E
edwest2
Guest
Or, let’s put it another way. It gets rid of all us pesky humans and spends eternity looking out the window 
Ed
Ed
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
But the flow of electrons through a logic gate, or any combination of logic gates ARE deterministic.
For a given set of (name removed by moderator)uts, there will be a known output.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
The use of “determined” in the Ross argument is not automatically the same thing as physical determinacy. Indeed, what exactly “determined” means in the Ross argument is a point of contention and he has been criticized for it:
somewhatabnormal.blogspot.com/2013/11/determined-by-what.html
S
Solmyr
Guest
Why do you think that technology is limited to its current level? Besides, the electrons move about in our brain and yet the result is not deterministic nor it is predictable.
T
tonyrey
Guest
If success in playing games is the main criterion of human achievement it explains the appalling amount of needless injustice, diabolical inequality ruthless bloodshed and the vicious law of the jungle in human society. It amounts to the apotheosis of the will to power.
E
edwest2
Guest
Such speculation needs to be lengthy and specific, not general. AI’s will not do certain things since (A) they have been programmed not to, (B) have no human rights, (C) are devices without a will, goals or desires. An AI that malfunctions can simply be destroyed. It is a thing, not a human being.
Most decisions we make are highly predictable, especially if a successful outcome is the goal and that is the goal for most human beings unless they malfunction in some way. Human behavior has been studied for a long time and a lot of peer-reviewed literature is available. Real people have needs, followed by desires and goals. Many are aware that certain actions have consequences. We do not have the freedom to do anything.
Ed
C
ccmnxc
Guest
2 could very well be false, I suppose, but I’m going to roll with the assumption that it is true until someone decides to attack it, because right now, I don’t think there are very many people willing to commit to that position.
As for Tyrrell’s posts, are there any claims or posts in particular you want me to address so I don’t have to fisk all of his (semi-longish) comments?
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
His issue is essentially that the arguments used in defense of #1 are fully general, so there is no reason to restrict them to physical things only. That is to say, you could make the exact same arguments in defense of a second proposition:
1’ No non-physical process is determinate between incompossible functions/forms.
or even
1’’ No process of any sort is determinate between incompossible functions/forms.
And subsequently argue that nothing can execute functions in the sense Ross has invented.
I also linked to a second criticism which suggests that Ross is equivocating on what “determinate” means.
T
tonyrey
Guest
That seems to eliminate free will, Ed!
B
Bradski
Guest
Let’s do a trivial experiment to prove you have free will. You want to continue posting on this matter so exercise your free will and do not post anything else on this thread.
If free will exists, then you can now prove it to us all.
S
SPBlitz
Guest
How , exactly, does this prove free will does or does not exist?
S
Solmyr
Guest
Why should it? We all could see that predicting the future is very likely to be incorrect. The more specific the prediction might be, the less likely it will become true. As Alvin Toffler described in his book “Future Shock”, the future comes much faster than we are comfortable with its progress. Who could have predicted the impact of cell-phones twenty years ago?
How can you predict what kinds of limitations will be built into a future artificial entity? If we consider Asimov’s famous “three laws”, and his wonderfully written stories about them, we can be quite certain that some “glitches” will occur, even with the best intentions. As for “human rights”, they are all social constructs and there is no guarantee that these “rights” will exclude artificial beings. As for “will, goals or desires”, they can all be “built into” the machines.
Just consider a simple thought experiment. The machines run on batteries. Its programming can detect when the battery starts to run low on power. So it will seek the nearest power outlet and plug into I. Just observe the cute, little iRobot vacuum cleaner. It already does exactly as I described… so I take back the “thought” part of the experiment. If you do not wish to call that as “desire”, that is your business. But there is no difference between the iRobot and you, when you get hungry.
The internal process is different, but that is irrelevant.I certainly agree with your last sentence, although it has nothing to do with the topic. Yet we have a whole lot of freedom - sometimes way too much.
