I am interested by the idea that Peter Weyland has been frozen in stasis and placed on the Prometheus. It brings me to the conclusion that the Weyland company know a hell of alot more than they are letting on. This time however they are sending an expensive exploration crew rather than space truckers.
Now if these engineers introduced technology to our world or accelerated our development at a molecular level imagine the possibilities for Weyland. His quest for greatness would be achieved. Perhaps David is programmed to collect information and examples of this technology at any cost and that the crew again is expendable. Perhaps i'm completely wrong but the idea of this plot is exciting to me.
Fassbender and Theron pretty much intonated at Wondercon during a post-interview-interview, that David is not a good guy
QuoteWeyland builds and successfully deploys thousands of Seventh Generation Davids into workplaces across the universe. Human acceptance of David 7 reaches an all-time high thanks to Weyland's highly classified emotional encoding technology, David 7 can accurately replicate most human emotions down to the tiniest nuance while consistently achieving all mission objectives.
https://www.weylandindustries.com/#/timeline (https://www.weylandindustries.com/#/timeline)
The David androids will be the ultimate company 'men.'
Interesting. Seems there is a continuity with the future films regarding the behavioural inhibitors or the 3 laws of robotics. That certainly makes an android very dangerous
It might be appropriate to note that Asimov's original Laws of Robotics evolved somewhat, over time. He added a Zeroth Law, that supercedes the original Three Laws.
Despite the "axiomation" of robotic laws governing robots relationship with humans/humanity, one can still conceive scenarios in which the validity / consistency of the laws may be problematic.
One example would be the following:
Given: David is a morally "good" robot, and operates within the constraints set forth by the "Laws of Robotics".
Question: What is David's course of action, if he is put in a position where he must make a decision which may sacrifice the life of a single human (A), but potentially save the lives of two other humans (B & C)? To add more complexity to the scenario...what if David also knows that the one of the other humans (B), is inherently "bad", and if saved, might do future violence and/or murder upon one or more other humans?
What does David do?
If he saves (A), then (B & C) die.
If he saves (B & C), then (A) dies...and there is a high probability that (B) will kill one or more humans.
He gets an InvaldionActionException and freezes... just like any Java application out there :P
Quote from: Eldritch on Mar 23, 2012, 05:34:38 PM
He gets an InvaldionActionException and freezes... just like any Java application out there :P
;D
David gets the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death. I like it.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 23, 2012, 05:35:28 PM
Quote from: Eldritch on Mar 23, 2012, 05:34:38 PM
He gets an InvaldionActionException and freezes... just like any Java application out there :P
;D
David gets the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death. I like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUJBGjPeAdA#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUJBGjPeAdA#ws)
;D
Quote from: bambi_burster on Mar 23, 2012, 09:38:56 AM
Perhaps David is programmed to collect information and examples of this technology at any cost and that the crew again is expendable. Perhaps i'm completely wrong but the idea of this plot is exciting to me.
Will be a compelling twist, if "at any cost" would also mean, that his majesty Peter Weyland's life is expandable as well, in David's eyes.
Deuterium, in your task, a robot with a basical 3 Lows firmware is abided by saving the A human, as the event of his sacrifice comes first. Also, robot is not allowed to make some judgements on people's behaviour, even if some of them will come out evil in nature, but that will happen later. However Zeroth rule could override robot's decision and give him some sort of a free will, I guess.
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 23, 2012, 05:44:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUJBGjPeAdA#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUJBGjPeAdA#ws)
Haha! He's gone undeniably mad! ;D
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 23, 2012, 06:49:18 PM
Deuterium, in your task, a robot with a basical 3 Lows firmware is abided by saving the A human, as the event of his sacrifice comes first. Also, robot is not allowed to make some judgements on people's behaviour, even if some of them will come out evil in nature, but that will happen later. However Zeroth rule could override robot's decision and give him some sort of a free will, I guess.
