Are these predictions about the Pacific coastline true or just a coincidence?

[moving finger]

only a natural and intelligent entity that is aware of it's conscience that is not created by the hands of human beings or is created in a natural way of life(as we know it, example, you can include babies being produced in labs, since it is natural, sperm and egg.) has free will, a computer does not have free will because we are restricting it to what it can and cannot do, and what it can and cannot understand, if we create a perfect computer then it can never mess up, it does not have the free will to be wrong, therefore it does not have free will.

Problem here is that you are attempting to define which entities can possesses free will, before you actually define what free will is.

When we make a computer, we endow it with it's accessabilities, and it is not created naturally, we are using our knowledge of what we consider free will and trying to create it into an artificial machine with our two hands.

Why should this make any difference?

Human beings are allowed to make decisions on their own with no intervention from a controller or creator (as far as we know),

A machine could also be so constructed, that after it has been constructed it is then “free” to make decisions on its own without intervention or constraint from outside. If a human being is deemed to have free will, why is such a machine also not deemed to have free will?

we were evlolved or created perfectly to fit the prequisite of free will.

Who says so? That is your supposition.

Yes humans create humans... but we do not use metal and electricity harnessed from the earth... that'd be the day :-/ .

What difference does that make? Are you suggesting that free will is somehow linked with biological machines and never with electromechanical machines?

Computers cannot actually choose what they want to do or not do

What is choice? I define choice as “taking two or more inputs and creating one output”. By this definition then even a simple machine chooses. How do you define choice?

... we create them that way, we say ok if this situation occurs, you choose this!

Not necessarily. It is possible to create a “learning machine” which uses its experiences to modify its future decisions. This way, we cannot necessarily predict what it will do.

... humans have free will.. .

by definition? Whose definition?

humans with the same "software" (working brain?) all act differently in the same situations... computers and machines do not, unless their software malfuncitons, you can create 100 of the same computer, and it will act exactly the same in every situation if you have programmed it that way,

again, not so, if you create a learning machine (possible today) then you can create 100 identical machines on day one, and by day two you will have 100 individual and different machines

you cannot give a machine free will, because it cannot analyze a situation the way we can, and you should know this.

Who says so? What is unique about the human way of analysing things that cannot be carried out by a machine?

Is a machine conscience of it's conscience?

I see no reason why a machine could not be conscious if it was sufficiently complex and self-reflecting. I agree that simple computers are not conscious, but I see nothing “special” in human beings which could not in principle also be created within a machine

this is almost silly that we are comparing humans to machines on the basis of free will... humans created computers with what they can and can't do, computers are only a bi-product of humans perception of free will, and can never have it.

I disagree. But we can never determine what can and cannot have free will until we agree a definition of free will…… so we have come back to where we started….. what is your definition?

MF

 

[TheUnknown]

biological entities, endowed only by a father and mothers sperm have free will. Anything created by man may never have free will, free will subsides only in biological entities. Free will is the ability to think of time travel, the ability to think of physics, without humans machines do not exist... WE have free will, again, read my first definition of free will now that we have gotten past this machine/human thing, and without questiong it by using machines, tell me what you think.

 

[TheUnknown]

Problem here is that you are attempting to define which entities can possesses free will, before you actually define what free will is.



Why should this make any difference?


A machine could also be so constructed, that after it has been constructed it is then “free” to make decisions on its own without intervention or constraint from outside. If a human being is deemed to have free will, why is such a machine also not deemed to have free will?


Who says so? That is your supposition.


What difference does that make? Are you suggesting that free will is somehow linked with biological machines and never with electromechanical machines?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Exactly.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


What is choice? I define choice as “taking two or more inputs and creating one output”. By this definition then even a simple machine chooses. How do you define choice?


Not necessarily. It is possible to create a “learning machine” which uses its experiences to modify its future decisions. This way, we cannot necessarily predict what it will do.




by definition? Whose definition?

again, not so, if you create a learning machine (possible today) then you can create 100 identical machines on day one, and by day two you will have 100 individual and different machines.

Answered.


Who says so? What is unique about the human way of analysing things that cannot be carried out by a machine?

I see no reason why a machine could not be conscious if it was sufficiently complex and self-reflecting. I agree that simple computers are not conscious, but I see nothing “special” in human beings which could not in principle also be created within a machine.

I disagree. But we can never determine what can and cannot have free will until we agree a definition of free will…… so we have come back to where we started….. what is your definition?



MF

No, I am defining which entites can posses free will on the basis of my original definition of free will. I did already define it.

again because we are endowing a machine with man made characteristics which it can portray but never fully have.

This machine does not have a conscience, it is programmed to make these "free" decisions... which are programmed. It does not actually know what it is doing, it is not a biological living entity aware of it's surrounding environments and life, it cannot connect with life and thought on a phylisophical or psychological level, therefore it feels no emotions, and all of it's actions only result from pre-programmed(might i add man made) software.

