Dilemma of intelligent design and free will

[georget]

My goodness but you are a mighty smart fellow - since you know what God can and cannot create…

Peace
James

 

[hasantas]

There does not exist a knowledge of consciousness hence free will because knowledge is utility of consciousness.

God cannot create consciousness since it is a conscious being unless you say otherwise.

I cannot understand what you mean.

You have a propblem with free will. If some does not respect God hence he cannot understand free will. If you have doubts about existence of God then do not attempt to understand free will. It is not use to talk about some issues like destiny and free will with some who do not accept God.

 

[Bahman]

I cannot understand what you mean.

You have a propblem with free will. If some does not respect God hence he cannot understand free will. If you have doubts about existence of God then do not attempt to understand free will. It is not use to talk about some issues like destiny and free will with some who do not accept God.

Do you agree that knowledge is the utility of consciousness?

 

[hasantas]

Do you agree that knowledge is the utility of consciousness?

The conscious is a bit different from mind but both can be assumed as same. Yes we realise and get knowledge with conscious and mind. Yet what do you mean?

 

[seagal]

You have a propblem with free will. If some does not respect God hence he cannot understand free will.** If you have doubts about existence of God then do not attempt to understand free will**. It is not use to talk about some issues like destiny and free will with some who do not accept God.

This ^ ^ ^

 

[Bahman]

The conscious is a bit different from mind but both can be assumed as same. Yes we realise and get knowledge with conscious and mind. Yet what do you mean?

Then knowledge cannot leads to anything which grant the ability to know consciousness. In another word, nothing is beyond consciousness. It is primary and the most fundamental quality. Hence conscious being cannot be created.

 

[seagal]

Then knowledge cannot leads to anything which grant the ability to know consciousness. In another word, nothing is beyond consciousness. It is primary and the most fundamental quality. Hence conscious being cannot be created.

This is still just an assertion on your part. You keep trying to put limits on what God can and cannot do.

Consciousness obviously is created since you and I and every other living human and animal exist. Where did the mind come from? Whether you believe consciousness is purely a product of evolution or a direct creation from God, it’s impossible. Yet it exists.

 

[Bahman]

This is still just an assertion on your part. You keep trying to put limits on what God can and cannot do.

Consciousness obviously is created since you and I and every other living human and animal exist. Where did the mind come from? Whether you believe consciousness is purely a product of evolution or a direct creation from God, it’s impossible. Yet it exists.

This is an assertion on your part. A primary being like consciousness cannot be create and cannot come to existence as a by product of other thing. No changes is possible without consciousness and changes cannot leads to something conscious. I have a argument for that:

Consider a system in a given state S which can cause another state S’. Both state cannot coexist hence S must vanishes before S’ which is problematic hence the awareness of state S must exist in consciousness to allow any change.

 

[seagal]

This is an assertion on your part. **A primary being like consciousness cannot be create and cannot come to existence as a by product of other thing. **

This is not simply an assertion. A conscious being can be created, in fact millions are being created every day. Depending on your belief, either directly by God or as a result of evolution.

No changes is possible without consciousness and changes cannot leads to something conscious.

That’s a very sweeping statement that doesn’t really hold water. An acorn changes into an oak tree without consciousness.

I have a argument for that:

Consider a system in a given state S which can cause another state S’. Both state cannot coexist hence S must vanishes before S’ which is problematic hence the awareness of state S must exist in consciousness to allow any change.

What you’re describing is a paradox. It’s like saying it’s impossible to cross the floor because with each step you move half the distance. You get closer and closer but never actually get to the end. It might be interesting mathematically, but not practically.

 

[Bahman]

Your right - this is the hard argument. I am not smart enough to follow it well…particularly since it seems that English is not your first language and I am having trouble gathering some of your thoughts…
That said - it seems to me that you are making some rather large jumps in your logic.
Take your very first statement - - forget all the rest - - Why is the act of designing a being with free will logically impossible.
Here is what I see - - A designer may choose ANY set of parameters and design (or at least try to design) his creation from there. Others may tell him that what he is attempting won’t work, and maybe they are right…yet the designer is free to choose to try…Therefore, it is not logically impossible for a designer to design a “being” with “free will”.

Thank you for your encouraging word and sorry for my my English. I will try to do better.

