Does a turtle have free will to walk around and eat what it wants to? Does a turtle have self awareness? I don't know, but that's my idea of something that has free will, but no self awareness.
Early definitions of fire may have been flawed, but our current definitions for life are pretty arbitrary. The definition of life is engineered to include the things we want to include among the living.
It is pretty easy to come up with a definition of free will that specifically includes people and excludes computers (e.g. smartphones), but what purpose would that serve?
We have a definition of life that puts bacteria and humans as equals. I'm sure some people would feel like we are more alive than bacteria are, and might be inclined to define life in a way that sets us apart from bacteria. It wouldn't be hard to do. We have more biomass. We have more DNA. We have cell differentiation and sexual reproduction.
Should we be offended at the suggestion that the "aliveness" of humans is the same "aliveness" that bacteria have?
If it turns out that human minds are just a kind of biological computer that has something we want to call free will, but other entities like turtles and iphones have a similar but less complex version of the same attribute, why wouldn't these other entities also be said to also have free will, even if it isn't as good as ours?
I think the ultimate test of a classification like this, is whether it proves to be useful. I think a classification based on whether something's behavior can be predicted is pretty useful. Should we call this classification free will vs. lack of free will? I don;t know, but I haven't heard of many better suggestions for classifications describing this concept.
The proof is an extension of Turing’s halting problem in computer science. This states that there is no general way of knowing how an algorithm will finish, other than to run it. What’s more, any attempt to determine the decider’s decision independently must take longer than the decider itself.
Since when does a simulation need to take longer than reality? The author assumes that a human mind is the most efficient vehicle to arrive at that human's decisions. This is not necessarily the case. I can run a simulation of an old computer on a much faster new computer to figure out what the old computer will do before it does it.
There is definitely information contained in every particle in the universe and it transforms in ways which are governed by physical laws.
There are some deterministic processes that can be used to computer lots of things (e.g. Turing machines). There are some deterministic systems that really can;t computer anything useful. Imagine a bit that flips between 0 and 1. You can change the input and get a different output, but the power of this "computer" is limited to computing the obvious.
Nature it seems is full of simple systems that are not useful, and complicated systems that are so complicated that we are not yet able to understand exactly how they work (e.g. human brains, or even ant brains).
I would categorize the whole universe as definitely too complicated to understand, if for no other reason than the number of particles that comprise the system. I would say it can be considered a computer, in that it contains everything including things known to be computers in it (e.g. a computer with stuff added to it is still a computer), but this is probably not how anyone else would look at it.
I think there is a distinction to be made between systems that we know are computers, and other systems which are definably too simple to be effective computers, and systems that are so complex that we don't know if they contain or are computers, and other systems which are known to be computers but we don't yet know how they work. I think this distinction should be made if for no other reason that practicality. I want to know which systems are known to be able to simulate other systems in a general way, and which we can;t or do not know how to use for that purpose.
Nothing explains everything. Nothing *could* explain everything. Maybe our current theories of electromagnetism explain how systems behave by introducing concepts of protons and electrons, but they don't explain how protons and electrons have electrical charge to begin with. Even if we discover that protons have charge because of they have the charge of 2 up quarks and a down quark, it doesn't explain why the quarks have electrical charge.
This logically must lead either to an infinite regression or a dead end.
If you think the whole universe is a computer, then the phrase "I'm going to buy a new computer" is meaningless. There needs to be a differentiation between things that can be used for general computation, and other things (e.g. like the kind of computer that can only be used to compute how a particular slime mold will go through a particular maze at a particular time.
If you don't need the information to be encoded/decoded because you can just "see it" in there like the matrix, that information still represents something, and you are doing the encoding/decoding in your head. If a slime mold is actually doing a linked list insertion operation, you need to be able to say something like "See this little green blob over hear... The number of black spots on it represents the pointer to the next node". Even if you yourself do not require the information to be decoded, it needs to be able to be decoded for everyone else to be useful.
