Questions of a weird mind

[Elemental]

I'm of the personal opinion that we have free will.
And even if we didn't, how could we really prove otherwise?
After all, we can choose not to participate in discussions over whether or not we have free will. And we can force ourselves to participate, even if our wrists are a bit sore.

[Story Time]

...from the perspective of itself a Free Will is determined by the conscience. An entity capable of detecting the difference between Right versus Wrong can make a choice independent of Cause and Effect. An entity which does not have a conscience, being unable to discern the difference between Right versus Wrong, does not have Free Will.

[Matthias2207]

Speaking of not being free willed: don't picture a grey elephant eating grass on the savannah. (I bet you did, didn't you?)

Yes, but only because I wanted to.

[Grinner]

...from the perspective of itself a Free Will is determined by the conscience. An entity capable of detecting the difference between Right versus Wrong can make a choice independent of Cause and Effect. An entity which does not have a conscience, being unable to discern the difference between Right versus Wrong, does not have Free Will.

From it's own perspective, yes.

But from a cosmic perspective, it could be misinformed about its circumstances, or it's actions could have unforeseen consequences.

The story of Oedipus strikes me as being particularly representative of this interpretation.

It's starts off with a prophecy. The king of Athens hears that his newborn son will someday kill him and take his place. Naturally, he makes the logical decision from his own perspective and orders the child to be killed. The servant he charged with the task can't bring himself to do the deed, however, and hands the child to a nearby shepherd.

Oedipus is adopted by the royal family of a neighboring city-state, where he eventually hears of the prophecy (don't exactly remember how it happens). He makes the logical decision from his point of view and voluntarily leaves his home and "parents".

He decides to seek his fortune in Athens but comes into conflict with a small caravan of guards and its owner along the way. The situation comes to blows, and Oedipus leaves the entire party dead. Thing is, the caravan's owner was the king of Athens.

[Story Time]

But from a cosmic perspective, it could be misinformed about its circumstances, or it's actions could have unforeseen consequences.

...citation requested. The commentary appears to be conjecture and speculation. A cosmic perspective requires a cosmic entity capable of perception. ...or is the statement meant to assume the existence of a deity capable of perceiving Free Will?

[Grinner]

...citation requested. The commentary appears to be conjecture and speculation. A cosmic perspective requires a cosmic entity capable of perception. ...or is the statement meant to assume the existence of a deity capable of perceiving Free Will?

Outside the realms of human creations such as mathematics, conjecture and speculation are ultimately the only thing humans are capable of.

[Story Time]

The Scientific Method is the process by which humans discover the rules of reality. They do not write the rules as they please.

...historically speaking there have been a few brilliant dreamers who simply knew the rules before testing them for validity. The results of exhaustive testing have validated certain individuals. Aside these extreme examples, humans can not always control of Cause and Effect, except in the conscience, where they are capable of determining a different action than the one which a particular stimulus might demand.

...at the risk of sounding repetitious, it is the conscience which identifies Free Will.


To address something more...Greek, I'll just say that I don't really care for tragedies. I think it's nice to have stories with morals, maybe, but most of the Greek stuff is not to my tastes...

I like Greek chili peppers, though. What are those called?

[Grinner]

[SIZE="-1"]The Scientific Method is the process by which humans discover the rules of reality. They do not write the rules as they please.

The scientific method cannot test or has difficulty testing metaphysics, which remain a subject of speculation. Or maybe quantum mechanics and general relativity can definitively prove the existence or non-existence of metaphysics?

At any rate, the scientific method remains as a practical method for solving practical problems...practically.

I like Greek chili peppers, though. What are those called?

I have no idea, but have you tried those Greek peppers stuffed with ham and cheese? Those are delicious.

[Story Time]

I have no idea, but have you tried those Greek peppers stuffed with ham and cheese? Those are delicious.

Two years ago, I might have agreed, depending on the authenticity of the dish. Now? I shudder.

...More for Scotch, then.

[Yora]

Why are there no green mamals? Wouldn't it make a good camouflage color?

[Castaras]

Why are there no green mamals? Wouldn't it make a good camouflage color?