This should be fact, we are living entities.. . a machine is not, how can you even argue this? A human being is infinitely smarter than any machine it can ever create, the machine may beat it out in one aspect, but the human will always have deeper and more variety of thought, this is why human CREATES machine, and not the other way around, are you a machine? or do you just like to defend them :)

Choice is not in any free will. (it isn't, it is much deeper, although choice does play a role) I never said choice = free will.

Common sense. Phylosophy. How else better to explain it? You and I should both know we have free will, if you would like to help me explain it, it would be nice... but saying a machine has free will is... crazy. A machine being able to learn is hardly choice. This machine, like i said before, is already endowed with it's software, which man gave it, and is now only a micro-fraction of mans perception of free will. A machine will never have free will.

Yes this is possible, but will it evolve? will it build bridges? will it reproduce? will it uptake a profession in physics and rewrite the limits on speed? no, it is impossibl, a machine will forever be limited.

Everything. I've already explained, a computer does not understand what a star is when it looks at it, a computer does not understand it's ancestory, a computer cannot understand quantum mechanics the way we can, it is just programmed software... so is it actually learning?

Machines can never be conscience of their conscience, there is no conscience to be conscience of. May a computer feel emotion? Does emotion
constitute many of the actions we make? Maybe this will help clear up free will in Humans and Machines. If i go back in time and i am angry, i may kill my mother before she is born, that is my free will to do so, a computer may also do this... but it must be programmed to do so :D

Is this Good enough? :)

 

[TheUnknown]

Updated version... free will : State of mind that can only be possesed by a biological entity that is aware of it's conscience and can connect with life phylisophically and phsycologically, as well as experience emotions which will cause it and allow it to act and think in any way it desires not restricted by "self consistent situations" at any point in time, traveling to any universe, and while in any universe. (multiple universe free will explanation) possibly more acn be added, critique pls.

 

[moving finger]

No, I am defining which entites can posses free will on the basis of my original definition of free will. I did already define it.

Your definition was (please correct me if I am wrong) :

free will : --->the ability to act freely and change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time<---

As I have already pointed out, to define free will as the ability to act freely is a tautology (circular) hence meaningless. Your definition therefore reduces to :

free will : --->the ability to change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time<---

I see absolutely nothing in this definition which leads us to the conclusion that “only a natural and intelligent entity that is aware of it's conscience that is not created by the hands of human beings or is created in a natural way of life(as we know it, example, you can include babies being produced in labs, since it is natural, sperm and egg.) has free will”

Therefore you are making an unwarranted assumption that only “natural” entities can possesses free will, since this does not follow from your definition.

again because we are endowing a machine with man made characteristics which it can portray but never fully have.

How do you know this? Again, this is an unwarranted assumption with no supporting evidence.

This machine does not have a conscience, it is programmed to make these "free" decisions... which are programmed. It does not actually know what it is doing, it is not a biological living entity aware of it's surrounding environments and life, it cannot connect with life and thought on a phylisophical level.

Again, none of this has anything to do with your definition of free will! I grant you that most present-day machines fall into this category, but there is nothing which says that we cannot create a machine which actually knows what it is doing, is aware of its surroundings etc etc. But even when we do this, what relevance does this have to the way you have defined free will?

This should be fact, we are living entities.. . a machine is not, how can you even argue this?

We are debating free will, not “living entities”. If you wish instead to debate living entities, then please define what you mean by a living entity.

A human being is infinitely smarter than any machine it can ever create, the machine may beat it out in one aspect, but the human will always have deeper and more variety of thought, this is why human CREATES machine, and not the other way around, are you a machine? or do you just like to defend them :)

Yes, I am a machine. I am also human. Why do you say that humans will always have deeper and more variety of thought than the machines it creates? You believe that a human cannot create something which is smarter than itself? Why not?

Choice is not in any free will. (it isn't, it is much deeper, although choice does play a role) I never said choice = free will.

That’s good. Then we don’t need to debate “choice” any more. (just for the record, it was not me who started talking about choice, it was you who said that “Computers cannot actually choose what they want to do or not do”)

Common sense. Phylosophy. How else better to explain it? You and I should both know we have free will, if you would like to help me explain it, it would be nice... but saying a machine has free will is... crazy.

I don’t see why it is crazy. Why does it seem so crazy to you? You believe that only humans can possesses free will? You defined free will as “the ability to change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time”….. I see nothing in this definition which precludes a machine from having free will as defined. If there IS something in that definition which precludes machines from ever having free will, please do point it out (but please do not just simply say that “only humans can have free will”, because this does NOT follow from your definition).

A machine being able to learn is hardly choice.

Ohhh, I thought we had put “choice” to bed?

This machine, like i said before, is already endowed with it's software, which man gave it, and is now only a micro-fraction of mans perception of free will. A machine will never have free will.

That is your opinion. I think differently. And I see nothing in your definition of free will which would preclude a machine from having free will.

Yes this is possible, but will it evolve?