Lets see if we go even further. Consider a system at which for a given (name removed by moderator)ut it gives a unique output. This is a system at which it functions based on (name removed by moderator)ut and infrastructure within. The infrastructure within could then be the subject of knowing. We can construct the sufficient knowledge of the system, knowing the minimal set of prepositions which can explain the behavior of the system. This set of prepositions in fact acts like a constraint which uniquely determine the behavior of the system. In simple word we can say that the system functions. The existence of the set of preposition guarantee the existence of design. A conscious being with free will however does not belong to this category since (name removed by moderator)uts never determines the outcome meaning that there exist not a set of prepositions which can define the outcome of the being given the (name removed by moderator)ut. It would be wrong to search for a set of psychological laws since they could not exist if the person is conscious hence design is impossible.

I don’t think that we have sufficient knowledge of the subject of consciousness to make any such conclusion.

The main question is whether consciousness is knowable thing. What I am arguing is that it cannot since knowledge is a utility of consciousness. This has to do with theory of knowledge which its very simple principle says that we need to experience an objective reality in order to construct any knowledge of it, yet consciousness cannot be the subject of experience since it is what we experience the objective reality with. Hence, we cannot build the knowledge of what consciousness is.

Perhaps not - - - But it IS a designer using free will (free choice) as a parameter in his design…So it disproves your assertion above that attempting to design a being with free will is a logical impossibility.

Peace
James

Perhaps you need to read Chinese room argument.

 

[Bahman]

This is not simply an assertion. A conscious being can be created, in fact millions are being created every day. Depending on your belief, either directly by God or as a result of evolution.

Again consciousness cannot come into existence. We are manifestation of consciousness itself hence creation and evolution are false.

That’s a very sweeping statement that doesn’t really hold water. An acorn changes into an oak tree without consciousness.

Then please read my argument again.

What you’re describing is a paradox. It’s like saying it’s impossible to cross the floor because with each step you move half the distance. You get closer and closer but never actually get to the end. It might be interesting mathematically, but not practically.

Paradox is resolved in presence of consciousness. This is in fact the way you do things so it could be very easy to understand my argument.

 

[Gorgias]

knowing the minimal set of prepositions which can explain the behavior of the system.

The existence of the set of preposition guarantee the existence of design. A conscious being with free will however does not belong to this category since (name removed by moderator)uts never determines the outcome meaning that there exist not a set of prepositions which can define the outcome of the being given the (name removed by moderator)ut.

I disagree; the (name removed by moderator)uts still do determine the outcome, but the (name removed by moderator)uts – in the case of a conscious being imbued with free will – include the being himself!

It would be wrong to search for a set of psychological laws since they could not exist if the person is conscious hence design is impossible.

No – the description of the state of the person can exist, and therefore, the existence of the person does not render design impossible.

theory of knowledge which its very simple principle says that we need to experience an objective reality in order to construct any knowledge of it

Fair enough. Let’s suppose that I have no knowledge of a “bacon double cheeseburger.” Then, I experience a bacon double cheeseburger one day. At some time in the future, when I encounter another bacon double cheeseburger, I draw upon my past experience of bacon double cheeseburgers in order to know, “aha! a bacon double cheeseburger!”

Wouldn’t you agree?

, yet consciousness cannot be the subject of experience since it is what we experience the objective reality with. Hence, we cannot build the knowledge of what consciousness is.

That doesn’t seem right to me:

Let’s suppose that I’m blissfully unaware of my own consciousness. (Note: this doesn’t mean that I’m not conscious, but simply have given no thought to its presence.) Then, one day, I have an experience, which gives rise to knowledge, that I am a conscious being. At some time in the future, when I have an experience, I draw upon my past experience of consciousness in order to know, “aha! I am conscious!”

Wouldn’t you agree?

Perhaps you need to read Chinese room argument.

Is the designer of the Chinese room attempting to build a system with consciousness, or rather, merely a system that has the same outputs as a being with consciousness?

 

[JRKH]

Thank you for your encouraging word and sorry for my my English. I will try to do better.

Thanks…I will try to read more carefully as well

Lets see if we go even further.

OK

Consider a system at which for a given (name removed by moderator)ut it gives a unique output. This is a system at which it functions based on (name removed by moderator)ut and infrastructure within.

So far so good. At this point we would consider that free will would be a function of the internal infrastructure.

The infrastructure within could then be the subject of knowing. We can construct the sufficient knowledge of the system, knowing the minimal set of prepositions which can explain the behavior of the system.

