iNow

I reject your suggestion that the student made a choice here. That’s been my stance all along. They acted as if propelled by a command that came from their neural chemistry. It’s possible all of us that responded are wrong and you’re right. 100% acknowledged, but there’s also a chance we’re correct here and your question / sample use case misses the point and is peripheral to the topic we’re exploring.

Probably because it has more to do with over confidence and self delusion than it does with free will. Even if the student had mastered the material beforehand, they’re unable to “choose” to be able to answer every question posed. They’re unable to choose whether they do or don’t know the answer. They’re unable to choose to know what’s on the test. The student like all of us is a wet meat robot executing chemo electrical commands in specific sequences and orders. I concluded your question was unrelated to (or at best only marginally and poorly representative of) the discussion taking place and my chemistry led me to ignore it. Just because our actions are determined doesn’t mean we have access to sufficient information beforehand to accurately PREdetermine them.

And my mind and your mind receive different information of a color and use it for different purposes, too. So what? You’re barely even the same person having the same thoughts now as you were when you write the post above 6 hours ago.

You probably subscribed to the thread or have too many email notifications enabled on your user profile. Either way, issue is of your own creation and can only be solved by changing your preference selections

He’s turning himself into the modern day equivalent of Howard Hughes, and IMO he’s on the precipice now of Spruce Goosing himself out of relevance. Eventually, the spoiled child having yet another tantrum gets ignored and the adults in the room move on to more important things. In large part, this is our own damned fault since we as a culture tend so often in large massive numbers to idolatrize wealth.

Our future is pretty certain, actually. We too will eventually go extinct and fall into the dustbin of geologic history, or at least evolve into something completely different and unrecognizable.

And even THERE it's mostly not possible for most "organisms" who try.

To be clear, I never much found free will as a concept to be useful in the first place. It's like arguing over the number of angels we can fit on a pinhead. I've done no such thing. I've only stated that the current system does not align with my view of freedom.

Of course. The world would no longer be wrong if only they agreed with ME and MY personally preferred definitions of words. The problem is THEY are using the wrong views and need to think MY way.

His entire point is "I can't understand this so this can't be true," which would be funny if it weren't so sad.

In addition to wars for water, that same drought problem will lead to crop failures at the base of the food chain. Hard to grow corn and wheat and soy etc. when it's not raining, so that further amplifies the valid probabilities you cite. Phi's point is completely correct, though. The problem isn't the availability of the resources but the methods currently being used to control and drive access and distribution.

That's surely part of it, but it seems Altman was also rather ham-fisted in an attempt to oust one of the other board members after publishing an opinion piece about the openAI company itself. Altman was securing support for her ouster from other board members, and some of them say he did not represent them correctly to others when moving to find support. But Q-star is certainly another massive leap in feature/function that will be worth watching It moves from language prediction instead to actual reasoning, which is new and VERY different

Water transfers heat against our bodies far more efficiently and intensely than air. Your body temp will plummet getting into a bathtub with 80F water, but will be perfectly warm in 80F air.

Personal settings for the map. Set North as constant

You mean like I did over here? >> https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132993-dose-neurons-analyse-themselves/#comment-1255288 Definitions matter. You're defining it one way and I'm defining it another. As previously shared, and I think you are already aware, the central focus of my disagreement is on the suggestion that it is "free." I have an idea of "freedom" in my worldview. Blindly executing commands like a wet meat computer, commands generated by bio-electric currents transmitted with chemistry, does NOT align with my conception of "freedom." You may as well be saying the earths climate is "free" not to continue warming on average even when we keep adding greenhouse gasses by the gigaton to our atmosphere over decades. That's not an idea which aligns with any conception of "freedom" that I'm able to accept as valid.

Do you feel better now after lashing out at unnamed strangers in a 2 month dormant thread?

You might enjoy this if you’ve got an hour free:

Why do you assume that?

Focus here

Suffering is everywhere all the time. You’re not special. We see what we look for.

Depends entirely on how you’re defining analysis. How are you defining analysis? It’s better to think of it like water flowing or electric current through wires. You’re basically asking whether the flow of each is effected by the hoses which came before. The answer is of course, but we’re venturing on the idea of this being so obvious as to be useless.

Covered when they asked the exact same thing over here

The question doesn’t make sense bc analysis isn’t something individual neurons can do, so no. They can’t.

Collections of neurons can analyze collections of neurons, but individual neurons can only depolarize and cascade action potentials.

Of all the problems our world faces, I’d welcome more of this one.