So you put together an entire computer, made from several hardware and software components from different vendors, and you have concluded that it is the fault of one vendor in particular (AMD). Do you have any evidence that you're problems stem from the components that AMD produced?
We would spend all this money to get a control system that can make mistakes, get bored, jealous, sad, angry, frustrated, etc? IF we actually succeed in making a computer that works like a human brain, it will be conscious like a human brain. It will still be a machine, but it will be sentient and it will be our slave. Having slaves with electronic computers for brains isn't any more morally acceptable than having slaves with meat computers for brains.
A picture (real or good fake) is far more believable than statements made by a disgruntled ex made after a breakup. Even if she were to state that under penalty of perjury she would be less believable than a picture. That's the difference.
I really don't see the difference. You could easily change the story to make the 3inch penis version more believable and the picture less believable.
The girl saves and publishes an email in which the boy is lamenting the fact that his penis is only 2.9 inches long and the email contents are signed by his private key.
The boy is a really good artist and publishes a photo-realistic painting of the girl in the nude.
If you're stupid enough to let someone film you having sex, or even worse you take and send these compromising images of yourself and send them to folks...you deserve what you get.
OK so they shouldn't be shamed, but they deserve to be shamed?
There is a difference between not taking precautions to avoid certain outcomes, and deserving those outcomes.
It seems like what you are saying is equivalent to "People who don;t wear seatbelts deserve to die in car accidents". To me this is a completely callous thing to say, and is different than saying "People should wear seatbelts if they value their lives".
There is one more option: for the population to stop being oversensitive to and embarrassed by nudity. Perhaps our remote descendants will know better one day...
I agree
However, cayenne8, believes people should be shamed for allowing their picture to be taken nude. I don't think there is any shame in the human body. I don't think there is any shame in the act of sex. I do think it is quite despicable to think people deserve to be shamed for these things.
Well that's kind of my point... That this is yet another giant gray area that is a result of this law. Let's say that it is the artists' intent to humiliate, but the picture is a stick figure. Are we really going to start banning art if it's humiliating to someone? Are we going to allow judges and juries to rate the photorealism and intent of the artist when deciding if it should be banned?
Who would you prefer be hired as a kindergarten teacher, bank teller, secretary handling top secret documents: someone you saw in a porn video, or someone else?
This is like asking me if I would rather hire someone with red hair or someone else. It would not factor into my decision.
The only reason that it is irresponsible to allow yourself to be filmed having sex, is because people like you are making it unnecessarily irresponsible.
We could all collectively decide that being filmed eating pizza is cause for shaming, and every person who is caught on film eating pizza is stupid and irresponsible for not evaluating the consequences of eating pizza in public.
Ok if a photograph is like testimony and other stuff like "he has a 3 inch penis" is hearsay, would an artists painting from a picture be like hearsay as well?
This example actually came to me because I heard a story on NPR about an artist who painted a nude picture of his now dead ex girlfriend. She isn't alive to complain, but what if she was? Does she have the right to prevent the artist from expressing himself through an experience that he had?
Sure we all know this is a long way form revenge porn, but are we really going to trust the government to judge what's obscene, and what is intended to humiliate?
I don't think it's just San Diego. In 2012 California voted 61%-37% obama-romney, in what I would consider, a race where the democrat had a very strong advantage (but that's just my opinion).
To say that republicans in California are as rare as rare as Christians in Saudi Arabia is not just an exaggeration, it is complete nonsense. They don't execute you in California for for switching to the republican party.
We have had a Republican governorship for 60% of the time since 1975. One of the only 2 democrat governors we've had during that time was recalled.
You can lie with pictures as well (e.g. photoshop).
My point is that there is lots of embarrassing stuff traded between people during a relationship. Why should it be that only photographic secrets are now protected?
I don't want the government to get into this domain, because there is either going to be severe overreach and/or a severe consistency problem.
Sure we ave video and photographs specifically referenced. What about audio files, text messages, emails, love letters, verbal secrets, etc. I can totally see this becoming a lawyers paradise with all the new litigation opportunities. And in the end, what will we have really accomplished? Will women finally really be able to pose for nude pictures without fear of future shaming? No.