If it is capable of reproducing itself, yes, why not? (but this has nothing to do with free will!)

will it build bridges?

Why not? (but this has nothing to do with free will!)

will it reproduce?

If it has been given the physical possibility of reproducing, why not? (but this has nothing to do with free will!)

will it uptake a profession in physics and rewrite the limits on speed?

I see no reason why not. (but this has nothing to do with free will!)

no, it is impossibl, a machine will forever be limited.

No more limited than a human.

Everything. I've already explained, a computer does not understand what a star is when it looks at it, a computer does not understand it's ancestory, a computer cannot understand quantum mechanics the way we can, it is just programmed software... so is it actually learning?

Present day computers, yes, I agree. But there is nothing in principle to prevent us developing a machine which can understand all these things. And learn.

Machines can never be conscience of their conscience, there is no conscience to be conscience of.

Present-day machines, yes I agree. But there is nothing in principle to prevent us developing a machine which is conscious.

MF

 

[moving finger]

Updated version... free will : State of mind that can only be possesed by a biological entity that is aware of it's conscience and can connect with life phylisophically and phsycologically, as well as experience emotions which will cause it and allow it to act and think in any way it desires not restricted by "self consistent situations" at any point in time, traveling to any universe, and while in any universe. (multiple universe free will explanation) possibly more acn be added, critique pls.

What is a "biological entity"? This needs to be defined. For example, if a silicon-based life-form were to evolve on another planet, would that mean it could not have free-will as so defined here?
The definition could then be criticised for necessarily limiting free will to biological entities, and that would need to be defended.

MF

 

[TheUnknown]

if we ever created a machine capable of reproducing biologically... then it would HAVE to be biological, there is no other way for a machine to reproduce and still fit the specifications of my definion. Therefore we would in fact be creating a living naturally created biological entity, as i explained. please read my new definition of free will. Updated version... free will : State of mind that can only be possesed by a biological entity that is aware of it's conscience and can connect with life phylisophically and phsycologically, as well as experience emotions which will cause it and allow it to act and think in any way it desires not restricted by "self consistent situations" at any point in time, traveling to any universe, and while in any universe. (multiple universe free will explanation) possibly more acn be added, critique pls. Can you re read my last reply to you too, i edited some things while you were replying, so it got mixed up, sorry :) u don't have to reply to it again, i just added some things that i thought were important after i re read what i had typed.

 

[TheUnknown]

"will it build bridges?" "Why not? This has nothing to do with free will" ... yes it does, you are missing my points, it can build bridges, but it must be built to build bridges, and programmed to understand bridges, you cannot create a machine that will come to a river and think "build a bridge to get across". And even if you can, which might be possible, then you have to make it be able to build a bridge, and then it would also have to understand how to construct a bridge, and take into effect, the wind, the sway it eneds to hold up agains the wind, what resources to use, etc etc etc. the list goes on. the only way this could be done is with a biological entity, do you deny this? "we can make computers smarter than humans" you said something like this, or implied this. i never denied this, i said in one aspect you make be able to, example is a calculator, so? what else can a calculator do? And that also is not free will it is programmed to be perfect, it can never be wrong, it cannot learn, it is nothing. it has no pulse, it cannot make decisions. computers will NEVER be smarter than humans, since we program with the technology they need(we make their brains, we know everything they know and can possibly ever know).

 

[moving finger]

if we ever created a machine capable of reproducing biologically... then it would HAVE to be biological, there is no other way for a machine to reproduce and still fit the specifications of my definion.

You now need to define biological. See my last post re silicon-based life-forms.

MF

 

[moving finger]

"will it build bridges?" "Why not? This has nothing to do with free will" ... yes it does, you are missing my points, it can build bridges, but it must be built to build bridges, and programmed to understand bridges, you cannot create a machine that will come to a river and think "build a bridge to get across".

In principle, yes I can.

I could argue that "humans are built to do what they do". Does that imply they do not have free will?

And even if you can, which might be possible, then you have to make it be able to build a bridge, and then it would also have to understand how to construct a bridge, and take into effect, the wind, the sway it eneds to hold up agains the wind, what resources to use, etc etc etc. the list goes on. the only way this could be done is with a biological entity, do you deny this?

Yes I do deny it! Why should it be only a "biological entity" which can do all these things? Please also define biological entity.

MF

 

[TheUnknown]

You now need to define biological. See my last post re silicon-based life-forms.

MF

i don't need to explain biological, you know what biological is, that is a good enough definition of free will, if you want me to define every single word, then this will get no where, but i can if you think that will help. :P

 

[TheUnknown]

In principle, yes I can.

I could argue that "humans are built to do what they do". Does that imply they do not have free will?


Yes I do deny it! Why should it be only a "biological entity" which can do all these things? Please also define biological entity.

