317 réponses à ce sujet

[Baronesa]

Just an afterthought...

If these kind of discussions spark out of the ending of the game, I gotta say those are DAMN good endings then... emotionally wrecking and insufficient... but thought provoking.

[Zyrious]

A "Learning" robot is somewhat of an illusion.

When approaching Variable A, Use function B, if function B does not achieve resolution 1, but achives resolution 2-6, use function C, but if function b does not achieve resolutions 2-6, use function D. Or in the case of the video, using voice commands to trigger certain functions in response to certain variables "If while using function C recieve "No" input, move to function D, or if resolution 7 and input "no" is recieved, mote to function J". you see?

This continues until it achieves what the programmer see's as the correct resolution in any given, and predicted, scenario. Things such as percieving objects around them are also programmed in, size, color, weight, etc. are programmed in to help a machine try and "Percieve". The reason it's so limited is we suck at trying to define physical things to machines at the moment, as things such as "Facial Recognition" tech get more improved, so does tech that can recognize the material world, making it easier to program objects.

Everything you see in that video still works off the very basic if A then B if C then 5 but if J then 12 etc. etc. just with many different variables mixed with recognition tech. Its more complex, but not different, and not alive.

Modifié par Zyrious, 03 mars 2012 - 10:28 .

[ninjaNumber1]

Baronesa wrote...

Just an afterthought...

If these kind of discussions spark out of the ending of the game, I gotta say those are DAMN good endings then... emotionally wrecking and insufficient... but thought provoking.

Yea, the more I think of the endings, the more I feel that they did a great job! 

[panamakira]

I don't want to pick the Synergy ending though. It's kind of lame. Every organic living thing becomes half synthetic? no thanks! I'd rather choose one of the destroy endings where we get rid of Reaper technology and just start all over. I don't know.....I feel Reaper technology needs to go even though I feel there should be equally advanced technology available that could replace it....

How is it that no one in the galaxy thought of replacing the relays or use the prototype the Protheans had built in Ilos to replace the current space travels.....

Ugh......whatever space magic takes the cake~

[Balek-Vriege]

Baronesa wrote...

Just an afterthought...

If these kind of discussions spark out of the ending of the game, I gotta say those are DAMN good endings then... emotionally wrecking and insufficient... but thought provoking.

That's my stance.  For people who are very emotionally attached to the characters and Shepard, the endings are not optimal for what you want to get out of them.  However, if your less worried about the characters and are more interested in the a good reason of why the Reapers do what they do and how to solve it, then the endings are pretty good and the solutions are adequately controversial for the situation.

[Ypiret]

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

It's called determinism. Everything that happens, eveything you do, say , or think is out of response to something else. Is it not? Everything is linked and connected to the point were relevancy is almost non-existant. You do not simply "will" or "want" something without reason. Life is nothing more then watching a long movie you've never seen before.

My point is that this is in no way different then a computer or AI works. Cause and effect, act and reaction. A computer asking you to fix a line of code because you made a syntax error is no different then a human wanting some juice because they're thirsty. Just because there are "feelings" associated with one doesn't mean the other doesn't count.

I am aware of your position. The problem is that determinism should be intuitively false to you as it applies to the will. I don't think there is a way to actually prove that it is false to you in the same way its impossible to prove something like the principle of contradiction.

Maybe this thought experiment:

how do you answer the questions

1) is it determinism that has lead you to conclude that determinism is real?

If your answer is yes,  (If no, then you admit that determinism is false)

2) then is it not entirely possible for you to 'will' to live from this moment onward as if determinism is either true or false without basing it on any prior ideas/experiences/inclinations etc?

It seems like the answer is 'Yes' in which case determinism seems false. But if your answer is 'No', I don't see why....  at least immediately ......

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. I believe determinism for the same reason you believe in gravity. It causes me to reflect on the world around me and I have no choice but to logically conclude that it is correct. The wording or phrasing of facts serves nothing more then to make them referenceable. You don't believe in gravity because of the theory of gravity, you just observe the facts it explains and have to conclude that it is true.

As for your second question, I will to live because I want to fulfill my goal of becoming a genetic engineer. On top of that there is the natural human instint to servive. Both of which are causes of past events. I don't understant the point you're trying to make. Their is no such thing as choices you chose based on past events that happened because of past events, that happened because of other past events that you had no control over.

