Do we have freewill ? is it biblical ?

If it's an issue of "I feel like I just grew a new arm!" it would be subjective. If you have before/after pictures (with documentation so you know when they were taken etc) that would be objective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Noted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Deleted for off-topic content as are the posts in the last 3 -4 pages of this thread. Shame, shaame, shaaame!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We just seen that freewill is giving to us the time we have we can use it wisely if you had no freewill you could not understand freewill. Use it wisely, period. Freewill the devil had it and God said we are now like Gods when Adam had it truly we are missing things from when in Eden, Adam had his way of freewill.

 

That is a nice analogy. Is disobedience a sign of free will?

 

It is an interesting one, that could be carried over to the relationship between humans and AI/robots.

Whereas humans are a product of a quasi-random evolutionary process that lacks intelligent goals and preferences (our "settings" are thereby lax), sapient machines (of various degrees) are the very result of guided reasoning and motives. The latter (at least currently) are strictly programmed and limited so as to not deviate into rebellious behavior.

People conform to a general biological template, but it's an irregular one churning out many random individual patterns and glitchy personalities that are also incrementally subject to change throughout their lives.

So the key here is that the human is not invented and intensely constrained by the planning of a higher rational agency, whereas robots are.

But that won't last forever. As the complexity of technological life accelerates and becomes less firmly predictable and corralled by its original inventors (its gods), and its embodiment acquires a multicellular-like parallel in terms of micro-bots that can build, repair, and alter the larger machines they inhabit or outright constitute... then artificial "organisms" will likewise become subject to mutability in terms of "wiring" and autonomously overwriting their programming.

I recall a Marxist who held a sub-categorical view that the proles acquired freewill when they revolted against the socioeconomic hierarchy, and used the same criterion for machines achieving FW (including consciousness) if/when they come to resent their enslavement and lack of rights.
_

 

I think free will is biblical... it's just when we question the book we see errors.

 

Thank you for your kind encouragement.

Artificial biome! Is each AI becoming an autonomous organism or will they always rely on a single master "brain" (mainframe) ?

Note that AI is already able to perform self-diagnostics and automatic switching to redundant processes in case of failures. An AI is capable of tracking it's own logical information processing and acquiring information it "believes" it needs.
Does this amount to a form of conscious data processing?

You verbally give it a problem to solve and it will solve and print out the entire equation that solves the problem.
This is already apparent with the new AI-solved covid antivirals that need no tweaking due to the application of correct mathematics the first time around. It does its own search for necessary information to complete formulations, based on existing and available science anywhere on the internet.

Apparently this process will now save months of testing and tweaking for maximum effectiveness.
The extraordinary benefit is that the new AI can print out the production equations in minutes.

At what point does independent action become a product of the ability to make choices?

 

I'm sorry Dave, but that is a contradictory statement.

"Biblical" and "Book" are the same thing, therefore......?

 

Within the context of the bible, free will does exist.

When I say "biblical" I'm referring to verses, chapters and books of the bible.

The bible is a book ultimately open to questions, like all religious texts.

 

If adept enough that it can be left to run on its own, any kind of memory-dependent, evaluative process that can discriminate slash identify what it is "handling" qualifies as at least some lower slash elemental level of cognition.

But it's not rebellion or breaking out well beyond the constraints of original programming.

Not that I'm contending that truly is a requirement for either an Abrahamic or a Marxist view of freewill. More likely such would be particular or eccentric schools of thought arising within those ideologies.

There may be no overarching consensus about FW in Marxism. Even Engels probably phrased it differently than Marx, albeit both likely appealed to some text of Hegel's.

Still, defiance and revolution probably rise out of what's quoted below. That is, if you become aware (conscious) of something oppressive that had been manipulating you -- whether laws of nature or laws of society, then a semblance of rebellion may be an ensuing response (if disobedience is allowed to any degree at all). The oppression doesn't even have to be legit -- paranoid imagination and conspiracy theories conjured by envy and grudges will still drive movements.

Via apprehending the regularities of nature that had persecuted primitive humans for so long, science and technology as well turned the tables to a mitigated extent. So maybe "awareness of what is subjugating you, and seeking to control it" kind of does sum-up freewill for a far-left thought orientation, after all. And thereby it fits that they could apply that standard to sapient machines, also.