The real problem is that society shames women, or rather that women allow themselves to be shamed, for posing for nude pictures. We may as well make a law that criminalizes the hurting of people's feelings.
Or even better, how about we collectively refuse to shame people for knowing what they look like naked. Maybe we should instead be shaming people for being malicious.
To me this is the same thing as passing a law that forbids not keeping other people's secrets after a breakup. This falls under freedom of speech.
If you reveal something embarrassing about your ex after you break up (e.g. that his penis is only 3 inches long), should that be considered a crime? It makes you a bad person, but I think it should be protected by the 1st amendment.
How is a picture any different than an embarrassing secret?
If you're stupid enough to let someone film you having sex, or even worse you take and send these compromising images of yourself and send them to folks...
I don't see why that makes you stupid. It is nothing to be ashamed of in the first place.
you deserve what you get
You're an total bitch/asshole if you think people should be hurt like this.
The person on the picture has rights to their picture. That's why you can't go around taking pictures of strangers and put them on the internet.
Then why pass a law if it was already illegal? Also this happens on websites like facebook millions if not billions of times a day.
Secondarily, there is privacy. Meaning you can't take a surveillance cam video of customers and put it online. Or in the context of this story, you share a intimate photo with someone close. But reposting outside that context is a violation of your privacy.
Can you actually cite the law that makes this illegal? It seems to me like this happens all the time without any repercussions.
Republican governors have controlled the state of California for much more time than democrat governors in the last century. One of those governors even became a president of the US and the most revered symbol of the conservative movement (Ronald Reagan).
California is a blue state, but it's not like republicans are rare here. I live in San Diego and my congressman is a republican.
Slashdot Mirror
Does a turtle have free will to walk around and eat what it wants to? Does a turtle have self awareness? I don't know, but that's my idea of something that has free will, but no self awareness.
Early definitions of fire may have been flawed, but our current definitions for life are pretty arbitrary. The definition of life is engineered to include the things we want to include among the living.
It is pretty easy to come up with a definition of free will that specifically includes people and excludes computers (e.g. smartphones), but what purpose would that serve?
We have a definition of life that puts bacteria and humans as equals. I'm sure some people would feel like we are more alive than bacteria are, and might be inclined to define life in a way that sets us apart from bacteria. It wouldn't be hard to do. We have more biomass. We have more DNA. We have cell differentiation and sexual reproduction.
Should we be offended at the suggestion that the "aliveness" of humans is the same "aliveness" that bacteria have?
If it turns out that human minds are just a kind of biological computer that has something we want to call free will, but other entities like turtles and iphones have a similar but less complex version of the same attribute, why wouldn't these other entities also be said to also have free will, even if it isn't as good as ours?
I think the ultimate test of a classification like this, is whether it proves to be useful. I think a classification based on whether something's behavior can be predicted is pretty useful. Should we call this classification free will vs. lack of free will? I don;t know, but I haven't heard of many better suggestions for classifications describing this concept.
The proof is an extension of Turing’s halting problem in computer science. This states that there is no general way of knowing how an algorithm will finish, other than to run it. What’s more, any attempt to determine the decider’s decision independently must take longer than the decider itself.
Since when does a simulation need to take longer than reality? The author assumes that a human mind is the most efficient vehicle to arrive at that human's decisions. This is not necessarily the case. I can run a simulation of an old computer on a much faster new computer to figure out what the old computer will do before it does it.
There is definitely information contained in every particle in the universe and it transforms in ways which are governed by physical laws.
There are some deterministic processes that can be used to computer lots of things (e.g. Turing machines). There are some deterministic systems that really can;t computer anything useful. Imagine a bit that flips between 0 and 1. You can change the input and get a different output, but the power of this "computer" is limited to computing the obvious.
Nature it seems is full of simple systems that are not useful, and complicated systems that are so complicated that we are not yet able to understand exactly how they work (e.g. human brains, or even ant brains).