MF

this is what i am explaining to you(or trying to to :-/), humans are not built to do what they do, we take it upon ourselves to figure out problems, a machine is simply a reincarnation of a false human, what humans percieve as free will, and they will never be able to amount to a human in all aspect of life, they can only be built for certain specifications. a biological entity, is any living breathing being (plant/anima/microbial, or of any aspect of life that is consistent with being biological)that lives off of and uses it's surroundings to survive and is created biologically, and consists 100% of biological substance.

 

[TheUnknown]

"... could imply humans are built..." humans are simply not built...

About your silicon thing, that does not fit into the specifications of a biological entity... so when i write my definition on free will, i may have to change biological entity, but as far as we know there are no other life forms, so for this Earth, that definition stands true.

 

[TheUnknown]

Should i call a biological entity a universal intelligent entity? what can i call it? i think this definition is quite proper, i just need to find a name or names that correspond with all life anywhere in the universe that could have possibly evolved from any type of substance or matter. heck that sounds good enough... any life anywhere in the universe that evolved from any substance or matter that is naturally produced and reproduced, and is aware of it's conscience? something along those lines, help me out, i think i almost have it. :) I'm not that bright, you know... i need some help on this.

 

[moving finger]

No, that's not how I was thinking of it. Your "seed" comment suggests you're thinking in terms of picking a random set of initial conditions, then evolving them forwards using dynamical laws.

Yes, that’s what I was initially thinking.

I'm thinking of generating entire histories at random, with no laws constraining them whatsoever. I used the analogy of a chess board earlier--instead of picking a starting configuration for the board and evolving it forward using only legal moves, imagine simply picking a random number of moves that the game will last, then making a slot for each position on the board at each move, and then assigning each slot a piece (or designating it empty) completely at random, like "A4 on move 12 will contain a black rook" or " E11 on move 3 will be empty".

Ahhh, OK yes I see. So it would be something akin to taking the total n-dimensional configuration phase-space for all particle histories in the universe (where n is an extremely large number!) and generating each of the points in this configuration phase-space (each point would represent a whole 4D spacetime, a unique combination of 4D spacetime histories for all particles in the universe), but only some (very few!) of these points would represent spacetimes that are self-consistent.

The vast majority of histories generated by this method won't look like a legal chess game at all, the number of pieces and their positions will be changing randomly from one move to another, but the computer can then go through and throw out every history that does not obey the "laws of chess" from beginning to end. Similarly, I am imagining something like a computer which generates a spacetime manifold whose curvature varies in a completely random way, with the worldlines of objects also drawn at random, and then all of these are thrown out except for the spacetimes where the metric relates to the density of matter/energy according to the rules of GR, and where the worldlines also obey the correct laws of physics (being geodesics in the absence of non-gravitational forces, for example). Of course, the complete description of a "history" in quantum gravity may be something other than worldlines on curved spacetime, but whatever the basic description you should be able to come up with an analogous notion of "random histories".

OK, I get it.

But even some of the “non-self-consistent” histories will contain portions or segments of spacetime which are locally self-consistent (just as a limited sequence of moves in a random movement of chesspieces on the board may just happen to follow the rules of chess, even if the overall set of moves is not legal). In fact, if we are selecting universes in the configuration-space at random, then we would expect the number of universes which are overall non-self-consistent but containing self-consistent limited subsets or segments to greatly outnumber (by a truly astronomic ratio) the number of totally self-consistent universes. Thus, for every totally self-consistent universe we produce, we can expect to also produce an astronomic number of universes which are self-consistent say from Big Bang to 15 billion years after the Big Bang, with non-self-consistency only appearing after the 15 billion-year mark (for example).

These histories are not logically inconsistent, but they contain points where the laws of physics are not obeyed. This would probably be because the laws of physics are not obeyed throughout the entire history, just zigzagging worldlines and changing spacetime curvature that follow no laws at all, but there would also be occasional histories where the laws of physics were mostly obeyed but that contained specific points where they weren't, like if I went back and killed my mother but then at some moment her dead body suddenly disappeared and she was suddenly walking around with no memory of having been visited by a time traveler.

Yes, as I referred to above, if we produce universes at random then for every totally self-consistent universe there must be a multitude which are “almost” self-consistent, but with just one or two inconsistencies, which may (for example) occur after the 15 billion year age point, thus the spacetime history from Big Bang to 15 billion years would be self-consistent.

Now I need to ask : At what point do the beings within each of these universes actually “experience” existence?

Are you suggesting that the complete set of universes (non-self-consistent and self-consistent) are first generated, and then the non-self-consistent ones are somehow “destroyed”? But surely the “beings” (if there are any) within these universes will exist at the moment the universes are “created”, they will surely not wait until the non-self-consistent versions are destroyed until they “suddenly experience existence”?

but this is just an analogy, the point is just that the histories we see the computer return as output will obey the laws of physics throughout, and will thus be consistent. I'm not suggesting that there is some entity sorting through random histories and then picking one where the correct laws of physics are obeyed throughout, waving his magic wand over it, and making it a "real universe"; it's just a way of thinking about what it means for the "laws of physics" to exist as timeless constraints on entire histories (like general relativity, or the principle of least action in classical physics) as opposed to dynamical rules that start from some initial conditions and evolve them forward.

