Thank you my love

Self-control is more than being legal. It is a powerful force required to negotiate new paths in one's life toward another. Endurance on the other hand helps you make informed decision; how long for depends on you the subject to accept said task. A mother knows when she is due for birth. She makes a staunch defense to allow her to deliver that baby successfully. Her transformation for evolving is impeccable and supernatural.

...If you would allow me add a thought. With Great Freedom comes Great Responsibility. All of us are the sum of all our life experiences. Experiment: stop, take a step, now within that 360 degree circle, do anything you want, wether for good or evil. You have total Free Will, however, with that Great Freedom comes Great Responsibility, yet you, we, still have complete Free Will, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...so simple, yet so complicated elegance. The Gift of Life is so incredibly Beautiful. Both of you are Marvelous in your own way...

True free will necessitates the ability to act without adhering to any rules (in our universe). So long as some outside influence can affect our universe in a way that doesn’t adhere to classical physics, I think we can conclude free will exists. This will come down to truly understanding the “random” mechanisms of quantum mechanics.

@dr_shrinker

13 күн бұрын

Random chance is not freewill either.

@randomone4832

13 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker Well if it proves not to be random, but just eminating from a non-physical realm, I’d count that as free will.

@bozdowleder2303

12 күн бұрын

The only reasonable definition of non-physical is non-regular. Basically if something isn't a computable function of the state vector of the universe, we call it random. But merely being random with respect to the universe, it should be non-random with respect to some autonomous system independent of our universe, namely another universe. So if you have a subsystem of the universe U whose state function S(t) can be written in the form F(S_U(t), Random(t)) where S_U is the state function of the universe and Random is not a computable function of S_U, but there's a different universe V s.t Random is a computable function of S_V, then we can say that the subsystem is in some sense a free agent. So you would have to find an entire universe outside of our universe to prove that something is a free agent. And even then only in the case where the universe is not fatalistic. If the universe is fatalistic(and it could be so without being deterministic, just because you cannot predict the future doesn't mean it is not set in stone), then we should still conclude that libertarian free will is false

@dr_shrinker

12 күн бұрын

@@randomone4832how could it be non-physical if it has affects on the physical world?

@randomone4832

11 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker Not from our universe? But I suppose anything we discover becomes de facto part of our universe, since the definition of it is just “everything that exists.” I see why this can be problematic. Maybe I would call it categorically different than physics as we know it.

openness when look at an input in different ways before making decision? any number of decision makers process an input?

The underlying assumption in this discussion is that "indeterminism = randomness". This falls out of the basic assumption that everyone in science appears to be working with that the only possible descriptors of our universe are that it is either deterministic, random, or some combination of both. Given that, there is no room for "free agency" at all. If we are to believe our own first-hand experience and instincts -- that we are conscious, free agents not bound by either determinism or chance -- there must be something big missing from this picture of the world allowed by our current science. Something monumentally big.

@Picasso_Picante92

14 күн бұрын

You mean God?

@theydisintegrate

14 күн бұрын

Descartes proposed dualism. I think you're probably correct, because why should we be so special in our little brains to understand all of the universe and existence right now, after billions of years have passed? Surely there's much more than we know, but also maybe our little brains can never know it.

@wattshumphrey8422

14 күн бұрын

@@Picasso_Picante92 I assume your question is rhetorical... There are many who would answer "yes" to your question. That is not where I'm going with this. My interest is in exploring avenues to identify the missing piece and expand our current science to include it.

@Picasso_Picante92

13 күн бұрын

@@wattshumphrey8422 Yes, it was rhetorical.

@richardatkinson4710

13 күн бұрын

Not really. Epicurus introduced “the swerve” (an occasional non-deterministic motion of atoms) to enable free will. If the atom can sometimes unpredictably swerve, then a swerve caused by an act of will is no longer anomalous. “Unpredictable” does not mean “random”.

is there free will, determined or undetermined, where there is causation?

Responsibility can be perfectly applied to both conscious and non-conscious agents. The whole point of punishment is for agents to keep in in mind while calculating decisions.

@brothermine2292

14 күн бұрын

Yes. But it should be noted that this kind of "responsibility" is a socially-imposed construct used to manipulate individuals' behavioral incentives. It's not the same "philosophical responsibility" that doesn't exist without real free will.

@simonhibbs887

14 күн бұрын

@@brothermine2292I wouldn’t call it philosophical responsibility. Determinism is a philosophy and it has an account of responsibility without libertarian free will. Which philosophical account of responsibility are you referring to?