If I understand you correctly here - This need not be the case. Yes we can construct the knowledge in which case your proposition would be true, OR we can construct a system that allows the being to develop it’s own knowledge (which is what babies do) in which case I don’t believe your proposition would hold true…

This set of prepositions in fact acts like a constraint which uniquely determine the behavior of the system. In simple word we can say that the system functions. The existence of the set of preposition guarantee the existence of design.

I don’t agree that this must be true. One of the principles behind developing AI in computers is to allow the computer to develop the knowledge base - based on (name removed by moderator)uts and consequences

A conscious being with free will however does not belong to this category since (name removed by moderator)uts never determines the outcome meaning that there exist not a set of prepositions which can define the outcome of the being given the (name removed by moderator)ut. It would be wrong to search for a set of psychological laws since they could not exist if the person is conscious hence design is impossible.

Sorry - but I just do not agree. Design remains possible…One only need change the design parameters.

Peace
James

 

[hasantas]

Then knowledge cannot leads to anything which grant the ability to know consciousness. In another word, nothing is beyond consciousness. It is primary and the most fundamental quality. Hence conscious being cannot be created.

God is primary consciousness and God is not being created.

God’s knowledge can know the action of human’s conscious because God’s knowledge is eternal and the conscious which given to human is temporary.

If you mean that knowledge is result of conscious and conscious can know what is already happened so God cannot know what conscious will learn?

 

[seagal]

Again consciousness cannot come into existence.

I don’t know how you can possibly believe that. “Consciousness cannot come into existence”? It can and does every day as a new person is conceived and develops in the womb. What starts out as a simple 1 celled being develops a brain, then a mind, then consciousness. You doubt that? Then where did your consciousness come from?

We are manifestation of consciousness itself hence creation and evolution are false.

*Both *creation *and *evolution are false? Then where did you come from?

Paradox is resolved in presence of consciousness. This is in fact the way you do things so it could be very easy to understand my argument.

Paradoxes are by nature unresolvable. You say in your example that the first state must disappear before the second state can appear, which on it’s face is true. But in the real world things change from one state to another all the time. Cold water becomes hot and turns into steam. Small seeds grow into tall plants. Humans grow from zygots to old men. How does this happen in your philosophy?

 

[Bahman]

I disagree; the (name removed by moderator)uts still do determine the outcome, but the (name removed by moderator)uts – in the case of a conscious being imbued with free will – include the being himself!

Could I please soften your and my sentence? The (name removed by moderator)ut has influence on the output but it never uniquely determine the output.

No – the description of the state of the person can exist, and therefore, the existence of the person does not render design impossible.

It could not because the state of the person is subject to his/her consciousness and (name removed by moderator)ut. Theory of knowledge is not applicable to consciousness since it is consciousness’s utility. We however have access to (name removed by moderator)ut but that doesn’t define the state of the person completely hence we cannot have physiological laws.

Fair enough. Let’s suppose that I have no knowledge of a “bacon double cheeseburger.” Then, I experience a bacon double cheeseburger one day. At some time in the future, when I encounter another bacon double cheeseburger, I draw upon my past experience of bacon double cheeseburgers in order to know, “aha! a bacon double cheeseburger!”

Wouldn’t you agree?

Yes.

That doesn’t seem right to me:

Let’s suppose that I’m blissfully unaware of my own consciousness. (Note: this doesn’t mean that I’m not conscious, but simply have given no thought to its presence.) Then, one day, I have an experience, which gives rise to knowledge, that I am a conscious being. At some time in the future, when I have an experience, I draw upon my past experience of consciousness in order to know, “aha! I am conscious!”

Wouldn’t you agree?

We cannot possibly experience consciousness but deduce it.

Is the designer of the Chinese room attempting to build a system with consciousness, or rather, merely a system that has the same outputs as a being with consciousness?

It is an attempt to show the difference between syntax and semantic meaning the syntax make the machine works but it does not grant awareness.

 

[Bahman]

Thanks…I will try to read more carefully as well

OK

Thanks for you patience.

So far so good. At this point we would consider that free will would be a function of the internal infrastructure.

No, I disagree. Free will cannot be an infrastructure. The system cannot be free if it give a unique output given a very specific (name removed by moderator)ut.

If I understand you correctly here - This need not be the case. Yes we can construct the knowledge in which case your proposition would be true, OR we can construct a system that allows the being to develop it’s own knowledge (which is what babies do) in which case I don’t believe your proposition would hold true.