It was my intention, in the thought experiment, that the notional threat to agent (A) was occuring concurrently with the threat to agents (B & C)...forcing David to make a decision on which party to save. In other words, all parties are in "peril" at the same moment in time. Nevertheless, it is not clear from the wording of the laws, that temporal priority is taken into account. In other words, if David's action to help agent (A) automatically consigns agents (B & C) to a certain death, even if that occurs at a slightly later time...seems to still pose a dilemna.
I do like your idea that the Zeroth law might imply a certain freedom for David to make a judgement, and pehaps even allowing Free Will and sentient/cognitive "intuition" to guide his decision.
I guess in a way a synthetic person could conceivably have a clearer idea of morality towards human life. Then again a synthetics judgement isn't clouded by morality so I guess it isn't fair to suggest Its ideas are pure because of programming. I'm not forgetting emotional programming but in the end it's basic programming overrides any emotional attachment real or otherwise.
Quote from: bambi_burster on Mar 23, 2012, 08:53:33 PM
I guess in a way a synthetic person could conceivably have a clearer idea of morality towards human life. Then again a synthetics judgement isn't clouded by morality so I guess it isn't fair to suggest Its ideas are pure because of programming. I'm not forgetting emotional programming but in the end it's basic programming overrides any emotional attachment real or otherwise.
I am not certain I would necessarily agree with that. If and when we develop a true Artificial Intelligence, which carries all the hallmarks of human consciousness; self-awareness, self-reflection, cognitive recognition that other beings have conciousness of their own (which implies empathy), feelings, intentionality, etc., it would certainly not be unreasonable to expect such a creation to also exhibit such abstract qualia as "morality" and "ethics".
good point. I'm an amateur on this subject but I was always fascinated with the androids in the Alien films (not so much call).
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 23, 2012, 08:49:32 PM
It was my intention, in the thought experiment, that the notional threat to agent (A) was occuring concurrently with the threat to agents (B & C)...forcing David to make a decision on which party to save. In other words, all parties are in "peril" at the same moment in time. Nevertheless, it is not clear from the wording of the laws, that temporal priority is taken into account. In other words, if David's action to help agent (A) automatically consigns agents (B & C) to a certain death, even if that occurs at a slightly later time...seems to still pose a dilemna.
Oh, I seemed to miss the condition of simultaneity of events, sorry... Well, in that case, the most rational decision for a robot would be to take the place instead of person A, saving all of them, probably only for a moment, if it is hinted, that person B could murder everyone after. And if he haven't any possibility to make the lethal job for person A, because of distance, lack of time, his skills, he probably would make an attempt to stop person B from killing person C without serious maiming the former. Well, it seems rational to me, I mean, if I were to programm David's reactions, I'd invent :P some algorithm describing such succession of steps. But it's all moot, nevertheless interesting to think of.
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 23, 2012, 05:44:56 PM
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 23, 2012, 05:35:28 PM
Quote from: Eldritch on Mar 23, 2012, 05:34:38 PM
He gets an InvaldionActionException and freezes... just like any Java application out there :P
;D
David gets the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death. I like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUJBGjPeAdA#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUJBGjPeAdA#ws)
http://bishopsproblem2.ytmnd.com/ (http://bishopsproblem2.ytmnd.com/) ;D
It may well be that David plays a similar role to Frankenstein's creature, in that he ends up turning on his creator, perhaps in ways that comply with the laws as you guys are stating.
Quote from: SiUttley on Mar 24, 2012, 06:07:46 PM
It may well be that David plays a similar role to Frankenstein's creature, in that he ends up turning on his creator, perhaps in ways that comply with the laws as you guys are stating.
If - and it's a BIG if, lots of fanboi speculation - Weyland is searching for immortality and uses David to acquire and utilise the Space Jockeys biotech then his DNA will be changed so he will not actually BE a human being any more, thus circumventing the Asimov laws.
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 07:07:26 PM
Quote from: SiUttley on Mar 24, 2012, 06:07:46 PM
It may well be that David plays a similar role to Frankenstein's creature, in that he ends up turning on his creator, perhaps in ways that comply with the laws as you guys are stating.
