All that exists is emergent.

All emergent creations require the critical
interaction of opposing states. At the most
fundamental level these opposing states
are order and disorder, abstractly termed
static and chaotic.

These opposites are analogous to an equation
and a cloud of randomness. And these opposites
must be allowed to freely interact allowing
the whole to emerge as it will. Design is
not possible with any evolved system as the
output is the product of steady and trembling
variables.

Intelligence is an emergent or evolved creation
as as such it must be equally dominated by
random elements as definable relationships.

One random element with intelligence takes
the form of free will. To have truly human-like
intelligence the system must have free will.

Any machine or robot implies the ability
to be controlled by man in some way.
A machine with free will is a contradiction
in terms. A system can't have free will
and be controllable at the same time.

It can't be an intelligent robot.
It's either a machine or it's alive.

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 6:06:26 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:

> Any machine or robot implies the ability
> to be controlled by man in some way.

Only if that was the intention of the people
who constructed it.

> A machine with free will is a contradiction
> in terms. A system can't have free will
> and be controllable at the same time.

Truly intelligent human beings exist.

This proves that material objects can be
truly intelligent. How long it takes before
Man is capable of constructing such
an object - with his hands, rather than
to beget one with the aid of Woman -
is all that is undetermined.

Also, human beings are, sadly, perfectly
capable of cutting open the skulls of
other human beings and sticking in electrodes,
or injecting them with drugs that affect the
function of the brain. This is not a refutation
of the philosophical position of free will.

John Savard

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 22:07:38 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:

> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 6:06:26 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> Any machine or robot implies the ability to be controlled by man in
>> some way.
>
> Only if that was the intention of the people who constructed it.
>
>> A machine with free will is a contradiction in terms. A system can't
>> have free will and be controllable at the same time.
>
> Truly intelligent human beings exist.
>
> This proves that material objects can be truly intelligent. How long it
> takes before Man is capable of constructing such an object - with his
> hands, rather than to beget one with the aid of Woman -
> is all that is undetermined.
>

I would add to this that free will could be /defined/ in terms of
predictability. If person A can't predict what B will do in a given
situation, then as far as A is concerned, B must be exercising
free will simply because A has no way to determine one way or
the other.

On 12/10/21 9:03 pm, Charles Packer wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 22:07:38 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 6:06:26 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>> Any machine or robot implies the ability to be controlled by man in
>>> some way.
>>
>> Only if that was the intention of the people who constructed it.
>>
>>> A machine with free will is a contradiction in terms. A system can't
>>> have free will and be controllable at the same time.
>>
>> Truly intelligent human beings exist.
>>
>> This proves that material objects can be truly intelligent. How long it
>> takes before Man is capable of constructing such an object - with his
>> hands, rather than to beget one with the aid of Woman -
>> is all that is undetermined.
>>
>
> I would add to this that free will could be /defined/ in terms of
> predictability. If person A can't predict what B will do in a given
> situation, then as far as A is concerned, B must be exercising
> free will simply because A has no way to determine one way or
> the other.

Where B is the display panel of a poker machine into which person A is
feeding his impoverished family's grocery money, the machine, by your
definition, must be exercising free will.
(Ever been to a play and not been able to predict what the actors were
going to do next?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:23:41 +1300, Titus G wrote:

> On 12/10/21 9:03 pm, Charles Packer wrote:
>> I would add to this that free will could be /defined/ in terms of
>> predictability. If person A can't predict what B will do in a given
>> situation, then as far as A is concerned, B must be exercising free
>> will simply because A has no way to determine one way or the other.
>
> Where B is the display panel of a poker machine into which person A is
> feeding his impoverished family's grocery money, the machine, by your
> definition, must be exercising free will.
> (Ever been to a play and not been able to predict what the actors were
> going to do next?)

Well, you know what I meant...We're talking about sentient beings
who can debate one another over what the blueness of the
color blue means.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 07:40:40 GMT, Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org>
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:23:41 +1300, Titus G wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/21 9:03 pm, Charles Packer wrote:
>>> I would add to this that free will could be /defined/ in terms of
>>> predictability. If person A can't predict what B will do in a given
>>> situation, then as far as A is concerned, B must be exercising free
>>> will simply because A has no way to determine one way or the other.
>>
>> Where B is the display panel of a poker machine into which person A is
>> feeding his impoverished family's grocery money, the machine, by your
>> definition, must be exercising free will.
>> (Ever been to a play and not been able to predict what the actors were
>> going to do next?)
>
>
>Well, you know what I meant...We're talking about sentient beings
>who can debate one another over what the blueness of the
>color blue means.

I don't think he does.

His too concerned with proving that everything he does is
predetermined, because he believes "free will" doesn't exist. This is
an old and entirely theoretical philosophical dispute.

Science, meanwhile, has given up on determinism -- at least until the
GUT/TOE is found.

Abandoning determinism may not give you "free will", but it certainly
opens the door.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 2021-10-11 11:07 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 6:06:26 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> Any machine or robot implies the ability
>> to be controlled by man in some way.
>
> Only if that was the intention of the people
> who constructed it.