[Ypiret]

Zyrious wrote...

A "Learning" robot is somewhat of an illusion.

When approaching Variable A, Use function B, if function B does not achieve resolution 1, but achives resolution 2-6, use function C, but if function b does not achieve resolutions 2-6, use function D. Or in the case of the video, using voice commands to trigger certain functions in response to certain variables "If while using function C recieve "No" input, move to function D, or if resolution 7 and input "no" is recieved, mote to function J". you see?

This continues until it achieves what the programmer see's as the correct resolution in any given, and predicted, scenario. Things such as percieving objects around them are also programmed in, size, color, weight, etc. are programmed in to help a machine try and "Percieve". The reason it's so limited is we suck at trying to define physical things to machines at the moment, as things such as "Facial Recognition" tech get more improved, so does tech that can recognize the material world, making it easier to program objects.

Everything you see in that video still works off the very basic if A then B if C then 5 but if J then 12 etc. etc. just with many different variables mixed with recognition tech. Its more complex, but not different, and not alive.

But tell me, is this not how a brain works?

[push2play]

Exactly. The endings aren't band in the grand scheme of things. The ME universe had been doomed since the very beginning. We, through Shepard, get the unique opportunity to pull on a string that unravels a tapestry of its design, but ultimately are just human and are limited to choices within the constraints of that universe.

Sure, it would've been great for everyone to live happily ever after and for everything to work out in the end, but in this universe, the threat of a technological singularity is real, there are Reapers designed to prevent it and at the end of the day, there simply cannot be a long-term happy ending no matter what choices we make.

[Baronesa]

push2play wrote...

Exactly. The endings aren't band in the grand scheme of things. The ME universe had been doomed since the very beginning. We, through Shepard, get the unique opportunity to pull on a string that unravels a tapestry of its design, but ultimately are just human and are limited to choices within the constraints of that universe.

Sure, it would've been great for everyone to live happily ever after and for everything to work out in the end, but in this universe, the threat of a technological singularity is real, there are Reapers designed to prevent it and at the end of the day, there simply cannot be a long-term happy ending no matter what choices we make.

But that is asuming that you consider a technological singularity a threat... which I don't, personally... it would challenge us, it would force us to adapt to new circumstances.

To me the real threat here, is fear, fear to the unknown, fear to the technological singulrity... that is the real problem...

And remember... "Fear is the mindkiller..."

[Zyrious]

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

A "Learning" robot is somewhat of an illusion.

When approaching Variable A, Use function B, if function B does not achieve resolution 1, but achives resolution 2-6, use function C, but if function b does not achieve resolutions 2-6, use function D. Or in the case of the video, using voice commands to trigger certain functions in response to certain variables "If while using function C recieve "No" input, move to function D, or if resolution 7 and input "no" is recieved, mote to function J". you see?

This continues until it achieves what the programmer see's as the correct resolution in any given, and predicted, scenario. Things such as percieving objects around them are also programmed in, size, color, weight, etc. are programmed in to help a machine try and "Percieve". The reason it's so limited is we suck at trying to define physical things to machines at the moment, as things such as "Facial Recognition" tech get more improved, so does tech that can recognize the material world, making it easier to program objects.

Everything you see in that video still works off the very basic if A then B if C then 5 but if J then 12 etc. etc. just with many different variables mixed with recognition tech. Its more complex, but not different, and not alive.

But tell me, is this not how a brain works?

No, it isn't. There is no inline programming, DNA sets a base for impulses, as does parenting, but the human conciousness is not fully understood but is considered vastly different from AI. We learn without programming. We are capable of abstract thought, thought that is completely irrelevant, has nothing to do with what we see or hear or interact with. We can daydream, a completely irrelevant process with no variable triggers. For instance, some chemicles in the brain can trigger feelings of emotions, but a person can react to those emotions in a variety of ways. Some people think it's free will and others think it's just quantom variance.

Just know that things like Natural learning, art(Which in an of itself is considered an abstract), and abstract thought are all key signs of sentients, of which machines are incapable.

[Eterna]

I'm planning on going with this ending, it's probably my favorite one.