Camouflage when it comes to mammals is less about blending in through colours, and more breaking up the outline of the mammal. Most don't have colour vision, so whether it's the same colour or not doesn't matter.

[Scuzzball]

The problem arises when a machine claims to see itself as itself? How do you tell the difference between a machine that thinks that way and one that has merely been programmed to make that claim?

I am all with the "there is no free will" crowd, but that would be the question that would arise.

Yeah, I meant to bring that up.

"I think therefore I am" is just a string. It's easy ro remember, and easy to repeat.
What is a thought? And StoryTime, what is right and wrong? I say it exists nowhere but in our minds, as it changes over time with society. Rock music was once considered "evil".

[Grinner]

"I think therefore I am" is just a string. It's easy ro remember, and easy to repeat.

That's the thing about these statements. They're meant to summarize arguments. Arguments that usually fill many pages of text. As summaries, they only provide a brief overview of that text, and without contextual understanding, they are absolutely meaningless.

[Riverdance]

I'm of the personal opinion that we have free will.
And even if we didn't, how could we really prove otherwise?
After all, we can choose not to participate in discussions over whether or not we have free will. And we can force ourselves to participate, even if our wrists are a bit sore.

Yeah I choose to think so, because otherwise I just feel depressed and worthless.

I had intended for that to feed into the second part, but I see that I failed to make a logical connection between the two.

Are you familiar with evolutionary computing? That's what I had been trying to discuss in the first part. Given time and the ability to improve itself, a computer can move far beyond data processing. Given more processing power, the possibilities only increase.

AI is two things. It is a tool to create computers better able to assist us, and it is our attempt to create digital sentience. The first is represented by "weak AI", and it is fairly straightforward. In fact, hospitals use weak AIs to assist in the diagnosis of patients. A "strong AI" is an actual, self-aware digital entity, but those remain hypothetical.

It's also important to note that our consciousness is ultimately the product of our environment. We are born knowing very little, and we learn to live within and eventually to shape our environment by interacting with it. Nearly everything we do originally aided us in coping with our environment. Now consider the circumstances by which the typical program exists. It exists in a total vacuum and is of a mechanical nature. Add to that the lack of input except for what it is told to process, and yes, it can be assumed that the program will never rise above its given state.

But Weak AI can be vastly improved by applying evolutionary computing methods to them. In fact, one proposed method of creating a strong AI does this exactly and involves creating a versatile weak AI and allowing it to grow further. If also given a large spectrum of input to experience, an environment, to work within, at what point would this weak AI make the transition into sentience? Would it even really be conscious?

Thank You! That link especially is really useful for my current project!

[Elemental]

Why are there no green mamals? Wouldn't it make a good camouflage color?

As Castaras said, most mammals lack colour vision.
And most predators that prey on mammals are other mammals, so why waste the energy and nutrients producing colours to protect you against things that can't see colours anyway?

[Ceric]

Dunno if the Ancient Greeks are a good example. They had a different idea of fate that allowed free will within fated restraints. Birth and death determined by the three Fates and prophesies by the oracles, for example, were sure to occur. But men had power over the specifics of their lives. For instance, in the Iliad, Achilles is told that if he continues to fight in the Trojan War he will not return home. He has to decide between running home now as a coward or staying in war for the glory but ultimately dying. He does end up going to war and dying, but he freely chose to.

With Oedipus's story, all that is fated is that he will kill his father and marry his mother; the rest is His dad could have done anything in reaction, and he chose to try and kill Oedipus. Likewise, Oedipus went on his journey and solved the Sphinx's riddle by himself, not because some Fate was whispering in his ear and carrying him along on a conveyor belt. The one thing he wasn't allowed to do was not kill his father and marry his mother, but everything else was his choice.