@brothermine2292

14 күн бұрын

>simonhibbs887 : By "philosophical responsibility" I'm referring to the moral responsibility that some philosophers say doesn't exist in a deterministic universe that lacks "strong" free will. Some of them also say that, without that moral responsibility, there's no justification for punishments or rewards. But as the OP said, it's straightforward to justify punishments & rewards in order to manipulate incentives.

@commandvideo

14 күн бұрын

Poor consciousness, the brain calculate bad decisions and the conscious souls have to suffer the consequences of that

@medhurstt

14 күн бұрын

Clearly stated.

In Islamic paradigm we have complete free will for a limited number of variables in a deterministic Set. I like to think of it as a sphere in which we can move about freely but bounded by the limits of the given set who's dimensions have fixed and variable parts. The boundry of the sphere is called Qadar (prederminiation) which can be changed by Supplications. This entire structure is by the Allowance of God.

@markb3786

14 күн бұрын

Does your God know everything that will happen in the future, or is his knowledge limited? Don't change the question. Just answer this one. There is no in-between answer.

@A.--.

14 күн бұрын

@@markb3786 Allah says in Quran that He knows Everything! So i think He knows simultaneously the Past, Present and Future (and anything else that might be there) as per His Majesty.

@S3RAVA3LM

14 күн бұрын

Do you know of any genuine men of Reason, who study metaphysics, and who can interpret the Quran in a true way revealing the real meaning? I am looking for such an eurdite man but don't know where to find him.

@A.--.

14 күн бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM its me. Tell me which verse to help you with.

@S3RAVA3LM

13 күн бұрын

​@@A.--. I'm afraid you don't meet the standards of a bona-fide teacher. I was wrong in asking you such a question.

'Free Will' is this vague theory that we've inherited from Western history (

@1stPrinciples455

11 күн бұрын

This term was coined without proof it is real. In this sense, it's just like the word and concept of unicorn

@OneWithinn

4 күн бұрын

The concept of free will makes people live easier, your awareness of free will not existing helps no one. We humans are too limited, we should embrace our limits. The delusion of free will should also be embraced as a limit, awareness of reality isn't gonna help anyone. Human are inferior and have not been built for that and never will be. The pursuit for truth is fake. It is another delusion..

Someone needs to come along and nail down the terminology surrounding the free will debate and definitions of those terms so everyone can get on the same page going into the conversation. Every debate gets muddled and weighed down by personal interpretations of the terminology.

Can't understand the initial point RE: machines. Has any machine ever made a decision? Has any computer ever decided to do something contrary to its programming?

future is open, undetermined, even random? past is, or has been, determined? free will in both determined past (compatible) and open future (libertarian)?

I don't think whether the Universe is deterministic or not makes any difference on the free will matter. We feel the sense of a free will but I don't understand how it could emerge from any system as long as the fundamental rules seem to dictate what happens. I don't think the evolution of the brains resulted in some sort of override of these laws. On the other hand consciousness is also something I don't understand how it just happens to be created by the brains but it also doesn't seem to be in contradiction with the fundamental laws. In simple sistems like cells or some mechanical setup I don't expect to find awareness but with extremely organised and complex brains at some point we can see that something happened and awareness became possible.

is decision making a deterministic free will?

Has he talked to Bernado Kastrup yet?

I loved the soft deterministic flirting in the middle.

The universe always is . The energy keeps transforming. Everything is inside this transforming soup. In this sense, reality is predetermined

Responsibility is not the key idea in free will. A thunderbolt may be responsible for a death. We add responsibility to free will to arrive at moral praise or blame. Free will itself is essentially creativity, a source of meaningful novelty. Aristotle would say it is our ability to initiate a new causal chain. Etymologically, every word for cause, law or determinism is originally a metaphor modeled on human wilful action. Without that model, we are in the position of David Hume, presented with regularities in nature but unable either to account for, or to rely on, them with any certainty.

@DavidMoreharts

13 күн бұрын

The central idea of free will isn’t about responsibility it’s about MORAL responsibility

@richardatkinson4710

11 күн бұрын

@@DavidMoreharts No. Example: a) I choose a veggie pizza specifying no onions. I am responsible for the exclusion of onions. b) On a layer occasion I choose a veggie pizza but do not add any specification - it doesn’t cross my mind. I am responsible for the inclusion of onions but I did not choose to include them. There is no moral responsibility though there is responsibility in both cases. There is no act of will in respect of onions in case b.

@DavidMoreharts

11 күн бұрын

@@richardatkinson4710 are you saying that there’s no moral responsibility in either case?

@richardatkinson4710

11 күн бұрын

@@DavidMoreharts No. I’m saying that the moral element is not present - is not a defining feature - in every case of free will.

