12 degrees-of-freedom associated with,
1} 12 vertexes of the regular/symmetrical, 5{phi}-fold icosa{20}hedron, and,
2} 12 vertexes of the asymmetrical, 4-fold cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron.
12 is the common root core to all regular symmetrical polyhedra and the 25 Archimedian polyhedra.
A slice-of-pie is a triangle based wedge shape. A slice-of-time has no shape.
....( * ) i ( * )....
i , as in ego, is beyond space ( ) and time \*/ .
Though this be an old thread, I suppose I should post here rather than create another thread about free will.
Here are my thoughts on it:
I think the people claiming free will exists have a high burden of proof. I don't accept the "it's self-evident" argument since, well it isn't for me at least and a somewhat recent study found that we only feel like we have free will due to a portion of the brain creating that feeling. So, the self-evident argument doesn't hold up considering it's a product of the brain, not an actual idea produced by a person.
At any rate, there's obvious evidence that people make different decisions when they have their neurotransmission affected or have different genes than another. I shouldn't have to cite the many studies which looked at using magnetism to alter people's behavior and beliefs, or how psychopharmaceutical drugs impact a person's neurotransmission and impacts their behavior either. It's pretty well-established we can produce desired actions by altering a person's brain chemistry.
That being the case, I say the BOP is very high for metaphysical libertarians. They must prove under the following circumstance that two people can make different decisions:
Conjoined identical twins whom we control their brain chemistry to be the same 24/7, erase any memories one has of events that the other somehow didn't take part of, etc. I'll accept free will once we conduct such an experiment multilpe times and it comes out that one twin makes different choices than the other. This, of course, requires us to advance in neuroscience much more though.
-->
@keithprosser
Depends on the type of bird.
And it's flight ability.
And the point of initiation.
And if it didn't have inherent conditioning, what would it's chances be?
-->
@Cogent_Cognizer
I think there is a 'terminological' issue to be resolved.
There is a sense in which I can choose which direction to walk (either to the library or to the shops,say). A leaf blowing in the wind has no desire to go in any particular direction and does not make any decision about how it will be blown around.
The danger is that one can 'define free will away' and it becomes impossible to distinguish between the two cases, when there is clearly avery big difference between choosing where to walk and being unconsciously blown hither and tither by the wind.
Given that determinism is 'true' (for present purposes!), I think the interesting question is how 'entities with free will' (such as people) differ from object that don't have it (such as fallen leaves). Reducing them both to a 'lowest commin denominator' is trivial, but (to me)that only scratches the surface of 'free will'.
-->
@keithprosser
I think there is a 'terminological' issue to be resolved.There is a sense in which I can choose which direction to walk (either to the library or to the shops,say). A leaf blowing in the wind has no desire to go in any particular direction and does not make any decision about how it will be blown around.The danger is that one can 'define free will away' and it becomes impossible to distinguish between the two cases, when there is clearly avery big difference between choosing where to walk and being unconsciously blown hither and tither by the wind.Given that determinism is 'true' (for present purposes!), I think the interesting question is how 'entities with free will' (such as people) differ from object that don't have it (such as fallen leaves). Reducing them both to a 'lowest commin denominator' is trivial, but (to me)that only scratches the surface of 'free will'.
Please explain "the danger"?
The most practical upshot of "the noble lie" of "freewill" is that people are more likely to "blame themselves" if they were given a "choice".
For example, if people are drafted into the military and they are killed, then we tend to blame "the government" for forcing them into battle.
HOwever, if people volunteer for military service and they are killed, then we tend to say, "they knew what they were getting into" and "they made a brave choice".
The key advantage seems to lie on the side of the con-artist.
-->
@keithprosser
Given that determinism is 'true' (for present purposes!), I think the interesting question is how 'entities with free will' (such as people) differ from object that don't have it (such as fallen leaves). Reducing them both to a 'lowest commin denominator' is trivial, but (to me)that only scratches the surface of 'free will'.
Kieth, degrees of complexity separate the two your concerned with above.