Yes, I see that. And this is where the analogy apparently breaks down. I believe what you would say is that the non-self-consistent versions would never be created in the first place, that there is some kind of cosmic pre-selection rule which only allows a completely self-consistent universe to ever be created (even though there is no way to know in advance whether any point in configuration space chosen at random will produce a self-consistent universe or not prior to creation, just as there is no way to know in advance whether a random assortment of pieces on a chess board will be a “legal” configuration or not, until we actually examine the configuration).

It could be the case (taking the random selection analogy more literally) that we live in a universe which is self-consistent from Big Bang to present day, but without guarantee of self-consistency in the future. I know you will disagree with this, but surely it then comes down to a personal belief, which cannot be proven one way or another?

MF

 

[moving finger]

i don't need to explain biological, you know what biological is, that is a good enough definition of free will, if you want me to define every single word, then this will get no where, but i can if you think that will help. :P

Sorry, I am not deliberately being pedantic or obstructive, but I believe this is important.

Biological according to my dictionary is "pertaining to living things", but this then begs the question : What is a living thing? and whether machines could one day ever be construed to be living things.

"Biological" to you may mean "organic life-form based on DNA, proteins etc", whereas there may be evolved lifeforms on other worlds which believe themselves to have free will yet they are silicon-based rather than carbon-based. Would you claim they do not have free will simply because of their chemistry?

MF

 

[TheUnknown]

Sorry, I am not deliberately being pedantic or obstructive, but I believe this is important.

Biological according to my dictionary is "pertaining to living things", but this then begs the question : What is a living thing? and whether machines could one day ever be construed to be living things.

"Biological" to you may mean "organic life-form based on DNA, proteins etc", whereas there may be evolved lifeforms on other worlds which believe themselves to have free will yet they are silicon-based rather than carbon-based. Would you claim they do not have free will simply because of their chemistry?

MF

No a machine could never ever be constructed to be a living thing, EVER, if it were then it would be living, and would then not be a machine :)(also what machine are we talking about? if you create a machine from all biological matter, then it is in a sense, a frankenstien, and it is a living thing, and it is not scrap metal and silicon.) No i believe that any intelligent living being that has emotions, a conscience and understand the realms of phsycology and phylosophy, and are aware of their conscience has free will... as far as living things go... again for time travel, all matter, not just living things must have free actions to be placed anywhere throughout the galaxy because of any chance happening in a multiverse(universe) different than ours, so free will must be asserted to all living creatures that are able to go back in time and feel emotions that may cause them to do something that is not in a "self consistent scenario"... and the universe must be givin free action to displace itself nonsequentially(or sequentially? now we get into the question if there are multiverses and all histories must be different, then why does the big bang necessarily always have to occur at the same point in time in every universe?) randomly throughout the mulitverse.

 

[moving finger]

this is what i am explaining to you(or trying to to :-/), humans are not built to do what they do, we take it upon ourselves to figure out problems, a machine is simply a reincarnation of a false human, what humans percieve as free will, and they will never be able to amount to a human in all aspect of life, they can only be built for certain specifications.

In other words, humans are flexible and adaptable. I agree.
But why do you insist that it will never be possible for a machine to also be flexible and adaptable in the same way?

a biological entity, is any living breathing being (plant/anima/microbial, or of any aspect of life that is consistent with being biological)that lives off of and uses it's surroundings to survive and is created biologically, and consists 100% of biological substance.

Sorry, circular definition again. Defining biological as any being which consists of 100% biological substance gets us nowhere (it’s like defining a circle as a thing which is circular).

"... could imply humans are built..." humans are simply not built...

But you see, I think humans are built. Humans do not suddenly and miraculously “come into existence”. Humans are built by and according to the designs encoded in our DNA, starting from the first seeds or sperm and egg. At some stage during this construction process (actually a long time after birth), humans start to think and start to believe that they maybe have free will (but where is their free will prior to them starting to think? It does not exist)

Should i call a biological entity a universal intelligent entity? what can i call it? i think this definition is quite proper, i just need to find a name or names that correspond with all life anywhere in the universe that could have possibly evolved from any type of substance or matter.

I do not think free will should be defined in terms of the entities or agents that are endowed with free will. Free will should be a universal property, and an agent either has free will or it does not, according to the definition. Whether it is a biological agent or not should make no difference. Free will is a property that an agent possesses regardless of it’s chemistry, it’s origins or background.

heck that sounds good enough... any life anywhere in the universe that evolved from any substance or matter that is naturally produced and reproduced, and is aware of it's conscience? something along those lines, help me out, i think i almost have it. :) I'm not that bright, you know...

Now you need to define life, and you will undoubtedly claim that a machine can never be alive (and I will disagree).

i need some help on this.