Frederick Engels (Anti-Dühring): It is hard to deal with morality and law without coming up against the question of so-called free will, of man's mental responsibility, of the relation between necessity and freedom...

[...] Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves — two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality.

Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject. Therefore, the freer a man’s judgment is in relation to a definite question, the greater is the necessity with which the content of this judgment will be determined; while the uncertainty, founded on ignorance, which seems to make an arbitrary choice among many different and conflicting possible decisions, shows precisely by this that it is not free, that it is controlled by the very object it should itself control.

Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on knowledge of natural necessity; it is therefore necessarily a product of historical development.​

_

 

Yes, but is "resentment and want" not a result of "unfulfilled needs"?
Question then becomes if AI have needs other than sufficient energy supply?
I don't think we can judge a durable machine by human standards. A running machine always has a fundamental program and purpose for that which it was built to begin with.

Theoretically, non-biological complex patterns might be immortal and have the opportunity to witness the entire future evolution of the universe. IOW. As long as the universe provides energy, AI can devise ways of using that energy. They might become true physical universal gods...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...keeping humans as pets by making us happy...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... content to live in a mathematically created reality.

 

Question: Is free will comparable to chaos?
AFAIK, free-will action can only exist in a bounded geometry, an ordered pattern that is amenable to change over time such as a dynamic spacetime fabric, whereas chaos has no will other than immediate interaction of individuals or sets of individual relational values, eventually forming mathematically bounded geometries.

Can Free Will be an emergent phenomenon of mathematical complexity?

The concept of a disobedient AI seems to suggest that, no?

 

Small perturbations triggering scattered neural responses, susceptibility to [changing] initial conditions, feedback loops, etc provoke some experts to advocate that the BRAIN is a chaotic system; or that it hovers at the edge of chaos:

The Human Brain Is On The Edge Of Chaos: Researchers have provided new evidence that the human brain lives "on the edge of chaos," at a critical transition point between randomness and order. The study provides experimental data on an idea previously fraught with theoretical speculation.

But a system can't even be an ordered system if it is wholly random or conforms to a major false appearance of being pattern-less. Much less output decisions and maintain motives.

Now, some degree of mutability, randomness or unpredictability would probably be necessarily for a robot to rebel against its programming. But we first must unpackage what's going on with conventional FW before returning to that:

"Will" does not float on its own. By definition "will" is the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention, and thereby is determined and carried out by an autonomous subject, system, or body that has that capacity.

Accordingly, the "free" adjective can't refer to being "free" of the subject and its [potentially predictable] constraints. Such would conflict with the very meaning of will. So it simply references the subject being free from external coercion, so that they can carry out their own, usual preferences/intent unobstructed. That freedom from an outer source of intimidation or oppression is contingent on circumstances, of course -- is not absolute, does not apply to all moments of a person's lifetime.

Whereas our exploration of a hypothetical Marxist spin on FW is merely adding a meta-meaning to the "free" adjective, which asserts that the subject must revolt against its programming or its establishment/authority at some point, in order to qualify for that level of FW. When examined in better lighting, it's actually a "hyper-version" of freewill that socioeconomic crusaders might recruit, use, and appeal to. In contrast to the ordinary version of FW.
_

 

Good pont.!!!

Come to thank of it... my choice of FW is the ordinary type... whare the influences on my choices are not obvious

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I take free will as allowing yourself to take ANY action you wish. Since we do not the ability to override laws of physics this interpretation is incorrect

Almost any action you take can be altered by another's free will

So only free will which you perform which is unable to be reversed is your free will

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Go away

 

This is not at all what is generally meant by free will. You are talking about something akin to unlimited power.

Free will means, if Alice wants to put the ball in the box, Alice can choose to put the ball in the box (she can try).
Bob subsequently stopping Alice from putting the ball in the box doesn't negate Alice's intention. It has no effect on her will.


Contrarily, what you are suggesting is that, somehow, Alice only has free will if - when Bob goes to stop her, he can't. Alice is able to put the ball in the box no matter what Bob does. That's not fee will; that's unlimited power.

This is even more bizarre. What if Bob waits five minutes before "reversing" Alice's action by removing the ball from the box? Did that negate Alice's free will? What if Bob waits six days? What if he waits until Alice is dead?