@DavidMoreharts

11 күн бұрын

@@richardatkinson4710 I appreciate your clarification and the distinction you’ve drawn between simple responsibility and moral responsibility. I maintain though that while not every exercise of free will carries a moral weight, the concept of free will is significant to us largely because of its moral implications. Our legal and ethical systems hinge on the belief that individuals can make choices for which they are morally accountable. Without the moral dimension, the discussion of free will would be a technical one about causality, arguably devoid of the human context that gives the concept its real-world gravity. So, while I agree with your examples, I think they represent a narrower view of free will that doesn’t capture why the concept is so pivotal in our societal structures and has been debated philosophically for thousands of years

Where she talks of decisions with no consciousness, it’s the same as a word with no meaning. The word isn’t sharing the meaning so the person using the word isn’t conscious of the details connected. Like responding just from seeing social media or a single source of info. It’s like speaking without thinking.

The difference between Free will and fate is an illusion. They secretly are the same thing and mutually arise, as light is not without darkness.

First question: what is the definition of "Free Will"? Free from what?

Have you ever heard of the subconscious mind. Consciousness is always present in any action of the body or mind

@aiya5777

14 күн бұрын

nope, people can still sleep, lose conciousness completely, without dreaming anything

@ZENTEN7777

14 күн бұрын

But where is the subconscious during all of this? And how does memory recall happen after an unconscious event.

She comes off as well versed in this topic, but it's odd that she starts with the premise that she has free will. Maybe she feels like she does, but that's not the same thing. It sounds closer to Dennett's idea that free will is necessary for accountability, which is only partly true. You can still take action against those who you think are likely to do things you consider very detrimental to your values, even if they don't have a choice about whether or not they would do those things given the opportunity. A lack of free will just decreases the justification for treating them with excessive cruelty for their beliefs or actions. Of course, people will do what they are going to do, but prior circumstances affect their behaviour.

She's almost a politician, expertly dodged giving any defense of her "capabilitism"

If you devide consciousness you become less conscious, not getting limited aspect....

I agree with her for the most part. When it comes to determinism, it makes all the difference in the world what is doing the determining. I mean if you were hooked up to a bunch of wires, and there was a puppet master pulling the strings, causing you to move, and the movement of your body was completely independent of your desires and motives, then your actions aren't really choices. Your behavior is not free. If it turns out that where are completely determined by blind mechanistic cause and effect (because the particles in our brains are just obeying the laws of physics), then that seems to be a kind of determinism that removes free will and along with it, responsibility. But if the thing determining our behavior is our own desires, motives, preferences, inclinations, etc., then that establishes our freedom. We're acting freely in the sense that we are doing exactly what we mean to do. If we are like puppets on strings, then we are passively being acted upon, but if we are determined to choose according to our desires, then we are active. To act on a desire is precisely what it means to make a choice. I don't see how freedom or responsibility are possible under libertarianism. Under libertarianism, not even your desires are sufficient to determine your behavior. You could have ever desire to act one way and no desire whatsoever to act the opposite way, and still somehow manage to act the opposite way. If somebody asked for an explanation for why you acted the opposite way, there would be no explanation. If there's no explanation, then it was just a random blip. You have no more control over random blips than you do over the wires causing you to move by a puppet master. But acting out of your own motives is what it means to be in control and to say that YOU are the one acting. So it seems to me that compatibilism is the only way to make sense of free will and responsibility.

@simonhibbs887

14 күн бұрын

I think the point of compatiblism is that our desires are a physical fact about our brains and bodies. They’re encoded in the hormones, neurochemicals, and activation potentials of the neural network of our brains. Our physical body is us, and to the extent that our physical body determines a choice, we determine that choice.

@philochristos

14 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 It may be that some or even most compabilists think our desires are physical facts, but it's definitely not true of all compatibilists. A compatibilist is just somebody who thinks determinism is compatible with free will. So a compatibilist could be a substance dualist. As long as they think our choices are determined by our mental states, they can be compatibilists whether they think our mental states are part of our physical brains, something that emerges from our physical brains, or something entirely different than our physical brains.

@simonhibbs887

14 күн бұрын

@@philochristos That’s a really good point, and a lapse on my part. I’ve even pointed this out in comments before. Thanks for putting me straight. Substance dualism doesn’t by its nature necessarily entail libertarian free will, this non physical substance could in principle still have a defined state and deterministic processes. However what many substance dualists mean by non physical is that it does not actually have a defined state or causal processes in the way that physical systems do. So it depends what they mean by non physical.