I’m afraid you may find my help limited, because you and I seem to have different fundamental beliefs. I cannot help you to construct a definition of free will which I think is incorrect. I see no reason why free will must be limited to “biological” agents or “intelligent” agents or “living” agents. Free will is not restricted to these types of agents.

MF

 

[TheUnknown]

ah biological entity definition... you said "Sorry, circular definition again. Defining biological as any being which consists of 100% biological substance gets us nowhere (it’s like defining a circle as a thing which is circular)." i was just simply defining it for you, since you asked, i didn't mean anything by it... and well a circle is a thing which is curcular in structure containing no edges or points, with no beginning and no end.

 

[moving finger]

No a machine could never ever be constructed to be a living thing, EVER, if it were then it would be living, and would then not be a machine :)

Oh dear. I believe that humans are machines. Before we can agree whether a machine could ever be alive, we need to agree what we mean by life. This could get very tricky, given that some lifeforms (viruses for example) can exist as purely passive chemicals for long periods of time.

(also what machine are we talking about? if you create a machine from all biological matter, then it is in a sense, a frankenstien, and it is a living thing, and it is not scrap metal and silicon.) No i believe that any intelligent living being that has emotions, a conscience and understand the realms of phsycology and phylosophy, and are aware of their conscience has free will... as far as living things go... again for time travel, all matter, not just living things must have free actions to be placed anywhere throughout the galaxy because of any chance happening in a multiverse(universe) different than ours, so free will must be asserted to all living creatures that are able to go back in time and feel emotions that may cause them to do something that is not in a "self consistent scenario"... and the universe must be givin free action to displace itself wherever it may be.

and I believe that a machine can (in principle) have emotions, conscience, understanding, etc etc, all the things you have described above. There is nothing "holy" about biological organisms which gives them the exclusive right to these properties.

MF

 

[TheUnknown]

"But you see, I think humans are built. Humans do not suddenly and miraculously “come into existence”. Humans are built by and according to the designs encoded in our DNA, starting from the first seeds or sperm and egg. At some stage during this construction process (actually a long time after birth), humans start to think and start to believe that they maybe have free will (but where is their free will prior to them starting to think? It does not exist)"

But this cannot be true... if we were created then our only creator must be God, or you run into a paradox... if aliens(not saying you said this, but hear me out) created us as an experiment, or seeded us here, then how did they get here? either way you look at it, there has to be free will involved, so i cannot stop my attempt to define free will because of the above statement. regardless if we have it or not, there must still be a definition of it. But that does not mean we could not go back into time and kill our mother before she was born, so the multiverse theory still stands true. So we do have some sort of free action/will inside of us if time travel exists.

 

[TheUnknown]

if you create a "machine" that is living... and it is biological... then in my eyes it is no longer a machine, it is a hybrid of some sort or a newly created biological entity, which lives, and is created in our image(just as God says in the Bible, do you think the Bible was placed here by aliens?)... and if it has all of the "free will multiverse theory" characteristics then indeed i now classify it as a biological entity, and it now has free will, just as we do. but be aware that these debates do not conflict... once you give a machine a biological brain, it now has free will... if a machine is restrained to metal and electricity, it will never have free will.

 

[Garth]

I believe that a machine can (in principle) have emotions, conscience, understanding, etc etc, all the things you have described above. There is nothing "holy" about biological organisms which gives them the exclusive right to these properties.
MF

You may well be right, but until a machine is built that can demonstrate these properties of emotion, conscience, understanding, etc. you are simply stating an article of faith, just as one is doing who believes biological organisms are in some sense 'holy' .

Such a machine will have to demonstrate these properties to be original rather than simply a clever emulation of human consciousness. I can program my computer to print, "I love you", "I feel depressed" or "What is the meaning of life?" without there being any such emotion or thought.

Garth

 

[TheUnknown]

You may well be right, but until a machine is built that can demonstrate these properties of emotion, conscience, understanding, etc. you are simply stating an article of faith, just as one is doing who believes biological organisms are in some sense 'holy' .

Such a machine will have to demonstrate these properties to be original rather than simply a clever emulation of human consciousness. I can program my computer to print, "I love you", "I feel depressed" or "What is the meaning of life?" without there being any such emotion or thought.

Garth

this is also what all of my previous post are pertaining to, it may be able to simulate these things, but it's not really feeling emotion, and there it is not conscience of it's conscience, i think that is the key.

 

[moving finger]

You may well be right, but until a machine is built that can demonstrate these properties of emotion, conscience, understanding, etc. you are simply stating an article of faith, just as one is doing who believes biological organisms are in some sense 'holy' .

which is why i prefaced my comment with "I believe"

Such a machine will have to demonstrate these properties to be original rather than simply a clever emulation of human consciousness. I can program my computer to print, "I love you", "I feel depressed" or "What is the meaning of life?" without there being any such emotion or thought.

Agreed. I see no reason why this should not, in principle, be possible.

MF

 

[moving finger]

But this cannot be true... if we were created then our only creator must be God, or you run into a paradox...