If - and it's a BIG if, lots of fanboi speculation - Weyland is searching for immortality and uses David to acquire and utilise the Space Jockeys biotech then his DNA will be changed so he will not actually BE a human being any more, thus circumventing the Asimov laws.
Of course, we should all keep in mind that "Asimov's Laws" are purely a fictional construct...and while they may seem logical and reasonable, there currently exists no Federal or International regulations which would require a Corporation to follow "Asimov's Laws"...assuming they developed an android with true A.I.
Speaking from a purely philosophical perspective, it would be hard to justify the assignment and limitations ("inhibitors") on a fully sentient, conscious intelligence. One could argue that such a creation should have the same ability for "free will", as we do. Note, I am not talking about simply an "intelligent" robot...but an entity that has all the attributes of human consciousness. Were we to impose such limits, one might question wether we were simply creating a race of slaves.
Consciousness, the Philosophy of the Mind, and the "Mind - Body Problem" are incredibly complex issues, which span the continuum between Science (neuroscience) and Philosophy...and represent an incredibly rich and exciting area of research and study.
Why would a corporation develop a synthetic life form that has 'free will?' There would be little profit in it, especially if the creation decided one day that it didn't want to do what it's creators wished it to any more, a la Frankenstein.
'Free will' is an illusion anyway.
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 07:50:54 PM'Free will' is an illusion anyway.
Absolutely.
@_OP: This is going to be the first time the company knows of the engineers and of the many kinds of organisms or DNA variety that is supposed to be inside that mountain. They still don't know anything and I guess they have no more goals to seek (in this mission) other than Weyland's last desire of immortality, now that he sees death drawing near.
It was only in alien that the company already knew of the organisms and about the derelict ship, not now, because this is going to be the first contact. The mystery of how the hell the company knew of the existence of the derelict ship and the organisms inside should be the second great mystery being eventually revealed in Prometheus or Prometheus2. The first mystery of course was always the very space jockey, Its tech, what the hell happened to It and why It got infected (I think that one was not one of the engineers but one of the Prometheus crew that scapes with the derelict and gets his punishment right when the suit wraps him). The creation of the alien should be another mystery being revealed, though I guess It should quite normal to think It was the result of the combination of engineer's DNA with the DNA of those little jumping worms David is looking at in one of the latest trailers, also probably being these "serpents" when they grow.
Where will this fusion be carried out?, I think It is going to be in the chair. I don't even think the chair serves to control the ship but only for this I'm talking about.
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 07:50:54 PM
Why would a corporation develop a synthetic life form that has 'free will?' There would be little profit in it, especially if the creation decided one day that it didn't want to do what it's creators wished it to any more, a la Frankenstein.
'Free will' is an illusion anyway.
I certain think it is, or at least if we have any degree of what we can call "free will" it is very limited in its scope, with subconscious processes controlling much of what we do, and only giving us the sense of having desires once those rise to the level of conscious awareness. I haven't read Sam Harris' book/essay entitled, "free will" but I'd like to.
Lindelof's comments on David's character would certainly suggest these are themes the film will explore:
"He (Fassbender) plays a robot. One of the things that evokes the idea of 'Blade Runner' is, 'What does the movie look like from the robot's point of view?' If you were to ask him, 'What do you think about all of this? What's going on? What do you think about these humans who are around you?"
Will he eventually turn on his creators? Will he side with the Engineers? Will he be humanity's saviour?
Quote from: SiUttley on Mar 24, 2012, 08:37:33 PMWill he be humanity's saviour?
That job is already taken:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POxMp61Ksbk#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POxMp61Ksbk#ws)
;D
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 07:50:54 PM
Why would a corporation develop a synthetic life form that has 'free will?' There would be little profit in it, especially if the creation decided one day that it didn't want to do what it's creators wished it to any more, a la Frankenstein.
'Free will' is an illusion anyway.