I would categorize the whole universe as definitely too complicated to understand, if for no other reason than the number of particles that comprise the system. I would say it can be considered a computer, in that it contains everything including things known to be computers in it (e.g. a computer with stuff added to it is still a computer), but this is probably not how anyone else would look at it.
I think there is a distinction to be made between systems that we know are computers, and other systems which are definably too simple to be effective computers, and systems that are so complex that we don't know if they contain or are computers, and other systems which are known to be computers but we don't yet know how they work. I think this distinction should be made if for no other reason that practicality. I want to know which systems are known to be able to simulate other systems in a general way, and which we can;t or do not know how to use for that purpose.
Nothing explains everything. Nothing *could* explain everything. Maybe our current theories of electromagnetism explain how systems behave by introducing concepts of protons and electrons, but they don't explain how protons and electrons have electrical charge to begin with. Even if we discover that protons have charge because of they have the charge of 2 up quarks and a down quark, it doesn't explain why the quarks have electrical charge.
This logically must lead either to an infinite regression or a dead end.
If you think the whole universe is a computer, then the phrase "I'm going to buy a new computer" is meaningless. There needs to be a differentiation between things that can be used for general computation, and other things (e.g. like the kind of computer that can only be used to compute how a particular slime mold will go through a particular maze at a particular time.
If you don't need the information to be encoded/decoded because you can just "see it" in there like the matrix, that information still represents something, and you are doing the encoding/decoding in your head. If a slime mold is actually doing a linked list insertion operation, you need to be able to say something like "See this little green blob over hear... The number of black spots on it represents the pointer to the next node". Even if you yourself do not require the information to be decoded, it needs to be able to be decoded for everyone else to be useful.
Analog computers are more flexible? Did you post this comment from an analog computer? Can I play candy crush on an analog computer?
How are you defining flexibility?
So you put together an entire computer, made from several hardware and software components from different vendors, and you have concluded that it is the fault of one vendor in particular (AMD). Do you have any evidence that you're problems stem from the components that AMD produced?
We would spend all this money to get a control system that can make mistakes, get bored, jealous, sad, angry, frustrated, etc? IF we actually succeed in making a computer that works like a human brain, it will be conscious like a human brain. It will still be a machine, but it will be sentient and it will be our slave. Having slaves with electronic computers for brains isn't any more morally acceptable than having slaves with meat computers for brains.
A picture (real or good fake) is far more believable than statements made by a disgruntled ex made after a breakup. Even if she were to state that under penalty of perjury she would be less believable than a picture. That's the difference.
I really don't see the difference. You could easily change the story to make the 3inch penis version more believable and the picture less believable.
The girl saves and publishes an email in which the boy is lamenting the fact that his penis is only 2.9 inches long and the email contents are signed by his private key.
The boy is a really good artist and publishes a photo-realistic painting of the girl in the nude.
...says the anonymous coward
If you're stupid enough to let someone film you having sex, or even worse you take and send these compromising images of yourself and send them to folks...you deserve what you get.
OK so they shouldn't be shamed, but they deserve to be shamed?
There is a difference between not taking precautions to avoid certain outcomes, and deserving those outcomes.
It seems like what you are saying is equivalent to "People who don;t wear seatbelts deserve to die in car accidents". To me this is a completely callous thing to say, and is different than saying "People should wear seatbelts if they value their lives".
There is one more option: for the population to stop being oversensitive to and embarrassed by nudity. Perhaps our remote descendants will know better one day...
I agree
However, cayenne8, believes people should be shamed for allowing their picture to be taken nude. I don't think there is any shame in the human body. I don't think there is any shame in the act of sex. I do think it is quite despicable to think people deserve to be shamed for these things.
Well that's kind of my point... That this is yet another giant gray area that is a result of this law. Let's say that it is the artists' intent to humiliate, but the picture is a stick figure. Are we really going to start banning art if it's humiliating to someone? Are we going to allow judges and juries to rate the photorealism and intent of the artist when deciding if it should be banned?