Science which is a theory of knowledge for example works that way, meaning having a set of large experiences on the system with given number N, it provide you a set of prepositions, so called laws of nature, with a given number of N’<N in which the behavior of
system is well known.

I don’t agree that this must be true. One of the principles behind developing AI in computers is to allow the computer to develop the knowledge base - based on (name removed by moderator)uts and consequences

But an AI is designed to function accordingly. What I am claiming is that the internal state of an AI is solely defined by syntax, (name removed by moderator)ut and feedback whereas for a conscious being it is defined by semantic, (name removed by moderator)ut, feedback and consciousness.

Sorry - but I just do not agree. Design remains possible…One only need change the design parameters.

Peace
James

Design remains possible. What is your objection?

 

[davidv]

Thanks for you patience.

No, I disagree. Free will cannot be an infrastructure.

Why?

The system cannot be free if it give a unique output given a very specific (name removed by moderator)ut.

I think you’re ignoring the fact that with free will, one of the of the (name removed by moderator)uts (the will) is not fixed by the content of the others.

Science which is a theory of knowledge for example works that way, meaning having a set of large experiences on the system with given number N, it provide you a set of prepositions, so called laws of nature, with a given number of N’<N in which the behavior of
system is well known.

Since free will is an non-material attribute, any claims made in the name of science are simply opinions that are not based in science.

But an AI is designed to function accordingly. What I am claiming is that the internal state of an AI is solely defined by syntax, (name removed by moderator)ut and feedback whereas for a conscious being it is defined by semantic, (name removed by moderator)ut, feedback and consciousness.

Which is why free will and AI cannot be equated.

Design remains possible. What is your objection?

That your objection is not based on a reasonable argument.

 

[Gorgias]

Could I please soften your and my sentence? The (name removed by moderator)ut has influence on the output but it never uniquely determine the output.

Is that indistinguishable from the assertion that the (name removed by moderator)uts (and their role in the function) simply aren’t fully known? Not ‘fully knowable’, mind you, just not currently ‘fully known’.

It could not because the state of the person is subject to his/her consciousness and (name removed by moderator)ut.

But that’s precisely what I’m asserting! If we might describe what these ‘(name removed by moderator)uts’ are, vis-a-vis the person, we could predict his choices! Note that ‘free will’ doesn’t imply ‘lack of predictabilty’, but merely that the person is free to make this choice himself. ‘Lack of predictability’ is merely an assertion that we don’t fully know all the salient factors that go into his decision.

Theory of knowledge is not applicable to consciousness since it is consciousness’s utility.

Can God ‘know’?

We however have access to (name removed by moderator)ut but that doesn’t define the state of the person completely hence we cannot have physiological laws.

Brilliant! I think you truly get it!

We may not have access to all the (name removed by moderator)uts, but that does not imply that the (name removed by moderator)uts do not exist (or may not be known).

We might not have sufficient knowledge to posit laws, but that does not imply that the knowledge does not exist or cannot be understood. It’s merely a case of who has this knowledge… (hint: it’s God. )

Yes.

Great: so, experientially, we deduce knowledge of ‘bacon double cheeseburger’ through the experience of a bacon double cheeseburger.

We cannot possibly experience consciousness but deduce it.

Here’s where you run into problems. I deduce knowledge of ‘bacon double cheeseburger’ through my experience of it. Why, then, do you assert that my experience of my consciousness does not allow me to assert knowledge of my own consciousness?

It is an attempt to show the difference between syntax and semantic meaning the syntax make the machine works but it does not grant awareness.

The fact that semantic meaning does not imply awareness does not prove that awareness does not exist.

 

[Bahman]

God is primary consciousness and God is not being created.

I give you the definition of consciousness: consciousness is the ability to experience and affect or create mental states. What is your definition of primary consciousness?

God’s knowledge can know the action of human’s conscious because God’s knowledge is eternal and the conscious which given to human is temporary.

This is an argument?

If you mean that knowledge is result of conscious and conscious can know what is already happened so God cannot know what conscious will learn?

Our discussion was not about what we know that God could not know. Our discussion was based on the fact that knowledge is just a utility of consciousness and not more, meaning that it is impossible to construct the knowledge to know consciousness with. Hence, conscious being cannot be created since the related knowledge cannot be accumulated.