The Fate of Aborted Fetuses

[Ban Kenobi]

Point is computers will always do what master tells them to do. As a human I can purposefully disobey and not conform.

If their programming makes them far more submissive to authority than humans are, than sure. But being disobedient isn't free will. No matter how many times I tell my coin to land on heads it will only do so half of the time.

[Kidlicious]

If their programming makes them far more submissive to authority than humans are, than sure. But being disobedient isn't free will. No matter how many times I tell my coin to land on heads it will only do so half of the time.

Do you hear yourself? You can't program a computer to disobey. If you program it to disobey it will obey.

[kentonio]

Do you hear yourself? You can't program a computer to disobey. If you program it to disobey it will obey.

You can program a computer to react based on any number of incredibly complex conditions. It can reach a level of complexity where there really is no difference between how we process ideas. Obey/Disobey really means nothing.

[Kidlicious]

You can program a computer to react based on any number of incredibly complex conditions. It can reach a level of complexity where there really is no difference between how we process ideas. Obey/Disobey really means nothing.

Maybe you don't know what you are telling it to do but you are telling it to do something. It understands your command and does it.

[Elok]

Of course, humans are a lot more likely to cause their own genetic death by other means such as being homosexual than they are to commit suicide.

So, either MrFun disproves evolution or evolution disproves MrFun. Either way, BK is happy.

[Elok]

Probably it's that evolution disproves MrFun. He's pretty clearly a bot planted by conservatives to discredit liberalism.

[kentonio]

Maybe you don't know what you are telling it to do but you are telling it to do something. It understands your command and does it.

So why do you think human brains are any different? When things reach a certain level of complexity it becomes nearly impossible to understand exactly what is causing what influence. Gribbler gave the perfect example earlier when he mentioned weather. Weather isn't happening because it has free will, it's just so insanely complex that we can't forecast exactly what weather will occur.

If you could map out a humans exact inputs for their entire life (and work out exactly what effect those inputs have), it's perfectly possible that you could predict human behaviour to a frighteningly precise degree.

[Elok]

Neal Stephenson disagrees, mind you, and I imagine he's significantly better-informed on this stuff than you or Kid.

[kentonio]

Neal Stephenson disagrees, mind you, and I imagine he's significantly better-informed on this stuff than you or Kid.

Link please.

[Elok]

I read it on his Wiki page a while ago--looks like it's since evanesced in editing--but really it's clear from his work. Have you read The Diamond Age, Cryptonomicon, or Anathem? He disparages the idea that we are Turing machines in all three. The general idea is that he thinks human thought is based on some kind of quantum effect, and thus not really predictable or trackable.

[Lorizael]

The general idea is that he thinks human thought is based on some kind of quantum effect, and thus not really predictable or trackable.

While this is a pretty popular idea right now, the paucity of data makes it not much more than speculation.

[kentonio]

I read it on his Wiki page a while ago--looks like it's since evanesced in editing--but really it's clear from his work. Have you read The Diamond Age, Cryptonomicon, or Anathem? He disparages the idea that we are Turing machines in all three. The general idea is that he thinks human thought is based on some kind of quantum effect, and thus not really predictable or trackable.

No I haven't read them, although I'd be interested to hear his reasoning. I'm certainly not going to agree on the simple basis of 'this guy has a strong background in computing and he disagrees so he must be right' however.

[Elok]

Wouldn't expect you to. Just trying to shift the conversation away from you hitting Kid over the head repeatedly with the same argument. I guess I should be grateful that this thread hasn't devolved into yet another damn abortion discussion. Anyway, his full reasoning, or something close to it, can be found in Anathem--it's long, mind you, and dense, but it's a fascinating read. I don't really recall the details, but the rationale is that he finds it hard to believe our brains are constantly constructing as detailed a perceptual set as the idea of a "computer" would imply, and his solution is that our consciousness might be a set of superimposed quantum states from all the parallel-world versions of ourselves. Or something. It's been more than a year since I read the book, I think, and I mostly remember all this because of the incredibly trippy ending.

If Anathem is too obtuse or time-consuming for you, at least read The Diamond Age. I've read those two, Crypto, Reamde and Snow Crash, and Diamond Age is definitely my favorite. Full of delightfully goofy Stephensonian digressions and cyber/steampunk whimsy.

[Kidlicious]

So why do you think human brains are any different? When things reach a certain level of complexity it becomes nearly impossible to understand exactly what is causing what influence. Gribbler gave the perfect example earlier when he mentioned weather. Weather isn't happening because it has free will, it's just so insanely complex that we can't forecast exactly what weather will occur.

If you could map out a humans exact inputs for their entire life (and work out exactly what effect those inputs have), it's perfectly possible that you could predict human behaviour to a frighteningly precise degree.

We understand more about kaotic systems like weather and economics. The truth is we don't know if human decision making is kaotic or not.

As far as inputs, we can choose our inputs and that makes a big difference.

[Elok]

I recall feeling somewhat skeptical about his argument for quantum voodoo, personally; it seemed to me that you could argue for a perceptual frame that's generated as-needed from memory and the senses. I might have been misunderstanding the argument, too. I suppose my point is that we still don't really understand consciousness, and it's premature to say anything definitive.