IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Dr.Grass said:
The OP leaves no room for a definition of 'free will'.
Therefore any argument based on the OP is pointless. You must first define it. The problem comes in that free will is directly related to consciousness. Since there is absolutely no framework in modern science that can accommodate consciousness, the argument is pointless from a mechanistic point of view.
If you believe there is only mechanistic laws, random fluctuations and the combination of the two, then the very existence of an 'observer' - i.e. you - is illusion.
Going down the route of saying the complexity of our neural networks leads to the emergence of consciousness implies that the exact same phenomena can be simulated in a computer program. I am eagerly awaiting the day when a computer program becomes aware of itself to the extent we are - it won't happen. |
That is where you are wrong. It is possible to create a computer that is smarter than humans, it just haven't been done due to its complexity and limited technology.
Edit: Also, I have explained the definition of free will several times already.
|
You say you don't believe in God because there's no proof, but you also say, '' It is possible to create a computer that is smarter than humans'', for which there is even less proof. No program has ever gone beyond input -> output, and there is nothing to suggest that there ever will be. There is no such thing as AI. Moreover, a computer being more 'intelligent' is such a hazy definition once again. Will it ever be conscious? No.
@EDIT. That's supposed to be in the OP. You expect everyone to go through all 100+ posts?