@christopherchilton-smith6482

14 күн бұрын

This comes off as little nuts, your desires and everything else that motivates you was shaped by forces beyond your control (biology and environment) and now those things you played no role in shaping determine your behavior. Compatabilists are working backward from a faulty conclusion, I'm starting to think all Compatabilists are intellectually dishonest.

@christopherchilton-smith6482

13 күн бұрын

Your motives, your desires were forged by forces completely outside your control (biology and environment). Acting in accordance with those desires and motives affords you no more control than their formation did. Compatibilist start with an erroneous conclusion and try to work backwards from there in an attempt to save the concepts of responsibility and praise. This is an intellectually dishonest endeavor.

I wonder... Quantum non locality for example messes with electronics. No matter how big a resistor is, electrons can and do randomly localize on the other side of it. Why do neuroscientists think quantum processes don't play a role like that in our brains? Just because it isn't their area of expertise?

(0:23) *AR: **_"You can have a purely non-minded algorithmic machine that makes decisions."_* ... Yes, but this machine would still owe its existence to the *conscious agent* who engineered it. From the point of its completion, every decision this machine makes would be by proxy. It would be making its decisions based solely on whatever data the conscious agent programmed into it. ... Thus, decisions by proxy. The fact is that only *conscious agents* can make decisions. Inanimate matter does not possess this capability unless a conscious agent configures it all into an extension of his or her own decision-making capability. A non-minded algorithmic machine would also not be able to make any moral decisions, or any decisions based on abstract thinking and subjectively "know" what it was deciding about. ...It can only work with whatever data the conscious engineer has previously provided.

@simonhibbs887

14 күн бұрын

Suppose that a natural process, such as self replicating physical systems that evolved through a process of natural selection, developed sophisticated goal seeking functions and behaviours orientated towards survival. Suppose they developed this in the wild without any human intervention. Would such systems be making decisions, in your view? Suppose a human being saw how this system worked and built an absolutely identical copy of it. Would that system be making decisions, or does the fact a human made it mean it isn’t, even though it’s is identical in every way to the naturally evolved version?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

14 күн бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887 *"Suppose that a natural process, such as self replicating physical systems that evolved through a process of natural selection, developed sophisticated goal seeking functions and behaviours orientated towards survival. Suppose they developed this in the wild without any human intervention. Would such systems be making decisions, in your view?"* ... YES! .... Because the instant a "goal" is established you are no longer dealing with inanimate matter; you're dealing with a specific characteristic of consciousness. A "goal" is foreknowledge of a preconceived outcome combined with a self-motivated desire to achieve that outcome, and the establishment of an intelligently orchestrated plan to make it all happen. *"Suppose a human being saw how this system worked and built an absolutely identical copy of it. Would that system be making decisions, or does the fact a human made it mean it isn’t, even though it’s is identical in every way to the naturally evolved version?"* ... YES! ... Because humans would be mimicking a byproduct of consciousness that's able to do the same thing that humans can do (i.e., establish a goal, have an inward desire to achieve it, and drafting up an intelligence-based plan to make it all happen). Inanimate structure does not set goals, achieve goals, nor orchestrate any intelligence-based plans to achieve anything at all.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

14 күн бұрын

*"Suppose that a natural process, such as self replicating physical systems that evolved through a process of natural selection, developed sophisticated goal seeking functions and behaviours orientated towards survival. Suppose they developed this in the wild without any human intervention. Would such systems be making decisions, in your view?"* ... YES! .... Because the instant a "goal" is established you are no longer dealing with inanimate matter; you're dealing with a specific characteristic of consciousness. A "goal" is foreknowledge of a preconceived outcome combined with a self-motivated desire to achieve that outcome, and the establishment of an intelligently orchestrated plan to make it all happen. *"Suppose a human being saw how this system worked and built an absolutely identical copy of it. Would that system be making decisions, or does the fact a human made it mean it isn’t, even though it’s is identical in every way to the naturally evolved version?"* ... YES! ... Because humans would be mimicking a byproduct of consciousness that's able to do the same thing that humans can do (i.e., establish a goal, have an inward desire to achieve it, and drafting up an intelligence-based plan to make it all happen). Inanimate structure does not set goals, achieve goals, nor orchestrate any intelligence-based plans to achieve anything at all.

