3 ms·

> I can still be angry you are a bad machine with bad programming. By what metric would I be a "bad machine". And who put you in charge of deciding what "bad m

> I can still be angry you are a bad machine with bad programming. By what metric would I be a "bad machine". And who put you in charge of deciding what "bad machines" are? > The water-heater is the problem and fully to blame. Nonsense. Water heaters are not sentient beings with free will and cannot be "blamed" for anything. Perhaps the designer can be blamed, or perhaps the homeowner who didn't maintain the water heater can be blamed, but the water heater itself, having no free will, can't be blamed (or punished) for any behavior it exhibits. I mean, you don't see people putting defective water heaters in prison, right? Why not? Because they have no free will, and are thus deemed incapable of committing crimes..

s1artibartfast 3y ago
>By what metric would I be a "bad machine". And who put you in charge of deciding what "bad machines" are? My metric is machines that punch me in the face are bad, and I put myself in charge of deciding it. If enough people agree with me, we can make rules and hire cops to stop the machines behavior we don't like. >I mean, you don't see people putting defective water heaters in prison, right? Why not? Because they have no free will, and are thus deemed incapable of committing crimes.. I'm not proposing putting it in jail, just repair or replacement. On the other hand, people don't ignore their water heater starting fires because "it was designed that way" or "it is a product of its environment and mistreatment". I saying it is irrelevant if the water heater has choice or not. It is simply a problem that needs to be delt with either way. Blame isnt mutually exclusive. The water heater could have a defective design, poor maintenance, and as a result be defective itself. I don't have to believe it has choice or there is a tiny man inside it to go about fixing it and stopping it from burning down my house
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > My metric is machines that punch me in the face are bad, and I put myself in charge of deciding it. If you don't have any free will, you're not "deciding" anything. "Deciding" implies that you have choices, and that is just what you do not have. Right? > On the other hand, people don't ignore their water heater starting fires Of course they don't. But they don't blame it in the same way they'd blame a person who intentionally set their house on fire, or even a rat that chewed wires and caused a fire. The person would be imprisoned, and the rats would be exterminated. Neither of those makes sense unless there's free will involved.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    >If you don't have any free will, you're not "deciding" anything. "Deciding" implies that you have choices, and that is just what you do not have. Right? Not in the free will sense. It is a decision in the sense that when presented two or more options, I take and action and select one based on my preferences. Free will isnt required to take an action when presented options. I can program a robot to go towards the light, and then put it in front of a light and dark hallways. It doesn't need free will so select/choose/decide to go down the one with the light. >Of course they don't. But they don't blame it in the same way they'd blame a person who intentionally set their house on fire, or even a rat that chewed wires and caused a fire. The person would be imprisoned, and the rats would be exterminated. Neither of those makes sense unless there's free will involved. I think that depends a lot on the person assigning blame. I think both of those make perfect sense. If the rats were robots with no free will, I would still want them exterminated because they are destructive robots that chew wires. If some arsonist lit my house on fire, I might still want them improsoned. Not because they chose to commit arson, but because they are an arsonist. They are just another destructive robot, like the rats, or the water heater. Fix, replace, and sometime make an example for the other destructive robots.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      How does "making an example" work when the others are "robots"? If none of them have free will, "making an example" can't possibly make any difference.
      - vidarh 3y ago
        This is not valid logic. "Making an example" changes the state of the world, part of which form inputs to us whether we are "robots" or not. Arguing that changing these inputs can't make any difference without free will is equivalent to arguing the output of a deterministic function can't change if its input changes. Here is an example of a function for which that is wrong: f(x) -> x It's a 100% deterministic function, yet its output changes with its input.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

>By what metric would I be a "bad machine". And who put you in charge of deciding what "bad machines" are? My metric is machines that punch me in the face are bad, and I put myself in charge of deciding it. If enough people agree with me, we can make rules and hire cops to stop the machines behavior we don't like. >I mean, you don't see people putting defective water heaters in prison, right? Why not? Because they have no free will, and are thus deemed incapable of committing crimes.. I'm not proposing putting it in jail, just repair or replacement. On the other hand, people don't ignore their water heater starting fires because "it was designed that way" or "it is a product of its environment and mistreatment". I saying it is irrelevant if the water heater has choice or not. It is simply a problem that needs to be delt with either way. Blame isnt mutually exclusive. The water heater could have a defective design, poor maintenance, and as a result be defective itself. I don't have to believe it has choice or there is a tiny man inside it to go about fixing it and stopping it from burning down my house

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> My metric is machines that punch me in the face are bad, and I put myself in charge of deciding it. If you don't have any free will, you're not "deciding" anything. "Deciding" implies that you have choices, and that is just what you do not have. Right? > On the other hand, people don't ignore their water heater starting fires Of course they don't. But they don't blame it in the same way they'd blame a person who intentionally set their house on fire, or even a rat that chewed wires and caused a fire. The person would be imprisoned, and the rats would be exterminated. Neither of those makes sense unless there's free will involved.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  >If you don't have any free will, you're not "deciding" anything. "Deciding" implies that you have choices, and that is just what you do not have. Right? Not in the free will sense. It is a decision in the sense that when presented two or more options, I take and action and select one based on my preferences. Free will isnt required to take an action when presented options. I can program a robot to go towards the light, and then put it in front of a light and dark hallways. It doesn't need free will so select/choose/decide to go down the one with the light. >Of course they don't. But they don't blame it in the same way they'd blame a person who intentionally set their house on fire, or even a rat that chewed wires and caused a fire. The person would be imprisoned, and the rats would be exterminated. Neither of those makes sense unless there's free will involved. I think that depends a lot on the person assigning blame. I think both of those make perfect sense. If the rats were robots with no free will, I would still want them exterminated because they are destructive robots that chew wires. If some arsonist lit my house on fire, I might still want them improsoned. Not because they chose to commit arson, but because they are an arsonist. They are just another destructive robot, like the rats, or the water heater. Fix, replace, and sometime make an example for the other destructive robots.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    How does "making an example" work when the others are "robots"? If none of them have free will, "making an example" can't possibly make any difference.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      This is not valid logic. "Making an example" changes the state of the world, part of which form inputs to us whether we are "robots" or not. Arguing that changing these inputs can't make any difference without free will is equivalent to arguing the output of a deterministic function can't change if its input changes. Here is an example of a function for which that is wrong: f(x) -> x It's a 100% deterministic function, yet its output changes with its input.