I saw your posts where you described your interest in following the military applications. That is fine and dandy… many parts of our culture started in a special field, like the military, and quickly merged into the mainstream life. Just consider the “Teflon” frying pans in your kitchen. Or the Internet, which was an academic / military tool just a few years ago.
S
Solmyr
Guest
Not that it belongs to this thread, since tony is the undisputed master of derailing thread, but just think about this: “do you REALLY have the free will to kidnap and rape a child”? I am sure that you could - THEORETICALLY - perform such an act, but REALISTICALLY your whole upbringing - which is your preprogrammed behavior - would prevent you from actually carrying out such an act.
Of course Bradski’s wonderful reply might have the desired outcome, namely preventing tony from making further irrelevant interruptions. But that is probably just a pipe dream.
S
SPBlitz
Guest
I don’t think Tony was off topic. Free will is very relevant when discussing deterministic systems, AI, and the mind.
As to your thought experiment, I think we have different definitions of free will. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your definition seems to be Compatablistic (a choice is ‘free’ only when it is not coerced by an outside source, yet it is still completely determined by preprogramming’). My definition of free will (and I think the one that Tony was referring to) is that people have the ability in causally identical situations to choose either A or not-A. Or, in different words, that when a person chooses something, their choice is caused by nothing but their will (which would seem to exclude preprogamming, since this programming is not ‘willed’).
I’m sure that everyone does have a certain level of preprogramming, determined by their genetics and environment. However, this doesn’t mean that this preprogramming entirely determines a person’s choices. I think your objection would only work if it was physically impossible for me to do an evil action (and not just that I freely choose not to do this action). But this all hinges on whether or not the human mind and will is completely reducible to deterministic causes, which is the issue under discussion.
As a side note, your scenario seems like it would undermine any sort of morality. If the only thing that prevents someone from kidnapping and murdering a child is ‘preprogamming’ (that the individual has no control over), than this implies that if a person does do these evil acts, then it is because of some sort of preprogamming that determined that they would do so. They had no choice in the matter.
As to your thought experiment, I think we have different definitions of free will. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your definition seems to be Compatablistic (a choice is ‘free’ only when it is not coerced by an outside source, yet it is still completely determined by preprogramming’). My definition of free will (and I think the one that Tony was referring to) is that people have the ability in causally identical situations to choose either A or not-A. Or, in different words, that when a person chooses something, their choice is caused by nothing but their will (which would seem to exclude preprogamming, since this programming is not ‘willed’).
I’m sure that everyone does have a certain level of preprogramming, determined by their genetics and environment. However, this doesn’t mean that this preprogramming entirely determines a person’s choices. I think your objection would only work if it was physically impossible for me to do an evil action (and not just that I freely choose not to do this action). But this all hinges on whether or not the human mind and will is completely reducible to deterministic causes, which is the issue under discussion.
As a side note, your scenario seems like it would undermine any sort of morality. If the only thing that prevents someone from kidnapping and murdering a child is ‘preprogamming’ (that the individual has no control over), than this implies that if a person does do these evil acts, then it is because of some sort of preprogamming that determined that they would do so. They had no choice in the matter.
B
Bradski
Guest
He can choose to not respond. If he has no free will, he will be compelled to do so. He desperately wants to prove there is such a thing, so he won’t.
Or…will he…
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Dun dun dun!
B
Blinky
Guest
Free will is unrestricted. If someone chooses to post to the forum, they are exercising their free will. If they choose not to post, they are also exercising their free will.
And great job by the people at Google. They are highly intelligent programmers and designers. (However, I use an iPhone.)
And great job by the people at Google. They are highly intelligent programmers and designers. (However, I use an iPhone.)
T
tonyrey
Guest
Precisely! Inexorable logic.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
That would suit you down to the ground! Eliminate the opponents is an elementary policy for those who are incapable of defending their incoherent beliefs…
If you cannot choose what to believe you are no more than a biological computer operated by factors beyond your control. An unenviable predicament! To be an impotent spectator of events is certainly not a consummation devoutly to be wished…
- Status