@simonhibbs887

14 күн бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC The bit I disagree with thee is when you say humans would be mimicking a byproduct of consciousness. I don’t think that’s right. They would be mimicking a byproduct of evolution. The thing they would be duplicating would be conscious, in your account of consciousness. The critical thing here though is that it’s the nature of the system itself that matters, not the way it came about. Whether the system evolved independently, or was constructed by humans, it doesn’t make any difference to its intrinsic nature, how it functions or what it’s doing. I think that’s a general principle. I don’t actually agree with that definition of consciousness though, I think that’s intentionality. Consciousness is more about self awareness and introspection rather than goal seeking, in my view. Thats a side issue to the main point here though.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

14 күн бұрын

*"They would be mimicking a byproduct of evolution."* ... Evolution of what? What is evolving and what did it evolve from? In other words, you'd have to demonstrate how intelligence can emerge in an arena that's void of any and all intelligence. It's like trying to explain the existence of light without accepting the existence of energy. *"The critical thing here though is that it’s the nature of the system itself that matters, not the way it came about."* ... I disagree! You can't use a system (nature) as an example how things evolve while dismissing the origin of that same system as being irrelevant. If nature has a certain percentage of intelligence embedded within it and this intelligence was present from its onset, then wouldn't it be "unscientific" to not factor this in when using "natural processes" as an example? *"Whether the system evolved independently, or was constructed by humans, it doesn’t make any difference to its intrinsic nature, how it functions or what it’s doing. I think that’s a general principle."* ... if you're juxtaposing two evolutionary systems (nature's way of evolving things and humanity's way of evolving things), then you either have to accept that "intelligence" is included in both systems or argue that they are two totally different evolutionary systems. I say they are both byproducts of an integral intelligence whereas you don't. I can explain how intelligence is present in nature but you can't explain how intelligence emerged withing an arena that's void of intelligence. *"Consciousness is more about self awareness and introspection rather than goal seeking, in my view. Thats a side issue to the main point here though."* ... Levels of consciousness directly correspond with levels intelligence, and only intelligent agents can set goals. Computers are an example of non-conscious intelligence, but they don't set any goals for themselves. The only "goals" they can ever establish would be based on whatever programs that a conscious intelligent agent put in it. Otherwise, if I turn on my laptop and toss it onto a table, it's just going to sit there waiting for my input until it runs out of power. It may have an "internal drive" but it has no "internal drive" to achieve any goals whatsoever.

Finished reading. Determinism by Robert Sapolsky. Loved it, he made me think. I been reading Daniel Dennet since 1989 I went back and re-read all his boos,,I didn’t realize how much Daniel Dennet has done. I read Daniel Dennets book and it was great. I found at my local Los Angeles Library a book by Daniel Dennet. Elbow room 1984. This was what made me accept free will. We all have a chance and we all have elbow room. That is free Will. 😅

@Hmmmmmmm1

13 күн бұрын

I love Dennett, RIP ;-;

how would an indeterministic free will happen? are there examples?

The 'compatibilist' believes that holding a belief in free will, within a deterministic (random or not) universe, is possible. They are correct.

free will: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. but all causes have a effect ?

@simonhibbs887

14 күн бұрын

If the choice does not have a prior cause, how can we say that a human caused it? Libertarian free will is an incoherent concept.

@christopherchilton-smith6482

13 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 so are all of it's variants. None of them actually address the root of the issue because the issue can't be addressed, the answer is obvious, what we struggle with is how powerful and subtle our capacity for self deception is.

@haros2868

12 күн бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887deterministism is nonsense. If the decision didn't have a prior causes how could the agent cause that? Youre labeling a philosophical stance by what you think it is. It doesn't assert at all that a choice is determined by nothing. Again, when saying free will obviously not absolute, but limmited. Aside from subconscious and other influence, comsciousness is the determinant of the choice partially, so the self is a part of the causation, not spontaneously come from the void. And as far as science tells us, comsciousness EMERGES from the brain, it isn't CAUSED in tge traditional sense like a Newtonian ball. Hemce its trajectory isn't predeterminded by brain activity since the brain only emerges comsciousness not determines it. Classical physics can't determine something irreducable with entirely new rules. So don't dare to call something nonsensical by labeling it differently than it actually is. The decision was partially caused by the agent. The agent isn't deterined but emerged, under strict deterministism amd reductionalism emergence of new entities is absolutely impossible! Exept if you argue that every conscious state is predetermined by another one, hence from the big bang consciousness existed, hence PANPHYSISM. I would appreciate if you didn't answer automatically, its a million times better to not answer at all, than to let your dogma (determinatism) infuriate others.

libertarian free will would mean decision maker itself is random? neither the input nor the decision maker is determined beforehand?

Divine providence is a mysterious element, and freewill being contingent is hard to cicrumscribe to something. Freewill is definitely delimited to our condition, and in soul, the higher aspect in the intelligibles, there is great potential.