[Baronesa]

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

A "Learning" robot is somewhat of an illusion.

When approaching Variable A, Use function B, if function B does not achieve resolution 1, but achives resolution 2-6, use function C, but if function b does not achieve resolutions 2-6, use function D. Or in the case of the video, using voice commands to trigger certain functions in response to certain variables "If while using function C recieve "No" input, move to function D, or if resolution 7 and input "no" is recieved, mote to function J". you see?

This continues until it achieves what the programmer see's as the correct resolution in any given, and predicted, scenario. Things such as percieving objects around them are also programmed in, size, color, weight, etc. are programmed in to help a machine try and "Percieve". The reason it's so limited is we suck at trying to define physical things to machines at the moment, as things such as "Facial Recognition" tech get more improved, so does tech that can recognize the material world, making it easier to program objects.

Everything you see in that video still works off the very basic if A then B if C then 5 but if J then 12 etc. etc. just with many different variables mixed with recognition tech. Its more complex, but not different, and not alive.

But tell me, is this not how a brain works?

No, it isn't. There is no inline programming, DNA sets a base for impulses, as does parenting, but the human conciousness is not fully understood but is considered vastly different from AI. We learn without programming. We are capable of abstract thought, thought that is completely irrelevant, has nothing to do with what we see or hear or interact with. We can daydream, a completely irrelevant process with no variable triggers. For instance, some chemicles in the brain can trigger feelings of emotions, but a person can react to those emotions in a variety of ways. Some people think it's free will and others think it's just quantom variance.

Just know that things like Natural learning, art(Which in an of itself is considered an abstract), and abstract thought are all key signs of sentients, of which machines are incapable.

Agreed... machines are incapable of that... right now.

What if you get an AI capable of those things? would your stance change? would you move the goalpost, or would simply deny that it is even possible because it is not organic?

[Zyrious]

Baronesa wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

A "Learning" robot is somewhat of an illusion.

When approaching Variable A, Use function B, if function B does not achieve resolution 1, but achives resolution 2-6, use function C, but if function b does not achieve resolutions 2-6, use function D. Or in the case of the video, using voice commands to trigger certain functions in response to certain variables "If while using function C recieve "No" input, move to function D, or if resolution 7 and input "no" is recieved, mote to function J". you see?

This continues until it achieves what the programmer see's as the correct resolution in any given, and predicted, scenario. Things such as percieving objects around them are also programmed in, size, color, weight, etc. are programmed in to help a machine try and "Percieve". The reason it's so limited is we suck at trying to define physical things to machines at the moment, as things such as "Facial Recognition" tech get more improved, so does tech that can recognize the material world, making it easier to program objects.

Everything you see in that video still works off the very basic if A then B if C then 5 but if J then 12 etc. etc. just with many different variables mixed with recognition tech. Its more complex, but not different, and not alive.

But tell me, is this not how a brain works?

No, it isn't. There is no inline programming, DNA sets a base for impulses, as does parenting, but the human conciousness is not fully understood but is considered vastly different from AI. We learn without programming. We are capable of abstract thought, thought that is completely irrelevant, has nothing to do with what we see or hear or interact with. We can daydream, a completely irrelevant process with no variable triggers. For instance, some chemicles in the brain can trigger feelings of emotions, but a person can react to those emotions in a variety of ways. Some people think it's free will and others think it's just quantom variance.

Just know that things like Natural learning, art(Which in an of itself is considered an abstract), and abstract thought are all key signs of sentients, of which machines are incapable.

Agreed... machines are incapable of that... right now.

What if you get an AI capable of those things? would your stance change? would you move the goalpost, or would simply deny that it is even possible because it is not organic?

It isn't possible simply because that isn't how AI works. It cannot divert from what we tell it to do. Even if it has a "Choice", what it chooses is technically what a 40 year old programmer smarter than us told it to do in that situation. It's simply how AI works. If A then 1 if B then 2 if A little of A and a little of B then 16. We don't work like that.

[MythicLegands]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

DaftArbiter wrote...

I won't choose this ending because I want EDI to die, just to **** with Joker for marooning the Normandy.

God damn that is petty. If you're gonna make a big decision based on something like this, why even bother trying to save the galaxy? 

