
Does this picture illustrate an exaggeration or not?
Arminius wrote:What would you do, if an android hires andriods but not you because you are a risk and in the way?
Ierrellus wrote:Arminius,
Are there machines, then, who know 'relative" free will?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:What would you do, if an android hires andriods but not you because you are a risk and in the way?
I would build an android to replace that one.
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:What would you do, if an android hires andriods but not you because you are a risk and in the way?
I would build an android to replace that one.
Ah, and by whom or what exactly?
Arminius wrote:What would you do, if an android hires andriods but not you because you are a risk and in the way?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:I would build an android to replace that one.
Ah, and by whom or what exactly?
??? "By whom"???
I don't understand the question.
James S Saint wrote:And yes, machines experience "relatively-free will".
Ierrellus wrote:James, I thought you were above name calling and was able to understand what my brief post meant. Others have hinted at the same thing--machines cannot be self aware in the human sense of self-awareness. This does not indicate that I see all forms of awareness as human. ....
Can machines experience free will?
Ierrellus wrote:Arminius,
Are there machines, then, who know 'relative" free will?
obe wrote:any number of them can be replaced by either , and no one would notice, and even if they did they would not care. Flash: By the end of the year, driverless cars will be on the road. Some advocates are very against that. Wonder if they will take off like the electric cars. The hybrids are selling pretty good, though.
Arminius wrote:Would you replace the other android by one or more androids or by one or more humans? And if the former, then by what? And if the latter, then by whom?
You can build an android and replace the other android by one or more androids or by one or more humans.
Ierrellus wrote:James,
Did you explain how machines have achieved relative free will? Or do I just have to take your word for it?
By attending to the actual fundamental cause of all things, one has a greater number of choices (from which they can succeed) than otherwise. Thus they say that God yields more free-will. The more Man knows of the cause of all things, the greater he becomes at accomplishing anything he chooses. Since he is basically insane, he chooses to enhance his insanity, making it stronger and unstoppable, through technological tools.
James S Saint wrote:It's called "The illusion of free-will" and is always relative or partial.
James S Saint wrote:The determinist and the religionist are the same person. The priest and the scientist are the same person.
And:
By attending to the actual fundamental cause of all things, one has a greater number of choices (from which they can succeed) than otherwise. Thus they say that God yields more free-will. The more Man knows of the cause of all things, the greater he becomes at accomplishing anything he chooses. Since he is basically insane, he chooses to enhance his insanity, making it stronger and unstoppable, through technological tools.
Arminius wrote:Tyler Durden wrote:If all else fails hopefully the imposed physical limitations of nature will put an end to humanity's collective madness.
See global peak energy for reference on that.
Do you believe in that very much, especially in peak oil?Tyler Durden wrote:I think human beings are best subservient living under nature instead of trying to dominate it.
But then they wouldn't and couldn't be the people they want to be. And I don't think that their rulers will give up that claim. Merley the mass of the human beings would agree to live „under nature instead of trying to dominate it“, if they are wanted to agree, and also because of such an agreementt they will be endangered by replacement. So the really meaning of their „living under nature“ in the future is their disappearance. What remains is the question, whether their rulers will later disappear as well or not.Tyler Durden wrote:No matter what happens a lot of people are going to die. It's necessary and unavoidable.
Is that really „necessary and unavoidable“? Do you not have any hope?
But then they wouldn't and couldn't be the people they want to be.
What remains is the question, whether their rulers will later disappear as well or not.
Is that really „necessary and unavoidable“? Do you not have any hope?
Arminius wrote:"Free will" is not what human beings or other living beings have, because they are part of the evolution. For example: As a human you can't decide your origin, your genetic program, your birth, your death. And if you can't decide about the most important phenomenons of your life, then you have no "free will".
Market propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting articles, consumer goods, products, so that you may think you have a "free will", but what you have is merely a "relative free will". Political propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting politicians, their parties (homonym! ), their ideologies (modern religions), so that you may think you have a "free will", but what you have is merely a "relative free will". They say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting your sex, gender, so that you may think you have a "free will", but what you have is merely a "relative free will". You can merely choose in a relative way. God, the nature, or Kant's "Ding an sich" ("thing as such", "thing in itself") may have or be a "free will", but humans don't know who or what they really are and have killed them, either absolutely (God) or partly (nature, "Ding an sich").
Human beings who think that they have a "free will" are:1) God(s),
Human beings have no "free will".
2) nature,
3) "Ding an sich" ("thing as such", "thing in itself"),
4) lunatics.
Kriswest wrote:Let nature consume them.
Kriswest wrote:Let nature consume them.
LaughingMan wrote:Current world population is seven billion people and growing.
When the collapse of technological industrial society begins I imagine we will see about six billion people dead after all is said and done.
In 1802 the world reached a population of one billion milestone. After the collapse of technological industrial society human global population will probably normalize within natural equilibrium around a billion or less.
Six billion people dead upon the collapse of technological industrial society.....that's a lot of dead people. I don't think we have enough coffins to put them in.
Where are we going to put them all?
Kriswest wrote:Let nature consume them.
Ierrellus wrote:Kriswest wrote:Let nature consume them.
Consume whom?
Arminius wrote:LaughingMan wrote:Current world population is seven billion people and growing.
When the collapse of technological industrial society begins I imagine we will see about six billion people dead after all is said and done.
In 1802 the world reached a population of one billion milestone. After the collapse of technological industrial society human global population will probably normalize within natural equilibrium around a billion or less.
Six billion people dead upon the collapse of technological industrial society.....that's a lot of dead people. I don't think we have enough coffins to put them in.
Where are we going to put them all?Kriswest wrote:Let nature consume them.Ierrellus wrote:Kriswest wrote:Let nature consume them.
Consume whom?
Ierellus, do you really not know what Kriswest means?
Arminius wrote:Where are all the posts of the "revolting" () functionaries of the current dictatorship now? Kriswest's sentence is not politically correct. But who cares? No one because Kriswest is a female. So her sentence is politically correct. But if you as a male had said that, you would have been mauled by the functionaries of the current dictatorship. That's remarkable, isn't it?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users