Yup. All that's needed to create intelligent robots is a bit more
technological advancement and a research program carried out by
brilliant total fucking idiots.

On 10/12/2021 1:07 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 6:06:26 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> Any machine or robot implies the ability
>> to be controlled by man in some way.
>
> Only if that was the intention of the people
> who constructed it.
>

Right, since the machine was...designed by us.
Do you believe in Intelligent Design for life?
If so you believe there's some wise old man
out there waving a magic wand, and one day
he decided to design us.

>> A machine with free will is a contradiction
>> in terms. A system can't have free will
>> and be controllable at the same time.
>
> Truly intelligent human beings exist.
>

Life can't be designed, it must evolve.
And an evolving system can't be designed
it must be allowed to emerge as it will.

You can't know, or design, the final product
of a living or evolved system in advance.
So, a machine designed by us can never become
alive or truly intelligent. It must evolve
just like we did, starting from the disturbance
to a primordial soup. And from there allowing
it to evolve around it's specific environment.

Maybe it turns out to be a person or little more
than a collection of microbes. Designing it
to become anything specific would be the
act of a Bible Thumper's God.

> This proves that material objects can be
> truly intelligent. How long it takes before
> Man is capable of constructing such
> an object - with his hands, rather than
> to beget one with the aid of Woman -
> is all that is undetermined.
>
> Also, human beings are, sadly, perfectly
> capable of cutting open the skulls of
> other human beings and sticking in electrodes,
> or injecting them with drugs that affect the
> function of the brain. This is not a refutation
> of the philosophical position of free will.
>
> John Savard
>

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

On 10/14/2021 6:08 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2021-10-11 11:07 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 6:06:26 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>> Any machine or robot implies the ability
>>> to be controlled by man in some way.
>>
>> Only if that was the intention of the people
>> who constructed it.
>
> Yup.  All that's needed to create intelligent robots is a bit more
> technological advancement and a research program carried out by
> brilliant total fucking idiots.

Isn't that the 'Faith' of modern reductionist science?
IF ONLY we had a bigger computer, IF ONLY we had
a bigger telescope. IF ONLY we had a bigger collider
then all would be solved.

Our modern science has built so many shiny toys
that Faith in it's ability to do anything has
become as unbridled as the beclouded eyes
of the most devout Bible Thumper.

The science we've known has become a religion.
It's time for a rewrite, start over from scratch
from a different...perspective.

Instead of reducing to parts to understand
the system, expand to systems in order to
understand the parts. Just as the larger statistical
sample better shows the underlying patterns, so too
the larger system better shows us the truths of nature
and reality.

After all the system output reflects all of
the input side, even the random or countless.

The new form of science, without religious faith, is
here...

Types and Forms of Emergence

The process of emergence deals with the fundamental question:
“how does an entity come into existence?”
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf

Natural Order - Self-Organizing Systems FAQ

Many natural systems show organization (e.g. galaxies, planets,
chemical compounds, cells, organisms and societies).
Traditional scientific fields attempt to explain these features
by referencing the micro properties or laws applicable to
their component parts, for example gravitation or chemical bonds.

Yet we can also approach the subject in a very different way,
looking instead for system properties applicable to all such
collections of parts, regardless of size or nature.
https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

On 10/14/2021 6:08 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2021-10-11 11:07 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 6:06:26 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>> Any machine or robot implies the ability
>>> to be controlled by man in some way.
>>
>> Only if that was the intention of the people
>> who constructed it.
>
> Yup.  All that's needed to create intelligent robots is a bit more
> technological advancement and a research program carried out by
> brilliant total fucking idiots.

Isn't that the 'Faith' of modern reductionist science?
IF ONLY we had a bigger computer, IF ONLY we had
a bigger telescope. IF ONLY we had a bigger collider
then all would be solved.

Our modern science has built so many shiny toys
that Faith in it's ability to do anything has
become as unbridled as the beclouded eyes
of the most devout Bible Thumper.

The science we've known has become a religion.
It's time for a rewrite, start over from scratch
from a different...perspective.

Instead of reducing to parts to understand
the system, expand to systems in order to
understand the parts. Just as the larger statistical
sample better shows the underlying patterns, so too
the larger system better shows us the truths of nature
and reality.

After all the system output reflects all of
the input side, even the random or countless.

The new form of science, without religious faith, is
here...

Types and Forms of Emergence

The process of emergence deals with the fundamental question:
“how does an entity come into existence?”
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf

Natural Order - Self-Organizing Systems FAQ

Many natural systems show organization (e.g. galaxies, planets,
chemical compounds, cells, organisms and societies).
Traditional scientific fields attempt to explain these features
by referencing the micro properties or laws applicable to
their component parts, for example gravitation or chemical bonds.

Yet we can also approach the subject in a very different way,
looking instead for system properties applicable to all such
collections of parts, regardless of size or nature.
https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie