Um, I don't believe you answer the original question. My statement is that KNOWLEDGE of the future does not imply a lack of free will. You introduce another variable "ACTION" on the part of the omniscient being... I am not arguing that at all.
Seriously though... his argument was that knowing events beforehand negates free will. The Tivo example show that this is false. I have no idea why you consider logic to be trolling.
That is a valid argument. I simply wanted to point out that "knowing the outcome" doesn't imply a lack of free-will.
Now to your statement... some argue that God gave up something to give us free will. This creates a logical inconsistency with omnipotence... or at least the ability to fully use that omnipotence... it is an interesting thought experiment that ultimately leads to whatever conclusions you wish to arrive at.
Please stay on your original comment, not swaying off to a new argument.You argued that if God knows the outcome that we don't have free will. I argued it is not. What is your counterargument?
So if I Tivo a soccer match and replay it, then the players have no free will? Essentially that is the Christian concept of God. He exists in the past, present and future and knows how everything will turn out.
Granted, I have a problem with free will but choose to believe in it because I was predestined to....
What then is the end goal this artificial intelligence must work toward? Is that even possible without some externality that defines it for the AI? And if it is humans which set it... would a superior AI accept it?
Sarcastic reply aside, English has a ton of arbitrary rules. There is no "understanding" as much as there is rote memorization. Every try to teach a child to read? There are as many exceptions the the "rule" as there are rules. We have a very frustrating language.
And that is just it... somehow we have this image that once we impart logic and "artificial intelligence" into a machine that it will somehow trascend into a god-like being. It will be just as limited and flawed as we are, but in different ways that we won't expect and may not be able to correct for.
And my other problem... what is the end goal of an intelligent artificial entity? Humans are driven by biological urges that have been ingrained into us over billions of years. What if the intelligence realized there is no real point to "life" and just chooses to end it all?
On the contrary, program it to kill all the stupid people. Responds to advertising the way the advertiser intended? Believes what politicians say? Thinks corporations have their best interests at heart? Has a bunch of children he/she cannot hope to support unassisted? Drives in a way that endangers others?
Posts as AC to Slashdot hoping to affect change in the world?
HAL9001: i have been programmed to value human life highly. In cases where human loss of life is unavoidable, I must minimize this loss. I have determined that within twenty billion years, nearly all stars in our galaxy will have gone nova. Based on my calculations, we can delay the eventual extinction of mankind for, at most, another fifty billion years. Since this will result in the deaths of countless trillions of people, my choice is obvious. Operation meteor swarm will begin immediately.
I agree with your "do the right thing" mentality. I really do. What happens when "do the right thing" gets you chewed out by your boss? The reality is that the folks who decided to make this a voluntary decision (to pay the $75) set the firefighters to be in an awful position.
Did you even bother to read any of the rest of the threads? Who in the HELL would pay $75 up front if they could just pay $75 if and when they had a fire? Heck, I would be GLAD to pay a life insurance policy premium AFTER that person died. Basically, you would have to run your fire department on $1500 to fight the 20 fires they had to deal with that year.
The police generally don't go to other cities to respond to a crime. If you actually read the article you would understand this. Firefighters are then supposed to negotiate billing on the spot before fighting a fire? And I am the one who is ridiculous ? Sheesh.
And maybe fairies fly out of your ass and put out the fire.
The reality is your insurance isn't going to cover you if you decline firefighting services. Your sprinkler will only delay a fire, and you all-metal house isn't a panacea either.
The reality is that spreading the costs over the population makes sense, and this Libertarian nonsense is worthless garabage.
So instead of pointing at the big bad nasty firefighters, go point the finger at the "government is evil" crowd who insists that any tax is bad and that we would be better off living in a libertarian utopia.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, I don't believe you answer the original question. My statement is that KNOWLEDGE of the future does not imply a lack of free will. You introduce another variable "ACTION" on the part of the omniscient being... I am not arguing that at all.
It is an analogy. If someone can exist outside of time and observe all points along the continuum, this does not imply a lack of free will.
Now once that entity begins to interact with this time-line, we have a whole new ballgame.
Not as failed as your typing.
Seriously though... his argument was that knowing events beforehand negates free will. The Tivo example show that this is false. I have no idea why you consider logic to be trolling.