I think you are talking here about the “original creation” of life/humans etc, and not the creation of each individual human? Or are you suggesting that something called God creates each and every human?

if aliens(not saying you said this, but hear me out) created us as an experiment, or seeded us here, then how did they get here?

I am not suggesting that the first humans were produced by a seed planted by aliens. I was talking about how each individual human is produced – each human grows from a seed created by a sperm and an egg, and the entire design of our bodies is contained in the DNA within that seed.

either way you look at it, there has to be free will involved, so i cannot stop my attempt to define free will because of the above statement.

Nope, I don’t see why there “has to be” free will involved.

regardless if we have it or not, there must still be a definition of it. But that does not mean we could not go back into time and kill our mother before she was born, so the multiverse theory still stands true. So we do have some sort of free action/will inside of us if time travel exists.

The multiverse theory may be true, but I still see no reason why it must be connected with free will.

if you create a "machine" that is living... and it is biological... then in my eyes it is no longer a machine,

OK. But in my eyes even human beings are machines. Just because humans are biological does not mean that they are not machines.

it is a hybrid of some sort or a newly created biological entity, which lives, and is created in our image(just as God says in the Bible, do you think the Bible was placed here by aliens?)

No, I believe the bible was written by humans. What does this have to do with anything we are discussing here?

... and if it has all of the "free will multiverse theory" characteristics then indeed i now classify it as a biological entity, and it now has free will, just as we do. but be aware that these debates do not conflict... once you give a machine a biological brain, it now has free will... if a machine is restrained to metal and electricity, it will never have free will.

I disagree. But I think we are simply repeating ourselves now. You are entitled to your beliefs, but I think you overestimate the importance of biology and underestimate the power of machines.

MF

 

[TheUnknown]

I think you are talking here about the “original creation” of life/humans etc, and not the creation of each individual human? Or are you suggesting that something called God creates each and every human?


I am not suggesting that the first humans were produced by a seed planted by aliens. I was talking about how each individual human is produced – each human grows from a seed created by a sperm and an egg, and the entire design of our bodies is contained in the DNA within that seed.


Nope, I don’t see why there “has to be” free will involved.


The multiverse theory may be true, but I still see no reason why it must be connected with free will.


OK. But in my eyes even human beings are machines. Just because humans are biological does not mean that they are not machines.


No, I believe the bible was written by humans. What does this have to do with anything we are discussing here?


I disagree. But I think we are simply repeating ourselves now. You are entitled to your beliefs, but I think you overestimate the importance of biology and underestimate the power of machines.

MF

underestimate the power of machines? no, the power of machines can never be greater than humans, because humans create them with what they can and cannot do, and a machine will never have emotions, carry on intense and maticulous relationships with other humans or machines, smell, taste, have sex, reproduce, grow hair, understand logic, be conscience of it's conscience, phylosophize about phylosophy, understand physics in depth, question physics, question time travel, and question whether machines can ever be as smart as humans... i put my view to rest :) you can get the last word if you wish. and my final conclusion on this particular subject is that, if time travel exists, free will exists, no matter how much you don't want to believe it, or argue against it, because a universe with no self consistent restrictions, is a universe with free will for all, even those coming from other universes who are allowed to inerfere.

 

[TheUnknown]

i just wanted to note, that the whole time you kept talking about evolving extra terrestrial entities consisting of a siliconic DNA(evolution) and then saying that us, humans just appeared... i don't know if you're hell bent on making this theory sound incorrect but all logic and anthropology shows the history of human beings back millions of years.. but you say we just appeared, or you believe that, so you have contradicted yourself many times, but i have just tried to answer it all to the ebst of my knowledge... seems more like you didn't care whether you kept your side of the debate balanced and consistent or not, you just wanted to make mine look wrong at any cost :P no big problem though, it was fun answering it all, i gained a great deal of knowledge i never knew i had. Thanks for the debate, i enjoyed it, and if you want to go on about anything else, i'd be glad to, i really enjoy debating and further expanding my knowledge.

 

[moving finger]

underestimate the power of machines? no, the power of machines can never be greater than humans, because humans create them with what they can and cannot do

I disagree. Humans can already create machines that outperform humans in most physical and mental tasks. I believe it is only a question of time before humans create a conscious machine.

and a machine will never have emotions,

why not?

carry on intense and maticulous relationships with other humans or machines,

why not?

smell, taste, have sex, reproduce, grow hair, understand logic,

why not?

be conscience of it's conscience, phylosophize about phylosophy, understand physics in depth, question physics, question time travel, and question whether machines can ever be as smart as humans

why not?

I have been trying to help you by showing that these are all unsupported assertions on your part, you have not shown why any of them is necessarily true, but it seems that you choose not to listen.

... i put my view to rest :) you can get the last word if you wish. and my final conclusion on this particular subject is that, if time travel exists, free will exists, no matter how much you don't want to believe it, or argue against it, because a universe with no self consistent restrictions, is a universe with free will for all, even those coming from other universes who are allowed to inerfere.

travel well my friend, you are entitled to your human beliefs, may your god go with you.