Uh, at least, I think that's how my professor explained it >.>

The Homeric Moira is not, as some have thought, an inflexible fate, to which the gods themselves must bow; but, on the contrary, Zeus, as the father of gods and men, weighs out their fate to them (Il. viii. 69, xxii. 209; comp. xix. 108); and if he chooses, he has the power of saving even those who are already on the point of being seized by their fate (II. xvi. 434, 441, 443); nay, as Fate does not abruptly interfere in human affairs, but avails herself of intermediate causes, and determines the lot of mortals not absolutely, but only conditionally, even man himself, in his freedom, is allowed to exercise a certain influence upon her. (Od. i. 34, Il. ix. 411, xvi. 685.)

Source

[Grinner]

Thank You! That link especially is really useful for my current project!

Anytime.

Dunno if the Ancient Greeks are a good example. They had a different idea of fate that allowed free will within fated restraints. Birth and death determined by the three Fates and prophesies by the oracles, for example, were sure to occur. But men had power over the specifics of their lives. For instance, in the Iliad, Achilles is told that if he continues to fight in the Trojan War he will not return home. He has to decide between running home now as a coward or staying in war for the glory but ultimately dying. He does end up going to war and dying, but he freely chose to.

Eh. It was just the first example that came to mind.

I remember one scene from "The Matrix" where Neo meets the Oracle for the first time. She asks him about fate. He responds with a statement of disapproval. She then tells him that his decisions have already been made, he just needs to go through with them.

I guess that's the central issue of (pre)determinism vs. free will. We make decisions, but by virtue of who we are and what has come before us, have our decisions already been made?

From an individual's perspective, it makes no difference, for the individual is primarily concerned with itself. But if you take a step back and try to see the big picture, what would you see?

Likewise, Oedipus went on his journey and solved the Sphinx's riddle by himself, not because some Fate was whispering in his ear and carrying him along on a conveyor belt.

Please. Lady Fate would never do something so crass.

And remember, he still had to marry his mother.

[Yora]

"I think therefore I am" is just a string. It's easy ro remember, and easy to repeat.
What is a thought? And StoryTime, what is right and wrong? I say it exists nowhere but in our minds, as it changes over time with society. Rock music was once considered "evil".

I think it's perfectly valid. Because I think, I know that I exist. It does not say that I have free will. It also doesn't say anything about what I are.
It also very importantly says only that I know that I exist. It doesn't say anything about the existance and anything or anyone else. If a machine thinks, it knows that it exists. But seeing anything make that claim is not prove, since it could be my senses or my mind fooling me.

It only works for and applies to the individual making the statement. Everything I think exist could be an illusion. But an illusion still would need someone to perceive it. It is impossible that I do not exist. Because how could nothing be thinking? The fact that I am thinking is the only thing that can not be an illusion.

[Story Time]

I remember one scene from "The Matrix" where Neo meets the Oracle for the first time. She asks him about fate. He responds with a statement of disapproval. She then tells him that his decisions have already been made, he just needs to go through with them.

Minor Corrections:

Morpheus asked Neo about fate in the first film, The Matrix. The Oracle only affirmed that choice later when he met her.

The Matrix ( film, or trilogy ) is a horrible, horrible, measure for the philosophical perspective of pre-determinism. The reason why is because Neo is using the repetitive qualities of the Matrix to force his own agenda. In the big picture, Neo continues to reincarnate and will eventually win over the machines. The conclusion of the Matrix is that the human capacity for near-infinite variance ( or the human spirit, for those who think of meta-physics ) will triumph over mechanical and / or digital limitations.

What the audience is exposed to in the second and third Matrix films ( which do not exist, by the way ), is that through the vast eons of time Neo is slowly developing new powers which will eventually surpass the machines.

---

1
Please forgive that accident. I meant to use a minus one font size, but some-how it came out as eleven. I'm truly sorry for any strained feelings or emotions among my fellow forum members.

[Grinner]

You know, a size 2 font would have sufficed.

Edit: Anyway, you're kind of missing the point. It's a movie. A movie which happens to illustrate my point quite well in one scene or another.

[Ravens_cry]

The problem arises when a machine claims to see itself as itself? How do you tell the difference between a machine that thinks that way and one that has merely been programmed to make that claim?

I am all with the "there is no free will" crowd, but that would be the question that would arise.