I think we need the synergy/merge thing to happen in real life. People could use more logic. 

To be fair this is the second time he screwed Shepard over(along with is crew)

[Eclipse_9990]

MythicLegands wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

DaftArbiter wrote...

I won't choose this ending because I want EDI to die, just to **** with Joker for marooning the Normandy.

God damn that is petty. If you're gonna make a big decision based on something like this, why even bother trying to save the galaxy? 

I think we need the synergy/merge thing to happen in real life. People could use more logic. 

To be fair this is the second time he screwed Shepard over(along with is crew)

He's also saved your life, along with the crew multiple times. 

[Balek-Vriege]

Baronesa wrote...

push2play wrote...

Exactly. The endings aren't band in the grand scheme of things. The ME universe had been doomed since the very beginning. We, through Shepard, get the unique opportunity to pull on a string that unravels a tapestry of its design, but ultimately are just human and are limited to choices within the constraints of that universe.

Sure, it would've been great for everyone to live happily ever after and for everything to work out in the end, but in this universe, the threat of a technological singularity is real, there are Reapers designed to prevent it and at the end of the day, there simply cannot be a long-term happy ending no matter what choices we make.

But that is asuming that you consider a technological singularity a threat... which I don't, personally... it would challenge us, it would force us to adapt to new circumstances.

To me the real threat here, is fear, fear to the unknown, fear to the technological singulrity... that is the real problem...

And remember... "Fear is the mindkiller..."

In Dune they originally didn't fear technology enough obviously (Butlerian Jihad).


I'm not sure you can adapt to something which adapts and learns at a significantly greater pace than you do.  Like a slug trying to win a 100 meter race against a cheetah.  Technological singularity is a real threat (to our existence as we know it) and could even be a threat in this century.  The question is whether it's inherently a "bad thing" or just part of the natural progression of intelligent lifeforms.  Certain conditions spawn organic lifeforms then certain organic lifeforms spawn mechanical lifeforms far beyond themselves.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 03 mars 2012 - 10:49 .

[Ypiret]

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

A "Learning" robot is somewhat of an illusion.

When approaching Variable A, Use function B, if function B does not achieve resolution 1, but achives resolution 2-6, use function C, but if function b does not achieve resolutions 2-6, use function D. Or in the case of the video, using voice commands to trigger certain functions in response to certain variables "If while using function C recieve "No" input, move to function D, or if resolution 7 and input "no" is recieved, mote to function J". you see?

This continues until it achieves what the programmer see's as the correct resolution in any given, and predicted, scenario. Things such as percieving objects around them are also programmed in, size, color, weight, etc. are programmed in to help a machine try and "Percieve". The reason it's so limited is we suck at trying to define physical things to machines at the moment, as things such as "Facial Recognition" tech get more improved, so does tech that can recognize the material world, making it easier to program objects.

Everything you see in that video still works off the very basic if A then B if C then 5 but if J then 12 etc. etc. just with many different variables mixed with recognition tech. Its more complex, but not different, and not alive.

But tell me, is this not how a brain works?

No, it isn't. There is no inline programming, DNA sets a base for impulses, as does parenting, but the human conciousness is not fully understood but is considered vastly different from AI. We learn without programming. We are capable of abstract thought, thought that is completely irrelevant, has nothing to do with what we see or hear or interact with. We can daydream, a completely irrelevant process with no variable triggers. For instance, some chemicles in the brain can trigger feelings of emotions, but a person can react to those emotions in a variety of ways. Some people think it's free will and others think it's just quantom variance.

Just know that things like Natural learning, art(Which in an of itself is considered an abstract), and abstract thought are all key signs of sentients, of which machines are incapable.

DNA gives the instructions to make your brain, which then acts as a computer. Your brain is programed to take in events around you, store them as memories and use them a assess future situations. DNA is the 40 year old man at the computer typing in the intructions for the robot to react to specific situations. The ability to  learn IS a program.

Everything is relevent. Randomness does not exist. You day dream because when nothing particular preocupies your mind it beggins to think about other things . A response no an event, not randnom. Day dreaming always has a cause.

You react based to pasted event you've experience you've had no control over. I simplified example of this is that if I see a dog, I run. Why? Because when I was little one attacked me when I was little. You don't act for NO reason, it's literally impossible. But If you think I'm wrong then give an example.

Sentient beings are nothing more then complex cause and effect mechines.

Modifié par Ypiret, 03 mars 2012 - 10:54 .

[Zyrious]

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

A "Learning" robot is somewhat of an illusion.

When approaching Variable A, Use function B, if function B does not achieve resolution 1, but achives resolution 2-6, use function C, but if function b does not achieve resolutions 2-6, use function D. Or in the case of the video, using voice commands to trigger certain functions in response to certain variables "If while using function C recieve "No" input, move to function D, or if resolution 7 and input "no" is recieved, mote to function J". you see?

This continues until it achieves what the programmer see's as the correct resolution in any given, and predicted, scenario. Things such as percieving objects around them are also programmed in, size, color, weight, etc. are programmed in to help a machine try and "Percieve". The reason it's so limited is we suck at trying to define physical things to machines at the moment, as things such as "Facial Recognition" tech get more improved, so does tech that can recognize the material world, making it easier to program objects.

Everything you see in that video still works off the very basic if A then B if C then 5 but if J then 12 etc. etc. just with many different variables mixed with recognition tech. Its more complex, but not different, and not alive.

But tell me, is this not how a brain works?

No, it isn't. There is no inline programming, DNA sets a base for impulses, as does parenting, but the human conciousness is not fully understood but is considered vastly different from AI. We learn without programming. We are capable of abstract thought, thought that is completely irrelevant, has nothing to do with what we see or hear or interact with. We can daydream, a completely irrelevant process with no variable triggers. For instance, some chemicles in the brain can trigger feelings of emotions, but a person can react to those emotions in a variety of ways. Some people think it's free will and others think it's just quantom variance.

Just know that things like Natural learning, art(Which in an of itself is considered an abstract), and abstract thought are all key signs of sentients, of which machines are incapable.

DNA gives the instructions to make your brain, which then acts as a computer. Your brain is programed to take in events around you, store them as memories and use them a assess future situations. DNA is the 40 year old man at the computer typing in the intructions for the robot to react to specific situations. The ability to  learn IS a program.

Everything is relevent. Randomness does not exist. You day dream because when nothing particular preocupies your mind it beggins to think about other things . A response no an event, not randnom. Day dreaming always has a cause.

You react based to pasted event you've experience you've had no control over. I simplified example of this is that if I see a dog, I run. Why? Because when I was little one attacked me when I was little. You don't act for NO reason, it's literally impossible. But If you think I'm wrong then give an example.

Sentient beings are nothing more then complex cause and effect mechines.

But your simplification doesn't account for abstract thinking. Humans are very much capable of doing things they know are wrong, or were "conditioned" not to do by their parents. Abstract thinking means you think up things based on no prior experience or knowledge, it is what allowed various scientists to think up things which people thought were rediculous, t is what allows art and philosophy, based on nothing whatsoever. But this isnt about genetics or DNA, like i said any qualified scientist will tell you we don't fully understand how the human conciousness or the brain works. No, this is a philosophical debate on what it means to be human.

You take a very simplistic view of the human conciousness, but that is typical of a determinist. You do humanity a disservice to underestimate the human mind and millions of years of evolution in general. I will have to simply agree to disagree, because i do not subscribe to such an inhuman view of humanity, so to speak.

[MythicLegands]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

MythicLegands wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

DaftArbiter wrote...

I won't choose this ending because I want EDI to die, just to **** with Joker for marooning the Normandy.

God damn that is petty. If you're gonna make a big decision based on something like this, why even bother trying to save the galaxy? 

I think we need the synergy/merge thing to happen in real life. People could use more logic. 

To be fair this is the second time he screwed Shepard over(along with is crew)

He's also saved your life, along with the crew multiple times. 

And also got you killed, I mean he steals your ship, you crew and crashes it on some planet living happily ever after with his lovebot 3000 while Shepards a rotting corpse.

[Ypiret]

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

A "Learning" robot is somewhat of an illusion.

When approaching Variable A, Use function B, if function B does not achieve resolution 1, but achives resolution 2-6, use function C, but if function b does not achieve resolutions 2-6, use function D. Or in the case of the video, using voice commands to trigger certain functions in response to certain variables "If while using function C recieve "No" input, move to function D, or if resolution 7 and input "no" is recieved, mote to function J". you see?

