Free Will

[Sleeppy]

Where the hell do you think I said that? I said that automatons are objects that lack volition, that is, lack the ability to choose what acts they will perform, what decisions they will make, what beliefs they will adopt.

Here:

An automaton--an object that lacks volition, such as you apparently claim to be--will never be able to state or believe a proposition that has any truth value, e.g., a proposition that is worthwhile to hear or read or consider by those of us who are able to choose to assert and believe true propositions rather than false ones.

False.

 

[Nous]

Where the hell do you think I said that? I said that automatons are objects that lack volition, that is, lack the ability to choose what acts they will perform, what decisions they will make, what beliefs they will adopt.

Here:

An automaton--an object that lacks volition, such as you apparently claim to be--will never be able to state or believe a proposition that has any truth value,e.g., a proposition that is worthwhile to hear or read or consider by those of us who are able to choose to assert and believe true propositions rather than false ones.

Obviously I didn't even vaguely imply that computers cannot "output" what they have been programmed by volitional beings to output. Obviously I didn't even vaguely imply that computers are incapable of "performing mathematical calculations". Noting that objects that lack volition cannot state propositions that have truth-value merely refers to the fact that such objects, when given the option, cannot choose between a true proposition and a false one.

Note: my computer does not object at all to making the assertion: The sun is made of yellow styrofoam. I can even make my computer confirm that that statement is true: "The sun is made of yellow styrofoam" is a true statement.

It isn't a true statement. My computer cannot choose to make true statements. Those of us who are volitional can choose to assert true statements rather than false ones.

 

[serp777]

'The will of the Lord is the only will'. Is this true or false? Discuss. Debate.

First you need to demonstrate the lord exists, whoever the Lord is. Then you would have to demonstrate the Lord has the capability of advanced cognition--for instance the Lord might just be the sum of forces in the universe following particular laws and having no individual free will. Then you would need to demonstrate that humans can't have free will or nothing else could have free will for that matter.

Basically, showing that the Lord is the only entity who has free will would be like proving that the toothfairy doesn't exist. It just isn't possible

 

[serp777]

Here:


False.

You can't just state false without any justification and expect to be reasonable. I see no argument or evidence to conclude that its true, but you certainly don't have arguments or evidence to conclude its false. The only thing we can say is that we don't know.

 

[Sleeppy]

[/QUOTE]

You can't just state false without any justification and expect to be reasonable. I see no argument or evidence to conclude that its true, but you certainly don't have arguments or evidence to conclude its false. The only thing we can say is that we don't know.

It's definitely false.

The brain functions in much the same way that a computer does. Your DNA is your operating system. Your brain, and your limbs are your hardware; your peripherals. To say that computers are not capable of "choosing" between true and false statements is just as false as saying, "humans are not capable of "choosing" between true and false statements."

Go to any teacher, or professor on this Earth, and they will all tell you that "choosing" between true and false statements isn't just a problem for computers. The entire premise is just not sound.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/tech/predicting-the-future/

Computers are becoming better and better at improvisation. That's a fact. The evidence is all around. The question you two need to ask yourselves is this: how is it possible that we are now programming computers, to do more and more of what we do as humans, including improvisation? The answer: we are the result of millions of years of natural, chemical and physical programming. Period.

 

[serp777]

It's definitely false.

The brain functions in much the same way that a computer does. Your DNA is your operating system. Your brain, and your limbs are your hardware; your peripherals. To say that computers are not capable of "choosing" between true and false statements is just as false as saying, "humans are not capable of "choosing" between true and false statements."

Go to any teacher, or professor on this Earth, and they will all tell you that "choosing" between true and false statements isn't just a problem for computers. The entire premise is just not sound.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/tech/predicting-the-future/

Computers are becoming better and better at improvisation. That's a fact. The evidence is all around. The question you two need to ask yourselves is this: how is it possible that we are now programming computers, to do more and more of what we do as humans, including improvisation? The answer: we are the result of millions of years of natural, chemical and physical programming. Period.

The brain functions in much the same way that a computer does. Your DNA is your operating system. Your brain, and your limbs are your hardware; your peripherals. To say that computers are not capable of "choosing" between true and false statements is just as false as saying, "humans are not capable of "choosing" between true and false statements."

A computer is very different from the brain in terms of functionality. On just a basic level, computers use logical gates that compose circuits and enable things like ALUs or registers. Logical gates rely on truth tables that map certain binary inputs to an output. The brain has hundreds of different types of cells whereas NAND and NOR gates make computers functionally complete. Computers are VASTLY simpler than brains are. Brains operate three dimensionally using billions of neurons and are significantly more dynamic. This is why computers and brains are much better at specific tasks. For instance computers are better at memory and reliability, but brains are better at visual processing.

I also wouldn't call DNA an operating system. That would be like calling a circuit diagram an operating system which just doesn't make sense. An operating system has a specific set of tasks like memory management, file I/O, thread and process management, access and privilege, etc. The OS is entirely software an acts as an interface between the low level kernel or drivers and user level applications.

Computers don't really make choices. Computers follow the laws of physics and logic. Programmers make choices and computers operate based on what the programmer has specified. FOr example, you wouldn't say that a wind up clock makes a choice to go off or that an old ford truck makes decisions when driving. The best you could say is that an artifcial intelligence simulated on a computer makes a choice, not the actual computer itself. The computer is just a machine that follows specific rules. It never makes choices, it just follows rules. The computer couldn't decide not to follow the rules it was programmed with.

 

[Sleeppy]

A computer is very different from the brain in terms of functionality. On just a basic level, computers use logical gates that compose circuits and enable things like ALUs or registers. Logical gates rely on truth tables that map certain binary inputs to an output. The brain has hundreds of different types of cells whereas NAND and NOR gates make computers functionally complete. Computers are VASTLY simpler than brains are. Brains operate three dimensionally using billions of neurons and are significantly more dynamic. This is why computers and brains are much better at specific tasks. For instance computers are better at memory and reliability, but brains are better at visual processing.

I also wouldn't call DNA an operating system. That would be like calling a circuit diagram an operating system which just doesn't make sense. An operating system has a specific set of tasks like memory management, file I/O, thread and process management, access and privilege, etc. The OS is entirely software an acts as an interface between the low level kernel or drivers and user level applications.

Computers don't really make choices. Computers follow the laws of physics and logic. Programmers make choices and computers operate based on what the programmer has specified. FOr example, you wouldn't say that a wind up clock makes a choice to go off or that an old ford truck makes decisions when driving. The best you could say is that an artifcial intelligence simulated on a computer makes a choice, not the actual computer itself. The computer is just a machine that follows specific rules. It never makes choices, it just follows rules. The computer couldn't decide not to follow the rules it was programmed with.

The point I made isn't in the details of how analogous everything is. Obviously, we haven't quite matched millions of years of programming, with computers.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2012...uman-genomes-operating-system-are-discovered/


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...molecules-provide-clues-origin-existence.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...n-genes-perform-a-vital-function-8106777.html



But you do address the main point which is: computers can't decide whether or not to follow the rules they're programmed with. To that I reiterate, neither can anything else in nature. We cannot defy our DNA; our genetic code, save for evolutionary mutation, and/or natural (which includes conscious) selection.