Feb 21, 2021 06:06 PM
(Feb 21, 2021 01:26 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]A robot needs a good degree of autonomy from humans. The ability to program itself slash develop its own goals and interests, to exhibit creative interaction with the environment and decision-making that exceeds installed routines. It probably needs limited rights, too, so that it can receive its own blame for _X_ act rather than the responsibility shifting to floor managers, programmers/designers, whatever spit out a machine-learning algorithm it uses at times, etc.
Consciousness wise, I suppose it could still be a p-zombie, having awareness in terms of inner processes and outer behavior that remain invisible to itself or never correlate to manifested representations and sensations.
I asked this question in another thread.
(Oct 13, 2020 03:37 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]How about a fly?
There’s this neurobiologist, Bjoern Brembs, that has done some interesting work.
Bjoern Brembs said that choices actually fit a complex probability but, at least in humans, are perceived as conscious decisions. He said that he wouldn’t expect fruit files or worms to contemplate their options and that this is something that is clearly more "built in" than it is with us. But then he would also say that most of the decisions we're making are also built in.
Yazata thought that even a fly would have free will, but it looks like Syne doesn’t even think that animals have free will.
Your skepticism lies in linguistic philosophy—word play, where free will becomes MC Hammer’s "You can't touch this," correct?
So, are you defining free will as having options and introspection?
Yazata’s skepticism regarding determinism seems to lie in areas involving quantum mechanics and Bell’s Theorem.
Yazata Wrote:It isn't necessarily a problem of what is known, though it might be for physicists trying to predict things. It's more a problem of what is knowable in principle. What is reality like? Is reality really absolutely precise like an infinitely high-def photographic image? Or is reality kind of fuzzy and indistinct when examined too close? In other words, do Sabine's physical variables really have infinitely precise values? (Even though there might always be limitations on the accuracy of a physicist's measurements.)
My skepticism primarily arises regarding the idea that the state of the universe (or some relevant part of it) at time A entirely determines the state of the universe (or some relevant part of it) at temporally distant time B. Pushed to its extreme, we arrive at the idea that the underlying dynamical equations, combined with the initial state of the universe at the Big Bang, precisely determined everything that will ever happen in that universe at any future point in time.
But…
Quote:Bell himself summarized one of the possible ways to address the theorem, superdeterminism, in a 1985 BBC Radio interview:
There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the 'decision' by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already 'knows' what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.source
So, do we give up locality, realism, or freedom of choice?
Syne’s skepticism seems to lie in areas involving human exceptionalism. A type of dualism where consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. A fuzzy line between self-awareness and introspection, perhaps?
If it’s true that the brain evolved, not to think or feel, but to control movement, wouldn’t that imply that most of what we call introspection is just the ability to predict the consequences of our movement (actions)?