4 ms·

> 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" an

> 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.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      > "Making an example" changes the state of the world And? If there's no free will, there's no choice about "changing the state of the world", either. Right? > It's a 100% deterministic function, yet its output changes with its input. Not if there is no choice about the value of x.
      - vidarh 3y ago
        > And? If there's no free will, there's no choice about "changing the state of the world", either. There is no choice involved, but what is the current state of the world over time still changes. You don't even need mutable state to model this, just the progression of a calculation where the output of one step becomes the input of the next. > > It's a 100% deterministic function, yet its output changes with its input. > Not if there is no choice about the value of x. Here is a program using the earlier definition of f: result = f(1) result2 = f(result + 1) This program is purely deterministic, yet the value of x in the application of f is different at two different points during the execution, and so the output it produces is different at different points in time. Furthermore it also shows how output in a purely deterministic manner can affect subsequent input, and so affect the output again. This is what is meant above with "yet its output changes with its input". Perhaps you're struggling with the use of "changes" to apply to multiple different executions of the function. The point is the same: If you assume a purely predetermined universe, it by no means means behaviours can not be different at different points in time, because inputs to a given process are different because of what has gone on before. No change or choice in the sense you're using it is required.

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.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > "Making an example" changes the state of the world And? If there's no free will, there's no choice about "changing the state of the world", either. Right? > It's a 100% deterministic function, yet its output changes with its input. Not if there is no choice about the value of x.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      > And? If there's no free will, there's no choice about "changing the state of the world", either. There is no choice involved, but what is the current state of the world over time still changes. You don't even need mutable state to model this, just the progression of a calculation where the output of one step becomes the input of the next. > > It's a 100% deterministic function, yet its output changes with its input. > Not if there is no choice about the value of x. Here is a program using the earlier definition of f: result = f(1) result2 = f(result + 1) This program is purely deterministic, yet the value of x in the application of f is different at two different points during the execution, and so the output it produces is different at different points in time. Furthermore it also shows how output in a purely deterministic manner can affect subsequent input, and so affect the output again. This is what is meant above with "yet its output changes with its input". Perhaps you're struggling with the use of "changes" to apply to multiple different executions of the function. The point is the same: If you assume a purely predetermined universe, it by no means means behaviours can not be different at different points in time, because inputs to a given process are different because of what has gone on before. No change or choice in the sense you're using it is required.