I find no difference, since the same could be said of any of your fellow apelings.
I do make some reservation in that I need it to display some signs of intelligence, basically formulating and completing goals, but for the most part if a computer tells me it's a person, I'm willing to give it the same benefit of a doubt I give any human.
@Story Time:
Geeze Louise on French Peas!
Did you honestly *have* to make your text that big?
EDIT: Apparently not.

[Story Time]

I've...I've edited my post....

[Grinner]

I've...I've edited my post....

It's alright.

Edit: And thank you for the Matrix info. I've been meaning to rewatch them (it?) for some time now.

[Ravens_cry]

I've...I've edited my post....

It's OK, but I am curious why exactly you decided to do so in the first place.

[Story Time]

It's OK, but I am curious why exactly you decided to do so in the first place.

To edit the post?

...I chose to.

...I decided in my conscience that it would be Wrong to leave the font at it's unintended size and possibly wound the psyches of my fellow forumites. Hurting other beings without justification or necessity is Wrong.

[Ravens_cry]

To edit the post?

...I chose to.

...I decided in my conscience that it would be Wrong to leave the font at it's unintended size and possibly wound the psyches of my fellow forumites. Hurting other beings without justification or necessity is Wrong.

No, the large, psyche wounding size it was originally.
How did it get that way unintentionally?

[Story Time]

No, the large, psyche wounding size it was originally.
How did it get that way unintentionally?

The Answer:

Spoiler

Show

[SIZE="1"]This a normal Size One Tag when requested by mouse click from the graphical user interface of the Giant In The Playground Forums.[/SIZE]

To edit it, I normally highlight that numeral one, and then type in a minus sign and the numeral one.  Like so:

[size="-1"]See?  Minus one.[/size]

However, it is possible for fingers to slip...which I do not like admitting, and in that instance I typed two ones, instead of one minus and one one.  Apparently I was keen to type the rest of the message and missed the fact that I had typed in an eleven.

...I hope that this is helpful in answering Cry's question. 

[Scuzzball]

Yeah I choose to think so, because otherwise I just feel depressed and worthless.

I get around this by thinking of how I can continue to make chemicals in my brain that I like by doing things such as learning, gaming, and building stuff.

I think it's perfectly valid. Because I think, I know that I exist. It does not say that I have free will. It also doesn't say anything about what I are.
It also very importantly says only that I know that I exist. It doesn't say anything about the existance and anything or anyone else. If a machine thinks, it knows that it exists. But seeing anything make that claim is not prove, since it could be my senses or my mind fooling me.

It only works for and applies to the individual making the statement. Everything I think exist could be an illusion. But an illusion still would need someone to perceive it. It is impossible that I do not exist. Because how could nothing be thinking? The fact that I am thinking is the only thing that can not be an illusion.

Yeah, I totally agree with you. I noticed a while ago that nobody can prove they are not part of my mind. But my point is, it's a string. It's easy to spit it out. Honestly, I don't believe half of the people who quote it as they seem to have no idea what it means, which is the important bit. A parrot can parrot, but a person can... Think.
Dammit, why do you hate me words.

I find no difference, since the same could be said of any of your fellow apelings.
I do make some reservation in that I need it to display some signs of intelligence, basically formulating and completing goals, but for the most part if a computer tells me it's a person, I'm willing to give it the same benefit of a doubt I give any human.

And I do say that about my fellow meatbags.

[Ravens_cry]

The Answer:

Spoiler

Show

[SIZE="1"]This a normal Size One Tag when requested by mouse click from the graphical user interface of the Giant In The Playground Forums.[/SIZE]

To edit it, I normally highlight that numeral one, and then type in a minus sign and the numeral one.  Like so:

[size="-1"]See?  Minus one.[/size]

However, it is possible for fingers to slip...which I do not like admitting, and in that instance I typed two ones, instead of one minus and one one.  Apparently I was keen to type the rest of the message and missed the fact that I had typed in an eleven.

...I hope that this is helpful in answering Cry's question. 

Ah, thank you, that did clarify things mightily.

[Story Time]

"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"

??????

---

1

Ah, thank you, that did clarify things mightily.