This continues until it achieves what the programmer see's as the correct resolution in any given, and predicted, scenario. Things such as percieving objects around them are also programmed in, size, color, weight, etc. are programmed in to help a machine try and "Percieve". The reason it's so limited is we suck at trying to define physical things to machines at the moment, as things such as "Facial Recognition" tech get more improved, so does tech that can recognize the material world, making it easier to program objects.

Everything you see in that video still works off the very basic if A then B if C then 5 but if J then 12 etc. etc. just with many different variables mixed with recognition tech. Its more complex, but not different, and not alive.

But tell me, is this not how a brain works?

No, it isn't. There is no inline programming, DNA sets a base for impulses, as does parenting, but the human conciousness is not fully understood but is considered vastly different from AI. We learn without programming. We are capable of abstract thought, thought that is completely irrelevant, has nothing to do with what we see or hear or interact with. We can daydream, a completely irrelevant process with no variable triggers. For instance, some chemicles in the brain can trigger feelings of emotions, but a person can react to those emotions in a variety of ways. Some people think it's free will and others think it's just quantom variance.

Just know that things like Natural learning, art(Which in an of itself is considered an abstract), and abstract thought are all key signs of sentients, of which machines are incapable.

DNA gives the instructions to make your brain, which then acts as a computer. Your brain is programed to take in events around you, store them as memories and use them a assess future situations. DNA is the 40 year old man at the computer typing in the intructions for the robot to react to specific situations. The ability to  learn IS a program.

Everything is relevent. Randomness does not exist. You day dream because when nothing particular preocupies your mind it beggins to think about other things . A response no an event, not randnom. Day dreaming always has a cause.

You react based to pasted event you've experience you've had no control over. I simplified example of this is that if I see a dog, I run. Why? Because when I was little one attacked me when I was little. You don't act for NO reason, it's literally impossible. But If you think I'm wrong then give an example.

Sentient beings are nothing more then complex cause and effect mechines.

But your simplification doesn't account for abstract thinking. Humans are very much capable of doing things they know are wrong, or were "conditioned" not to do by their parents. Abstract thinking means you think up things based on no prior experience or knowledge, it is what allowed various scientists to think up things which people thought were rediculous, t is what allows art and philosophy, based on nothing whatsoever. But this isnt about genetics or DNA, like i said any qualified scientist will tell you we don't fully understand how the human conciousness or the brain works. No, this is a philosophical debate on what it means to be human.

You take a very simplistic view of the human conciousness, but that is typical of a determinist. You do humanity a disservice to underestimate the human mind and millions of years of evolution in general. I will have to simply agree to disagree, because i do not subscribe to such an inhuman view of humanity, so to speak.

But explain how any of those things don't have a cause. You have yet to give an example of an action without a cause because all the actions you listed have causes.

Scientist didn't just think things like the earth is round because they just randomly thought about it. They observed, they hypothesized, they experimented, and they concluded.

People don't just make art "just because". They do it because they use it as a tool to epess them selve or make money.

Phylosopher don't just make stuff up. They form ideas based on past experiences and observation.

I don't undermine the human mind, but I see it for what it is. I don't hold it on a glorified pedestal as an unreachable, unobtainable "magic".

And it is you who undermines evolution and human intelligence; a product of that evolution. Just because we don't know something now, doesn't mean we never will. We can reach the stars, we can figure out the mysteries of the existance.

Like the men who though disproving abiogenesis and discovering the creation of life was impossible; just a nay sayer who wants to stay in the dark.

[ninjaNumber1]

Ypiret wrote...

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. I believe determinism for the same reason you believe in gravity. It causes me to reflect on the world around me and I have no choice but to logically conclude that it is correct. The wording or phrasing of facts serves nothing more then to make them referenceable. You don't believe in gravity because of the theory of gravity, you just observe the facts it explains and have to conclude that it is true.

As for your second question, I will to live because I want to fulfill my goal of becoming a genetic engineer. On top of that there is the natural human instint to servive. Both of which are causes of past events. I don't understant the point you're trying to make. Their is no such thing as choices you chose based on past events that happened because of past events, that happened because of other past events that you had no control over.

