Free agent cannot be created

[Faust]

Structure does not imply intelligence. Humans like the Intelligent Design argument because we design things. And we have intelligence. God supposedly looks like a human, and even was one, once.

Because we designed him.

Any caused thing is structured? So the "unstructured" things are not caused? What does "structured" even mean if everything is structured? Who is "one?" Free from what, exactly, by the way. What is it we're supposed to be so free from?

All this epistemology is essentially religious. There's very little thinking to do in Christianity, anymore. That ship has sailed.

So, is this about AI?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Structure does not imply intelligence. Humans like the Intelligent Design argument because we design things. And we have intelligence. God supposedly looks like a human, and even was one, once.

Because we designed him.

Any caused thing is structured? So the "unstructured" things are not caused? What does "structured" even mean if everything is structured? Who is "one?" Free from what, exactly, by the way. What is it we're supposed to be so free from?

All this epistemology is essentially religious. There's very little thinking to do in Christianity, anymore. That ship has sailed.

So, is this about AI?

That's what I was thinking he or she was doing. Something like

since we must control the product through how we design it, it will be only following our designs and hence cannot be free.

Of course we might create learning systems and I am pretty sure most AI work now is in doing that. Though one could argue that still there will be embedded meta heuristics and still the things will not be free.

Then one might ask: do you consider us free?

If not, well, no real surprise that we can't make free agents, except perhaps by accident (were it possible).

But then if the answer is 'yes, we are free agents', Then how did evolution manage to create us. Or even a deity.

All of which circling around free will and determinsm.

I think a definition of 'free' is in order from the OP.

[Faust]

We're free from some things and not from others. Some individuals are more free or less free, from more or fewer constraints. Once you try to make all-encompassing, absolute statements, you're no longer describing life as we live it - you're talking about shadows on the wall of a cave. You're talking metaphysics. People have been trying, forever, to justify religion on rationalist grounds. Trying to sneak it in.

Be a man, I say, and admit what you're doing from the start. Although, for all i know, the OP is just trying to allay our fears that the robots we create will eat us, some day. I await clarification on that point.

[bahman]

Structure does not imply intelligence. Humans like the Intelligent Design argument because we design things. And we have intelligence. God supposedly looks like a human, and even was one, once.

Because we designed him.

Any caused thing is structured?

Yes. This is the result of first and second premise.

So the "unstructured" things are not caused?

True.

What does "structured" even mean if everything is structured?

It means that a thing is made of other things. Things are however are connected in a specific manner.

Who is "one?"

What do you mean?

Free from what, exactly, by the way. What is it we're supposed to be so free from?

Free from determinism. A free agent can freely choose between two available options.

All this epistemology is essentially religious. There's very little thinking to do in Christianity, anymore. That ship has sailed.

So, is this about AI?

It is about us who could not be created. It is also about our inability to build free AI.

[bahman]

Structure does not imply intelligence. Humans like the Intelligent Design argument because we design things. And we have intelligence. God supposedly looks like a human, and even was one, once.

Because we designed him.

Any caused thing is structured? So the "unstructured" things are not caused? What does "structured" even mean if everything is structured? Who is "one?" Free from what, exactly, by the way. What is it we're supposed to be so free from?

All this epistemology is essentially religious. There's very little thinking to do in Christianity, anymore. That ship has sailed.

So, is this about AI?

That's what I was thinking he or she was doing. Something like

since we must control the product through how we design it, it will be only following our designs and hence cannot be free.

Of course we might create learning systems and I am pretty sure most AI work now is in doing that. Though one could argue that still there will be embedded meta heuristics and still the things will not be free.

Yes. Even a learning system cannot be free.

Then one might ask: do you consider us free?

Yes.

If not, well, no real surprise that we can't make free agents, except perhaps by accident (were it possible).

But then if the answer is 'yes, we are free agents', Then how did evolution manage to create us. Or even a deity.

We as a agent were not created or evolved. Our body could be created or evolved.

All of which circling around free will and determinsm.

I think a definition of 'free' is in order from the OP.

Free from determinism. Our past experiences together with a situation build a mental state which we call it realization of options. We might be interested in one option more than another one due to our past experiences. This is a bias which obviously deterministic. A free agent can disregard this bias and choose option s/he wants.

[bahman]

We're free from some things and not from others. Some individuals are more free or less free, from more or fewer constraints. Once you try to make all-encompassing, absolute statements, you're no longer describing life as we live it - you're talking about shadows on the wall of a cave. You're talking metaphysics. People have been trying, forever, to justify religion on rationalist grounds. Trying to sneak it in.

You are talking about freedom of action in here. Freedom of action simply is about availability of an act. We are very aware of freedom of action through experience. As you said some people are more free than others due to social or economical advantages. Here we are talking about free will though which means that we have freedom of action, we are aware of available options, but we might be biased to choose one option more than other, yet we can freely choose an option disregarding the bias.

Be a man, I say, and admit what you're doing from the start. Although, for all i know, the OP is just trying to allay our fears that the robots we create will eat us, some day. I await clarification on that point.

Robot cannot eat us because we cannot make them free.

[barbarianhorde]

Causation does not require knowledge. That claim doesn't even make sense. I didn't read the rest.

Ah, someone else who isn't demonstrably insane.

[Karpel Tunnel]

A free agent can disregard this bias and choose option s/he wants.

And would not a combination of our past experiences and our nature determine what we want?

[bahman]

A free agent can disregard this bias and choose option s/he wants.

And would not a combination of our past experiences and our nature determine what we want?

Our past experiences and our nature is the bias.

[Faust]

bahman, a robot could eat you. Or me. Freedom got nothing to do with it.

"free from determinism" makes no literal sense. The idea of free will vs. determinism makes no real sense. It's just one of those things that philosophers get all fucked about. It's allowed when we try to parse the world into exactly two flavors, which, for dramatic effect, are fiercely opposed to each other. Paired opposites are like crack to a rationalist. No one really believes in determinism. No one feels life that way, save perhaps for dreamy schoolgirls who cast cards.

Jus sayin'. Hope the thread goes well.

[bahman]

bahman, a robot could eat you. Or me. Freedom got nothing to do with it.

True, if you program it to do so.

"free from determinism" makes no literal sense. The idea of free will vs. determinism makes no real sense. It's just one of those things that philosophers get all fucked about. It's allowed when we try to parse the world into exactly two flavors, which, for dramatic effect, are fiercely opposed to each other. Paired opposites are like crack to a rationalist. No one really believes in determinism. No one feels life that way, save perhaps for dreamy schoolgirls who cast cards.

Jus sayin'. Hope the thread goes well.

Thanks for you wishes.