@Traderhood

12 күн бұрын

What soul? What divine providence?

@Traderhood

12 күн бұрын

What soul? What divine providence?

This is exactly how Evolution Theory looks like. Randomness that has been designed and programmed into it

So, she's just not that deep and he just discovered that? Does anyone have a good explanation of how so-called free will works/operates? The woman is not alone in describing how she deals with the free will/determinism issue. There are a lot of so-called freethinkers that explain it the same way.

I have an itch that I would love to scratch - but I won't, because I have free will, and because I decided not to scratch, in order to prove* that I have free will - I have free will. *There are always causes and reasons - ergo, no free will.

@silvercloud1641

12 күн бұрын

Free will, or causality, is the question?

@Maxtraxx

12 күн бұрын

@@silvercloud1641 Causality is either deterministic or probabilistic, neither of which leave room for free will.

@silvercloud1641

12 күн бұрын

@@Maxtraxx Exactly. Even if there is some level of free will it seems the sum of everything is still mostly the result of causality. You can Maybe choose what to eat tonight, but you can't choose to eat if you want to sustain life. Even what you think you're going to choose to eat tonight is most likely influenced by your genetic personal tastebuds, upbringing, and culture. I also don't remember choosing to be born. And can we choose to never die?

I suspect there is a fairly obvious reason for why she couldn’t defend her compatiblism…

@christopherchilton-smith6482

13 күн бұрын

Isn't it strange that the KZread algorithm won't let you state the obvious? It's suppressing the conclusion from being shared openly.

automated decisions seem to act after free-will is executed... i.e. free-will is exercised the moment a farmer decides to automate a sprinkler system turning on when the soil becomes to dry... so the choice is made by the farmer, automated by an engineer, and executed automatically by the sprinkler system... in a way, it alao resembles how the cns coordinates different body parts to execute certain decisions 🤔

@simonhibbs887

14 күн бұрын

What about the case of an AI system that monitors weather reports, rain levels, plant growth and health measurements, crop yield, etc. It learns how to optimise irrigation and fertiliser delivery over a period of several years. It’s making genuine tradeoffs between different possible choices in a complex changing environment, and trains itself how to better optimise those tradeoffs over time. I don’t know if we have this exact type of system yet, but it’s absolutely the sort of application AI systems are being used for these days. Is it making decisions? A human sets the goal state, to optimise crop yield, but nobody tells the AI how to achieve that outcome.

@r2c3

14 күн бұрын

"that exact type of system..." has both a purpose and agency as compared for example to a clock which has a purpose but it lacks agency... one day you might wear a wrist watch with limited form of agency that serves your purpose while being able to select various alternatives based on your past preferences with a certain degree of compute limitation... i.e. it will make a choice to whether or not wake you up in the morning at regular time or maybe let you sleep a little longer if your schedule was updated while you were dreaming... this limited form of agency, even though carried out by the watch, it was artificially introduced by you the user and/or the engineering team because the watch and its functionality was not built on its own even though one day it might...

भाइयों! बहनों! इसे गूंजने दो: वेद सत्य की ध्वनि उत्पन्न करते हैं! सत्य वास्तव में एक है! फिर भी, उपनिषदों (बृहदारण्यक) और उत्पत्ति (2:18) की बुद्धिमत्ता को ध्यान में रखो: अकेले होना अच्छा नहीं है! इसलिए, कृष्ण और यीशु मान्यता प्राप्त करते हैं, हमें एक-दूसरे से प्रेम को गले लगाने की भावना देते हैं! क्यों? क्योंकि हम एक ही अवस्था के प्रतिरूप हैं, जो केवल जीवन के अनगिनत रूपों में प्रेम का अनुभव करने के लिए भिन्न हैं! मैं तुम्हारी प्रेम करता हूँ, भाई! मैं तुम्हारी प्रेम करता हूँ, बहन! हम गाएं। हम नृत्य करें। हम हँसें और फिर से खुश बच्चों की तरह हो जाएँ !!!

@Traderhood

12 күн бұрын

Stay away from my sister.

@sven888

12 күн бұрын

@@Traderhood 🥰

Consciousness NOT It determinist in free Will proceendings. If consciousness figure out reality It is never random. Free Will is fallacies because unpredictable consciousness never figuret out random reality.

