dimreepr

Ohh FFS!!!

Well, I started this thread with the premise that we understand free will well enough to be able to make use of that knowledge (a thought experiment). In the OP I presented 'one' possible route. And, basically, ever since I've been batting off either, "but we don't understand free will", or "we already understand free will well enough thank you"... Only one person in this entire thread that has legitimately answered the OP is @Eise, so forgive me if I call for legitimate arguments only please... It is my topic... 😣

Ohh, do tell???

Are you ever going to actually present a relevant argument? Shit or get off the pot, pretty please... 🙏 I love dogging too... 😇 A neg, lol, I guess someone doesn't get the joke... 🙄

Nope, this is what you get when you can't defend your position, or even answer direct questions; if you want my name and address just DM me... 😉 You can block me if you want but you're only hindering your own 'loophole to understanding', not bc of my outstanding teaching ability, but bc you don't listen to reasoned arguments.

And? That sounds awfully familiar, slaves weren't considered sentient either; so we're back to simple fear over justice. It's a strange position that you're failing to support; machines can never be conscious, so let's waist our time legislating against that possibility... 😣 There are no shortcuts or loophole's to understanding, you need rigor; adding an 'ism' to a word without understanding it, just creates a schism... 😉

Some can. The strory depends on who we want to impress. It all depends on one's shoe's and who gets to walk in them...

That's the fundamental problem, it's impossible to know where to start. So it has no place in the question.

Nope got that, the bit that's missing is the rights conferred on them that could possibly impinge on your rights, let's not forget who makes the law... In this case it very much is as simple as it sounds, because the only way for it to end up in legal conflict, is if you took an axe to it's mainframe and there's only one motive that makes sense, since they're imaginary ATM, and it's not justice... 🙄

Why do make it so personal? Assimov explored the question in some depth, but he had to make it sci-fi because they didn't exist when he was writing; he doesn't have all the answer's, but he did ask some profound question's. It's almost like you've got a vendetta against the very idea of a sentient machine... Like in the freewill thread, where you seemed frightened by the idea of an AI with right's; is it a sort of god complex type thing? Like in the bible where it says that we have dominion over everything that's not us...

Indeed, it was a throw away line in reply to a throw away post, but still a legitimate comment, because 'anyone' who thinks the answer is obvious, really hasn't given it much thought. 😉 You seem very confused. Tell that to an inmate. Just imagine the benefits of being understood, when you stumble into a gheto... 🙄 Being unpredictable is an evolutionary advantage that, in our case, leads to being able to think of what is predictable and then defy what is natural.

All of your citations and argument's are providing evidence that what is impossible, is that we could ever know if a machine is conscious, not that it's impossible to achieve. Maybe you should read some Asimov.

Thank you for your insight, Dunning and Kruger have this sort of graph thingy that suggests the answer is rarely obvious.

Another point well missed... 🙄 TBH I don't care, it's got nothing to do with the topic at hand. 😪 The one time you engage with the question, and you answer with a meaningless tautology, gee thanks... 🥱 I worked as a house father in a Steiner home (they rammed it home, but his attitude to schooling is specious) for the differently abled, his attitude to their care, resonated strongly with me, but his philosophy has so many contradictions. I'd be horrified if academia did take him seriously. I nearly agree with these two.

That's like saying Einstein was wrong to imagine what it's like to be a photon... 🙄 Are you a madman? Says you... No he doesn't, he just argued that he said it wrong... Think about it... Your libido says yes, but your boss is in the building; you'd better find a way to wac that mole down, or you lose the game... 😝

From your link: How does this favour your OP? How is it possible to debunk something you don't understand? It's the old Dr Doolittle fantasy, just because a lion can speak English doesn't mean you could understand what it says

The premise of the OP is, we do understand free will well enough to be able to quantify it. How can the thought experiment be moot? Unless you can provide evidence of the futility in seeking to understand it; so, again your post is off topic. No it isn't, you're conflating a notion of God, with the notion of free will. Free will is self evident, as described by Descartes and my decision to answer your post, what's in question from that perspective is the degree of freedom; like playing wac-a-mole with varying levels of difficulty.

It's like we're playing wac-a-mole from both end's of the game...

They do indeed, but I must say that none of them, nore a combination of, resonated exactly with my thinking. My thinking is more akin to Rudolf Steiner's as it pertains to the differently abled. Edit, none of the other shit he espoused BTW. 😣 Sorry, it was an interesting and well presented post, worthy of it's own topic; what I mean by free will, I'd say we have a limited amount of it that varies from person to person.

Indeed, but science can at least get us a step closer to asking the right question's...

It's not about either, it's about what can, usefully, be done with that knowledge. Indeed you could (in another thread), I'm aware of the problem's of understanding such things, but what's it got to do with the question asked? Sorry I missed this post +1, it never ceases to amaze me, just how arrogant this/every generation becomes when they get the latest phone, that doesn't even need you to spell to work properly, and laugh at the savage that can't say "google" right. I can think of a few thought experiments/television idea's that would wipe the smile... 😝 Well you could choose to become homeless, it's much easier and better for your soul than to drown in a sea of money.

What's weird is that you think we already understand how free our will is; for instance, when we have a sherry or two our definition is both positive and negative... How would you define a blind man's freedom?

In the context of this thread, I think it's very much the same; They're both an unquantifiable something that comes from within and makes us feel better.

You seem very confused, as to what benefits us. It's perfectly possible to kill with kindness; for instance, it would seem to be very kind to feed a hungry child, but if a ten year old is twice your weight, maybe you need to be cruel to be kind. Heaven isn't a future thing, it's what benefits us, now... Besides, "it doesn't matter who created killed who, look at those vast tract's of land". 😉 The placebo effect is just as imaginary, but believe it or not, can be just as real...