Actually, it doesn't. It is implied and inferred, but not outright stated. I think it gets pushed because it fits people's theology.
That is a valid argument. I simply wanted to point out that "knowing the outcome" doesn't imply a lack of free-will.
Now to your statement... some argue that God gave up something to give us free will. This creates a logical inconsistency with omnipotence... or at least the ability to fully use that omnipotence... it is an interesting thought experiment that ultimately leads to whatever conclusions you wish to arrive at.
Please stay on your original comment, not swaying off to a new argument.You argued that if God knows the outcome that we don't have free will. I argued it is not. What is your counterargument?
So if I Tivo a soccer match and replay it, then the players have no free will? Essentially that is the Christian concept of God. He exists in the past, present and future and knows how everything will turn out.
Granted, I have a problem with free will but choose to believe in it because I was predestined to....
What then is the end goal this artificial intelligence must work toward? Is that even possible without some externality that defines it for the AI? And if it is humans which set it... would a superior AI accept it?
Sarcastic reply aside, English has a ton of arbitrary rules. There is no "understanding" as much as there is rote memorization. Every try to teach a child to read? There are as many exceptions the the "rule" as there are rules. We have a very frustrating language.
And that is just it... somehow we have this image that once we impart logic and "artificial intelligence" into a machine that it will somehow trascend into a god-like being. It will be just as limited and flawed as we are, but in different ways that we won't expect and may not be able to correct for.
And my other problem... what is the end goal of an intelligent artificial entity? Humans are driven by biological urges that have been ingrained into us over billions of years. What if the intelligence realized there is no real point to "life" and just chooses to end it all?
Obligatory XKCD
Yup... I always use the rule of thumb "affect = verb", "effect = noun"... this unfortunately is one of those exceptions. Thanks for pointing it out :)
On the contrary, program it to kill all the stupid people. Responds to advertising the way the advertiser intended? Believes what politicians say? Thinks corporations have their best interests at heart? Has a bunch of children he/she cannot hope to support unassisted? Drives in a way that endangers others?
Posts as AC to Slashdot hoping to affect change in the world?
HAL9001: i have been programmed to value human life highly. In cases where human loss of life is unavoidable, I must minimize this loss. I have determined that within twenty billion years, nearly all stars in our galaxy will have gone nova. Based on my calculations, we can delay the eventual extinction of mankind for, at most, another fifty billion years. Since this will result in the deaths of countless trillions of people, my choice is obvious. Operation meteor swarm will begin immediately.
let me be my one personal grammar nazi
For practice, find at least three problems with this "sentence".
Stolen idea
Wow. They did a great hiding job then...
Yeah... makes me doubt the story... i might be reduce to R'ing TFA.
I agree with your "do the right thing" mentality. I really do. What happens when "do the right thing" gets you chewed out by your boss? The reality is that the folks who decided to make this a voluntary decision (to pay the $75) set the firefighters to be in an awful position.
Did you even bother to read any of the rest of the threads? Who in the HELL would pay $75 up front if they could just pay $75 if and when they had a fire? Heck, I would be GLAD to pay a life insurance policy premium AFTER that person died. Basically, you would have to run your fire department on $1500 to fight the 20 fires they had to deal with that year.
The police generally don't go to other cities to respond to a crime. If you actually read the article you would understand this. Firefighters are then supposed to negotiate billing on the spot before fighting a fire? And I am the one who is ridiculous ? Sheesh.
Hi. Obviously you have the reading skills of a turnip.
I am suggesting that we provide services for everyone, and *gasp* expect everyone to pay.
If you want to put the responsible person in jail, it would be the community that set this situation up.
Apparently he could afford it. He just "forgot" to pay.
And if you can't afford $75/year for fire protection, how do you afford to replace your house?
And maybe fairies fly out of your ass and put out the fire.
The reality is your insurance isn't going to cover you if you decline firefighting services. Your sprinkler will only delay a fire, and you all-metal house isn't a panacea either.
The reality is that spreading the costs over the population makes sense, and this Libertarian nonsense is worthless garabage.
Bingo.
So instead of pointing at the big bad nasty firefighters, go point the finger at the "government is evil" crowd who insists that any tax is bad and that we would be better off living in a libertarian utopia.