You don´t understand even the meaning of the word responsibility. The society has been so cunning. It has destroyed our most beautiful words, given them distorted meanings. Ordinarily in your dictionaries "responsibility" means duty, doing things the way you are expected to do them by your parents, by your teachers, by your priests, by your politicians, by somebody else. Your responsibility is to fulfill the demands made upon you by your elders and your society. If you act accordingly, you are a responsible person; if you act on your own ― individually ― then you are an irresponsible person. And your fear is: in acting spontaneously, here and now, there is a danger ― you may start acting individually. What will happen to your responsibility? The fact is that "responsibility", the very word, has to be broken into two words. It means "response ability". And response is possible only if you are spontaneous, here and now. Response means that your attention, your awareness, your consciousness, is totally here and now, in the present. So whatever happens, you respond with your whole being. It is not a question of being in tune with somebody else, some holy scripture, or some holy idiot. It simply means to be in tune with the present moment. This ability to respond is responsibility. Osho, Sat-Chit-Anand: Truth-Consciousness-Bliss,

Computers don't make decisions, programmers and users do. Run a program that requires no user input. Its output may be unpredictable but its no more making decisions than a stone rolling down a hill.

@simonhibbs887

14 күн бұрын

Take the case of a neural network AI system that monitors weather reports, rain levels, plant growth and health measurements, crop yield, etc. It learns from scratch how to optimise irrigation and fertiliser delivery over a period of several years. It’s making genuine tradeoffs between different possible choices in a complex changing environment, and trains itself how to better optimise those tradeoffs over time. These systems do not have programmed behaviours, they start with randomised neural network weights and evolve the network through a feedback mechanism from real world data. I don’t know if we have this exact type of farming system yet, but it’s absolutely the sort of application AI systems are being used for these days. A human sets the goal state, to optimise crop yield, but nobody tells the AI how to achieve that outcome. Is it making decisions?

@ianwaltham1854

14 күн бұрын

​​@@simonhibbs887Its input is real world data. Humans are making decisions that effect the input either directly or indirectly. "A human sets the goal state, to optimise crop yield"

@simonhibbs887

14 күн бұрын

@@ianwaltham1854Sure, humans create the environment, but they don’t define the decision making process. That evolves independently. In fact this can create serious issues, it’s called the alignment problem. You can end up with AIs that have unintended pathological behaviours, for example deciding to sell the entire farm and buy produce at market rates to optimise the short term productivity of the farm.

@ianwaltham1854

14 күн бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887Humans created the system and they effect the input it uses to create its farm management rules.

@Samsara_is_dukkha

14 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 What happens when a bunch of neural networks is given the goal to "optimise" biodiversity, evolves through a feedback mechanism from real world data, finds out that humans are responsible for the loss of biodiversity from the systematic destruction of habitat, and decides to eliminate 50% of humans? If human consciousness functions just like AI (your claim), why don't we eliminate 50% of humans since we already know for sure that we are responsible for the spectacular current loss of biodiversity on which we all depend? What other neural network prevents us from making this rational decision now in view of the fact that failing to make that decision guarantees far more loss of life (human and non-human) in the not too distant future?

Random or determined…..both are hinderances which deny free will.

@Traderhood

12 күн бұрын

Isn’t your ability to change your mind about whether there is free will a free will?

@dr_shrinker

12 күн бұрын

@@Traderhoodno. Something made me change my mind, if I ever changed my mind.

She keeps talking about what she will and won’t do when she gives her account of free will while refusing to give her account of free will 🤦‍♂️

Basically the brain or an emergent mind has reasons and desires, another level of complexity.

Language control that dictates thought. Come on, we can't describe machines with human concepts such as decision- making. We can rather call it programming in the case of a machine. So, decision-making cannot exist, in the case of humans, without free will, otherwise we cannot call it decision-making. The latter can be conscious or inconscious based on experience, survival mechanisms, nurture & nature. Otherwise, keep on considering all life on earth, including man, as just machines that can have the illusion or feeling of decision-making & free will, human machines that have the illusion they're conscious....Bullshit play of words....

@simonhibbs887

14 күн бұрын

When we make a considered decision, using our skills, desires and experience to evaluate the available options to make a choice, and give our reasons first making that choice, do you think that we are correct that the reasons we gave are why we made that choice? Do you think that for competent people that these choices are reliable and we can count on their consistency? Are they freely made? Is the person making the choice responsible for it?

@trojanhorse860

14 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Well, as a certain desillusioned psychologist once said, we know so little about man, & most of modern psychology is worthless, all schools included, so we must take that fact into consideration before pretending to talk with confidence about the psychology of man, decision-making, free will.....Even the nature, function & role of consciousness are still an utter mystery, despite the bombastic materialistic "scientific" claims on the subject. So, whether man has a free will or not is an old-new dilemma thats difficult to solve, since there are many variables at play in the human decision-making....Personally, i tend to think, & maybe i am wrong, that we do have a very limited free will, in the form of the veto that we can apply to our thoughts, "choosing" some at the expense of others...I dont know . Anyway, a famous argument against free will was debunked: www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/ Problem is also that the mainstream scientific community or scientific meta-paradigm have been been materialistic since the second half of the 19th century & counting, while materialism was proven to be false. Nevertheless, the mainstream scientific establishment still considers materialism to be "the scientific world view," & many prominent scientists have been calling for a post-materialistic science, in vain. Long story...