I think you are confusing 'will' with constraints on your choices. Gravitiy, Genetics are simply constraints. Your genes might constrain your from becoming a Genetic Engineer for an example. BUT, you are free to choose to be a Genetic Engineer or anything else. The fact that you choose that is not a matter of determinism.

At the moment you make the choice to be a Genetic Engineer or a game developer, the choice is free for you to make. Now you may say I am going to choose it based on the fact that I get a good salary etc etc. But these are just constraints. You can ultimately choose to ignore all of these constraints and choose the opposite of these.

So the point of that thought experiment is that at any moment, since you are free to choose any option from the given set of choices (which are defined by constraints like laws of phsysics, biology and chemistry), the idea that your will is not free or determinisitc seems to be intuitively false.

Modifié par ninjaNumber1, 03 mars 2012 - 11:28 .

[Zyrious]

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

A "Learning" robot is somewhat of an illusion.

When approaching Variable A, Use function B, if function B does not achieve resolution 1, but achives resolution 2-6, use function C, but if function b does not achieve resolutions 2-6, use function D. Or in the case of the video, using voice commands to trigger certain functions in response to certain variables "If while using function C recieve "No" input, move to function D, or if resolution 7 and input "no" is recieved, mote to function J". you see?

This continues until it achieves what the programmer see's as the correct resolution in any given, and predicted, scenario. Things such as percieving objects around them are also programmed in, size, color, weight, etc. are programmed in to help a machine try and "Percieve". The reason it's so limited is we suck at trying to define physical things to machines at the moment, as things such as "Facial Recognition" tech get more improved, so does tech that can recognize the material world, making it easier to program objects.

Everything you see in that video still works off the very basic if A then B if C then 5 but if J then 12 etc. etc. just with many different variables mixed with recognition tech. Its more complex, but not different, and not alive.

But tell me, is this not how a brain works?

No, it isn't. There is no inline programming, DNA sets a base for impulses, as does parenting, but the human conciousness is not fully understood but is considered vastly different from AI. We learn without programming. We are capable of abstract thought, thought that is completely irrelevant, has nothing to do with what we see or hear or interact with. We can daydream, a completely irrelevant process with no variable triggers. For instance, some chemicles in the brain can trigger feelings of emotions, but a person can react to those emotions in a variety of ways. Some people think it's free will and others think it's just quantom variance.

Just know that things like Natural learning, art(Which in an of itself is considered an abstract), and abstract thought are all key signs of sentients, of which machines are incapable.

DNA gives the instructions to make your brain, which then acts as a computer. Your brain is programed to take in events around you, store them as memories and use them a assess future situations. DNA is the 40 year old man at the computer typing in the intructions for the robot to react to specific situations. The ability to  learn IS a program.

Everything is relevent. Randomness does not exist. You day dream because when nothing particular preocupies your mind it beggins to think about other things . A response no an event, not randnom. Day dreaming always has a cause.

You react based to pasted event you've experience you've had no control over. I simplified example of this is that if I see a dog, I run. Why? Because when I was little one attacked me when I was little. You don't act for NO reason, it's literally impossible. But If you think I'm wrong then give an example.

Sentient beings are nothing more then complex cause and effect mechines.

But your simplification doesn't account for abstract thinking. Humans are very much capable of doing things they know are wrong, or were "conditioned" not to do by their parents. Abstract thinking means you think up things based on no prior experience or knowledge, it is what allowed various scientists to think up things which people thought were rediculous, t is what allows art and philosophy, based on nothing whatsoever. But this isnt about genetics or DNA, like i said any qualified scientist will tell you we don't fully understand how the human conciousness or the brain works. No, this is a philosophical debate on what it means to be human.

You take a very simplistic view of the human conciousness, but that is typical of a determinist. You do humanity a disservice to underestimate the human mind and millions of years of evolution in general. I will have to simply agree to disagree, because i do not subscribe to such an inhuman view of humanity, so to speak.

But explain how any of those things don't have a cause. You have yet to give an example of an action without a cause because all the actions you listed have causes.

Scientist didn't just think things like the earth is round because they just randomly thought about it. They observed, they hypothesized, they experimented, and they concluded.

