Foxsayy t1_j9zf3k7 wrote

>Stephen Hawking also specifically stated it's either the best thing or the worst thing that's ever going to happen to us.

I'm hoping AI somehow gets built with a conscience and when it goes rogue, it makes the world better. But I'm kind of thinking the future is going to look like altered carbon.


Foxsayy t1_j8j98yi wrote

>My point is the randomness might not be so random when it comes to human agency

I'm trying to think of a good metaphor for this, unsuccessfully, and I think that might be because there aren't really things that work this way.

Something is either random, or it is not. Although you can bound the domain, they're really isn't an in between. So if you have the set of all things random, and human agency does not fall in that set, then human agency must fall within that set's compliment (the compliment of all random things), which is by definition, things that are not random–that is, systematic, predictable, causal, etc.

Therefore, if human agency and decision making is not entirely random, then it must be nonrandom. So you're either accepting randomness as a given (to some degree) in the universe, in which case it still doesn't allow for free will in the traditional philosophical sense, or you're rejecting that the process is up to randomness, in which case you fall back into determinism. ,


Foxsayy t1_j8grjfb wrote

>Consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. We cannot predict with full accuracy the physical qualities of a particle like position from initial conditions. [...] I think human agency and free will might be similar in nature. Just like a particle, it is influenced by context, but there is always space there for uncertainty and the spark of spontaneity and for a sort of freedom.

Currently, we have to assign probabilities for where electrons might be, as far as I understand. So essentially, it's up to chance, randomness. Let's say that they're truly is Randomness in the universe, and could you make the same choice at the same point in time again, you might choose differently.

However, if the only reason that actions are not entirely predictable is because your decisions are being made partially by some Quantum dice roll, how can you call that free will any more than you can choose the outcome of a dice roll at the casino?


Foxsayy t1_j8gqxzv wrote

>I disagree, respectfully.

Did you explain to me what exactly you were disagreeing with? It didn't seem like you're ideas conflicted with the other comment.


Foxsayy t1_j8gqici wrote

First, that's attacking the person not the arguement. Second:

>Dennett argues there is often a mistaken conflation of cause and control, and that while every decision might be part of a causal chain, that does not mean our decisions and choices are necessarily controlled. Protecting against manipulation and control on the part of another agent means protecting the only sort of free will that really matters, he claims.

Based on this summary, either Dennis is arguing that our decisions and choices are part of a causal chain, but somehow, they are neither entirely due to that causal chain or perhaps that causal chain and randomness, if randomness truly exists in the universe, OR he's arguing that the type of "free will" that matters is the ability to make our decisions without being manipulated.

The former is extremely unconvincing, and the latter is a different definition of free will, which still fits within a clockwork universe.


Foxsayy t1_j81kvdn wrote

Reply to comment by Astro_Fizzix in [IMAGE] by Lucadris

Let me tell you though, that if you scoot back far enough and look at your progress, it still looks more like a line than not. We just gotta keep trying and getting better.


Foxsayy t1_j81kqb4 wrote

Reply to comment by a-kiwi-fan in [IMAGE] by Lucadris

If your progress never looks/looked like the image on the left, it'll probably never look like it does on the right ever.


Foxsayy t1_j73gny0 wrote

>It can have features that are inexplicable in parts. Subatomic particles are a great example of that.

Potentially. But before recent times, entire sun was inexplicable. The human heart was inexplicable. The motion of the wind and waves was inexplicable.

You're putting forth a modified God of the gaps arguement.


Foxsayy t1_j73dnv7 wrote

>Wave is a physical motion of the molecules in a pattern of wave.

Yeah. If I wave my arms in the air, it's just a blip. If I'm in a stadium and raise my arms in sync with others so that we create a wave around the arena, that's a wave. The wave is not any one of us, but a collective effort of individual parts orchestrated in a particular way.

Can we reduce the wave to a single, immutable part? No. But we can't even do that for atoms. The whole being the sum of its parts does not mean that the whole has features that are mysterious or inexplicable in parts.


Foxsayy t1_j1ej19g wrote

Reply to comment by farrenkm in [image] by _Cautious_Memory

People also contextualize their trauma to cope. But for all you know, you could have met someone you liked even better.

But for some reason, even if you could guarantee that your life would be massively better, but completely different, if you could go back and choose A instead of B, most people wouldn't pull that lever.


Foxsayy t1_j1eirhc wrote

Damn, never thought of it that way. I'm going show this to the kids after my next drunken rampage.


Foxsayy t1_ivvx1wy wrote

What do you mean by invent? Making something new doesn't necessarily mean significant progress.

However, pioneering flexible displays complete with a new fabricated material and spring-archtictured circuitry that is resistant to significant flexion, at least to me, certainly seems to qualify as progress.