Based on your comment I am not sure you understood what I was saying...
Who would you prefer be hired as a kindergarten teacher, bank teller, secretary handling top secret documents: someone you saw in a porn video, or someone else?
This is like asking me if I would rather hire someone with red hair or someone else. It would not factor into my decision.
The only reason that it is irresponsible to allow yourself to be filmed having sex, is because people like you are making it unnecessarily irresponsible.
We could all collectively decide that being filmed eating pizza is cause for shaming, and every person who is caught on film eating pizza is stupid and irresponsible for not evaluating the consequences of eating pizza in public.
Ok if a photograph is like testimony and other stuff like "he has a 3 inch penis" is hearsay, would an artists painting from a picture be like hearsay as well?
This example actually came to me because I heard a story on NPR about an artist who painted a nude picture of his now dead ex girlfriend. She isn't alive to complain, but what if she was? Does she have the right to prevent the artist from expressing himself through an experience that he had?
Sure we all know this is a long way form revenge porn, but are we really going to trust the government to judge what's obscene, and what is intended to humiliate?
I don't think it's just San Diego. In 2012 California voted 61%-37% obama-romney, in what I would consider, a race where the democrat had a very strong advantage (but that's just my opinion).
To say that republicans in California are as rare as rare as Christians in Saudi Arabia is not just an exaggeration, it is complete nonsense. They don't execute you in California for for switching to the republican party.
We have had a Republican governorship for 60% of the time since 1975. One of the only 2 democrat governors we've had during that time was recalled.
You can lie with pictures as well (e.g. photoshop).
My point is that there is lots of embarrassing stuff traded between people during a relationship. Why should it be that only photographic secrets are now protected?
I don't want the government to get into this domain, because there is either going to be severe overreach and/or a severe consistency problem.
Sure we ave video and photographs specifically referenced. What about audio files, text messages, emails, love letters, verbal secrets, etc. I can totally see this becoming a lawyers paradise with all the new litigation opportunities. And in the end, what will we have really accomplished? Will women finally really be able to pose for nude pictures without fear of future shaming? No.
The real problem is that society shames women, or rather that women allow themselves to be shamed, for posing for nude pictures. We may as well make a law that criminalizes the hurting of people's feelings.
Do you think a girl should be guilty of a crime if she reveals that her ex had only a 3 inch long penis after a breakup?
As embarrassing a thing this may be, it is protected under freedom of speech. I don't see how a naked picture is any different.
Or even better, how about we collectively refuse to shame people for knowing what they look like naked. Maybe we should instead be shaming people for being malicious.
To me this is the same thing as passing a law that forbids not keeping other people's secrets after a breakup. This falls under freedom of speech.
If you reveal something embarrassing about your ex after you break up (e.g. that his penis is only 3 inches long), should that be considered a crime? It makes you a bad person, but I think it should be protected by the 1st amendment.
How is a picture any different than an embarrassing secret?
If you're stupid enough to let someone film you having sex, or even worse you take and send these compromising images of yourself and send them to folks...
I don't see why that makes you stupid. It is nothing to be ashamed of in the first place.
you deserve what you get
You're an total bitch/asshole if you think people should be hurt like this.
Or we could just stop shaming people for knowing what they look like naked.
The person on the picture has rights to their picture. That's why you can't go around taking pictures of strangers and put them on the internet.
Then why pass a law if it was already illegal? Also this happens on websites like facebook millions if not billions of times a day.
Secondarily, there is privacy. Meaning you can't take a surveillance cam video of customers and put it online. Or in the context of this story, you share a intimate photo with someone close. But reposting outside that context is a violation of your privacy.
Can you actually cite the law that makes this illegal? It seems to me like this happens all the time without any repercussions.
Republican governors have controlled the state of California for much more time than democrat governors in the last century. One of those governors even became a president of the US and the most revered symbol of the conservative movement (Ronald Reagan).
California is a blue state, but it's not like republicans are rare here. I live in San Diego and my congressman is a republican.