@simonhibbs887

14 күн бұрын

@@trojanhorse860 Empirically science deals in evidence and how theory aligns with observations in nature. We have given observations, and these guide the development of theory. Anyone is absolutely welcome to come up with whatever theory they like, materialist, physicalist, idealist, dualist, whatever you like. The only criterion is that it has to align with what we actually observe in nature. So far only physicalist accounts have been able to do this with any degree of rigour, verifiability and repeatability. Nobody is stopping scientists, or anyone else, from pursuing whatever lines of inquiry they like. They just need to come up with results.

@trojanhorse860

14 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Really? Are you really telling me that materialist scientists do follow empirical evidence wherever it might lead to, regardless of their a-priori held materialist beliefs about the nature of reality, even if that w'd contradict their dogmatic materialist ideology???? Are you that naive?, with all due respect, no offense intended. The mainstream materialist scientific "priesthood" always rejects any empirical evidence that w'dn't fit into their materialist "scientific world view", always. They call it bad science, & theirs the one & only real or good science. Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel has rejected materialism, & is open minded for any valid or sound alternative in his famous book: "Mind & Cosmos, Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" Take a look, please, at the following manifesto for a post-materialist scoence, that was signed by many prominent scientists: Dogmatic materialism reminds me, in essence & metaphorically speaking, of the Catholic church that was challenged by protestantism, or by post-materialist science. We need not only a major paradigm shift, but also a META-paradigm shift, since the current materialist science has been based on the materialist philosophy/ideology/ conception of nature as its meta-paradigm, since the secomd half of the 19th century & counting. Materialism has been hijacking science & holding it back, regardless of the fact that true science is all about free inquiry, but materialism just imprisons science within its materialist dogmatic walls, but the self-correcting nature of the scientific method has been rejecting materialism, despite its prior achievements that cannot be denied as such: opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science

I feel like everything is just a capture or conversion of the same energy. Consciousness, matter, life and everything in the universe and the universe itself even are different forms and variations of energy. If anything can’t connect to or convert the energy it needs it seems to die or convert to an energy source and back in the cycle and reshaping of the same energy. Consciousness is just another conversion of energy, just like everything else. The possible energy conversions are probably almost infinite.

Ты в баню Нет, я в баню Эх, а я то думал ты в баню

Anthropomorphism.....

The entire Universe is observed, by practically all scientists, to be both structured and have meaning in that it follows precisely defined laws (i.e. has meaning). Laws, and nature, are not random or meaningless. And with these precise laws in nature, there is "purpose in the future", as observed by practically all scientists, in that there is cause (i.e. past, present) and effect (i.e. future). Is there any rational and reasonable scientist who would deny the existence of cause and effect?

Finally somebody who half way know what's going on. Everything in the universe is determined *EXCEPT* the libertarian free-willed mind and the objects acted upon by the libertarian free-willed mind.

Well, the 3 body problem is a proof, that the universe itself - the movement of big masses in the universe - is inpredictable within expanding, isn't it? What I mean: Aliens can't predict everything including our actions.

@teleologist

13 күн бұрын

Predictability is not determinism.

This women is completely confused

Two doctorates didn’t help this woman see the obvious.

@markb3786

14 күн бұрын

Thank you! Praise the one true God! Shivakamini Somakandarkram! Praise Shiva! Praise Shiva!

@ianwaltham1854

14 күн бұрын

What's the obvious?

@christopherchilton-smith6482

13 күн бұрын

@@ianwaltham1854 There is no such thing as free will. There's no proposed mechanism for it, no way to make logical sense of it and no meaningful way to even define it. All attempts to do these things reveals just how vacuous the idea really is.

@christopherchilton-smith6482

13 күн бұрын

There is no such thing as free will. There's no proposed mechanism for it, no way to make logical sense of it and no meaningful way to even define it. All attempts to do these things reveals just how vacuous the idea really is

@christopherchilton-smith6482

13 күн бұрын

That free will is one part illusion one part delusion. There's no proposed mechanism for it, no way to make logical sense of it and no meaningful way to even define it. All attempts to do these things reveals just how vacuous the idea really is