MF

 

[moving finger]

i just wanted to note, that the whole time you kept talking about evolving extra terrestrial entities consisting of a siliconic DNA(evolution) and then saying that us, humans just appeared...

I have no idea what you mean here. I never said "siliconic DNA", I said "silicon-based lifeforms", and I never said that "humans just appeared".

i don't know if you're hell bent on making this theory sound incorrect but all logic and anthropology shows the history of human beings back millions of years.. but you say we just appeared, or you believe that, so you have contradicted yourself many times,

Where did I say that humans "just appeared"? Please check, I think you are mistaken.

but i have just tried to answer it all to the ebst of my knowledge... seems more like you didn't care whether you kept your side of the debate balanced and consistent or not, you just wanted to make mine look wrong at any cost :P

it seems you feel aggrieved for some reason. All I was trying to do was to point out the flaws in your logic, but you choose not to listen and instead to believe that I had other motives? You are sadly mistaken.

no big problem though, it was fun answering it all, i gained a great deal of knowledge i never knew i had. Thanks for the debate, i enjoyed it, and if you want to go on about anything else, i'd be glad to, i really enjoy debating and further expanding my knowledge.

Then I am glad about that

MF

 

[TheUnknown]

I disagree. Humans can already create machines that outperform humans in most physical and mental tasks. I believe it is only a question of time before humans create a conscious machine.


why not?


why not?


why not?


why not?

I have been trying to help you by showing that these are all unsupported assertions on your part, you have not shown why any of them is necessarily true, but it seems that you choose not to listen.


travel well my friend, you are entitled to your human beliefs, may your god go with you.

MF

ah you keep missing my point, you will never be able to create a machine with ALL human characteristics, yes i agreed already that you CAN create a machine that can outperform a human in specific areas... but that still has nothing to do with human qualities, elephants can outperform humans, but they are nothing close to human, guerillas can outperform humans, they are much stronger... but they are no where near human in the mind... computers can decipher many things... but are and never will be anywhere near humans... simply put ONE SINGLE Machine cannot experience every realm of the human mind, they will never dream, they will never love, they will never lust, they will never get hungry, they will never get thirsty(and truly feel it because they need it.. again unless they ARE living) it seems i cannot make any logical sense to you on this. Machines will never go jog 2 miles to lose weight, and be depressed because they are fat, machines will never believe in religion and truly understand what it means to some humans, machines will not have families and work, and come home and kiss their wife goodnight and get a feeling of comfort from it... do you see what i am saying? you cannot create a machine out of wires and metal that will out perfrom or even come close to the human mind... it really erks me that people think this is possible.. the only way this is possible would be to create a whole different DNA strand, and watch it come to life as an intelligent being, similar to us... then it is not a machine, it was created, but it is living... you see? ONE MACHINE cannot have ALL living qualities, and never will, simply because of the fact that it cannt experience all the needs of a living thing that needs to eat, drink, poop, pee, have sex, lust, read to get smart, watch t.v., be concerned about friends, go to a funeral because someone old died of their age because their biological clock stopped ticking.

 

[TheUnknown]

sorry.. lol i said you could get the last word didn't I ? :-/ I'll stop now

 

[TheUnknown]

if it doesn't function biologically... it can only be machine.

 

[TheUnknown]

"But you see, I think humans are built. Humans do not suddenly and miraculously “come into existence”. Humans are built by and according to the designs encoded in our DNA, starting from the first seeds or sperm and egg. At some stage during this construction process (actually a long time after birth), humans start to think and start to believe that they maybe have free will (but where is their free will prior to them starting to think? It does not exist)" I'm thinking by suddenly and miraculously come into existence you mean that they have not always been here(on earth?), OR they were placed here? otherwise this is has no meaning.. this would exactly be the reason for humans and machines to be different, machines suddenly and miraculously come into existence because we create them... humans enjoy the mysteries of being alive and biological and they are endowed through lifes natural process with everything we know and enjoy... they start out as sperm and egg, then they develop as an embryo, then they are children, not to smart yet, then they become adults, and they are aware? is this what you mean? do you know any machine that goes through this cycle? thanks for proving my point hehe :)

 

[TheUnknown]

""Biological" to you may mean "organic life-form based on DNA, proteins etc", whereas there may be evolved lifeforms on other worlds which believe themselves to have free will yet they are silicon-based rather than carbon-based. Would you claim they do not have free will simply because of their chemistry?" so aliens can evolve as long as it proves the theory wrong, but humans just come into existent out of no where. And i still don't see how just because their DNA strand would be different becuase they consist of silicon, or silicon is a large part of their biological make up, how that then makes them not elligable to fall under biological entity. is that what you were implying, or were you simply asking me? i mean, of course i would agree they have free will, in my definiton, i stated any "biological entites."