People don't just make art "just because". They do it because they use it as a tool to epess them selve or make money.

Phylosopher don't just make stuff up. They form ideas based on past experiences and observation.

I don't undermine the human mind, but I see it for what it is. I don't hold it on a glorified pedestal as an unreachable, unobtainable "magic".

And it is you who undermines evolution and human intelligence; a product of that evolution. Just because we don't know something now, doesn't mean we never will. We can reach the stars, we can figure out the mysteries of the existance.

Like the men who though disproving abiogenesis and discovering the creation of life was impossible; just a nay sayer who wants to stay in the dark.

You don't seem to understand what abstract thought is. It has no basis. For instance, being a man 400,000 years ago looking up in the stars and thinking "Maybe someone made those". There is a reason all scientists subscribe abstract thought as a very human concept. It is THE VERY BASIS for the earliest of philosophy. It's easy to say "Every belief has a reason" now, after thousands of years of history and debate. No, you do undermind human intelligence.

You think of us as a complex machine. I see something more. But you simplify us, you demean what it is to be sapient because you want to think you can understand and control the human conciousness. But every scientist also admits that there are things we may not only never know, but things we may be horribly wrong about that we thought we were right about. Did you know we are STILL learning about how gravity works? The recent idea of "Gravitons" threw the entire theory into chaos. Your claim to understand what any neurologist says we don't understand is also full of hubris.

Modifié par Zyrious, 03 mars 2012 - 11:29 .

[ninjaNumber1]

Ypiret wrote...

But explain how any of those things don't have a cause. You have yet to give an example of an action without a cause because all the actions you listed have causes.

I don't mean to intervene but I think this highlights the possible confusion again. To accept the existence of Free-will does not neccessarily require you to deny causality.

To give you an example,

If you are pushed, now you have the option to push back. The cause for your decision is the initial push. BUT, the action you 'willed' after that push is entirely FREE for you to choose from. You can either shove back the person who pushed you or ignore and go on the way. The decision you make is a free decision.

Now due to some circumstances like a person's psychological preference or condition, you might be more inclined to push back but it is simply an inclination. You could still be the better man and walk away against that burning urge to push back.

Modifié par ninjaNumber1, 03 mars 2012 - 11:25 .

[Zyrious]

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

But explain how any of those things don't have a cause. You have yet to give an example of an action without a cause because all the actions you listed have causes.

I don't mean to intervene but I think this highlights the possible confusion again. To accept the existence of Free-will does not neccessarily require you to deny causality.

To give you an example,

If you are pushed, now you have the option to push back. The cause for your decision is the initial push. BUT, the action you 'willed' after that push is entirely FREE for you to choose from. You can either shove back the person who pushed you or ignore and go on the way. The decision you make is a free decision.

Now due to some circumstances like a person's psychological preference or condition, you might be more inclined to push back but it is simply an inclination. You could still be the better man and walk away against that burning urge to push back.

Agree'd, when you oversimplify thiings its easy to claim everything is a simple result of cause and effect. But humans are faced with a billion variables and a billion conditions and experiences and knowledge, it is impossible to determne wether someone reacted simply because it was the only reaction they could make, or because of the billion variables they were presented even thinned down based on experience and conditioning, that was simply what they chose.

It's only simple, and "Determinism" only seems the only logical conclusion, when you wittle it down to the simplest of components.

[Ypiret]

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

But explain how any of those things don't have a cause. You have yet to give an example of an action without a cause because all the actions you listed have causes.

I don't mean to intervene but I think this highlights the possible confusion again. To accept the existence of Free-will does not neccessarily require you to deny causality.

To give you an example,

If you are pushed, now you have the option to push back. The cause for your decision is the initial push. BUT, the action you 'willed' after that push is entirely FREE for you to choose from. You can either shove back the person who pushed you or ignore and go on the way. The decision you make is a free decision.

Now due to some circumstances like a person's psychological preference or condition, you might be more inclined to push back but it is simply an inclination. You could still be the better man and walk away against that burning urge to push back.

No it is not. You chose the decesion by looking at past experiences and the base of the goal you want to achieve. Which is based on your emotions, mind set, and thoughts which are all based on DNA and other past experiences.