It's no way an illusion, free will enables you with the power to choose and agree or oppose, depending on your choice. I'm not talking about situations when you are obliged to act in certain manner due to laws, conventions, habits, etc, I mean you true reaction, which you always have inside yourself.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 23, 2012, 05:35:28 PM
Quote from: Eldritch on Mar 23, 2012, 05:34:38 PM
He gets an InvaldionActionException and freezes... just like any Java application out there :P
;D
David gets the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death. I like it.
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 24, 2012, 09:19:33 PM
It's no way an illusion, free will enables you with the power to choose and agree or oppose, depending on your choice. I'm not talking about situations when you are obliged to act in certain manner due to laws, conventions, habits, etc, I mean you true reaction, which you always have inside yourself.
Really? So you refute the various peer reviewed experiments carried out by well respected neuroscientists that have found, using MRI technology, that a subject's decisions can be predicted up to seven seconds before they have consciously decided to make a 'choice?' Upon what basis does your refutation lie? Please, enlighten us.
I don't think it's a matter of free will being predictable, it's more a matter of us being slaves to our biological instincts and mental conditioning. We may think we as individuals or a species operate under free will, but we're still acting out Nature's plans borne of hundreds of millions of years worth of evolutionary hardwiring, and nothing is going to change that.
I take the romantic, James Tiptree Jr.-ish view that the most admirable thing a person can do is try and rise above their instincts, however doomed a struggle it is. It's the only way to taste any sort of real freedom or clarity of vision.
*puts away bong*
Bonging?! Ewwwwwwwww. Nasty. Get on the DMT if you really want enlightenment.
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:42:10 PM
Bonging?! Ewwwwwwwww. Nasty. Get on the DMT if you really want enlightenment.
DMT is so
bourgeois.
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:28:31 PM
Really? So you refute the various peer reviewed experiments carried out by well respected neuroscientists that have found, using MRI technology, that a subject's decisions can be predicted up to seven seconds before they have consciously decided to make a 'choice?' Upon what basis does your refutation lie? Please, enlighten us.
It's substantiated by my own experience, mostly.
Probably we are talking about different things, because taking up to 7 seconds to make up your mind it's a great deal of time. For instance, you are asked to help someone, would you ponder for 7 secs to give your consent?
Need to read about those tests, what was their aim, or what they were trying to prove, though.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 24, 2012, 09:44:09 PM
DMT is so bourgeois.
Is youse calling my pineal gland somefink French butty boy? >:( :P ;D
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:53:02 PM
Is youse calling my pineal gland somefink French butty boy? >:( :P ;D
Do dugongs even have pineal glands? Your race can't be too enlightened if the number one threat to their existence is boat propellers. ;D
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 24, 2012, 09:46:37 PM
It's substantiated by my own experience, mostly.
Probably we are talking about different things, because taking up to 7 seconds to make up your mind it's a great deal of time. For instance, you are asked to help someone, would you ponder for 7 secs to give your consent?
Need to read about those tests, what was their aim, or what they were trying to prove, though.
I'd suggest you start with some Spinoza and work from there. Alternatively you could pay for the journal and read all about the experiment and its findings: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html (http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html)
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 24, 2012, 09:55:42 PM
Do dugongs even have pineal glands? Your race can't be too enlightened if the number one threat to their existence is boat propellers. ;D
Such cheek from a balding monkey with opposable thumbs!
Oh the HugeManatee!
http://www.cetaceanrights.org/ (http://www.cetaceanrights.org/)
;D :D
I wasn't aware that the brain and the mind could be separated in such an arbitrary fashion in order to serve a preconceived conclusion.
Quote from: deepelemblues on Mar 24, 2012, 10:10:14 PM
I wasn't aware that the brain and the mind could be separated in such an arbitrary fashion in order to serve a preconceived conclusion.
Who's separating brain and mind? ??? What is a 'mind' anyway? Can't have one without t'other, well I suppose that in certain circumstances you can but it depends on the offal on offer and how the chef prepares them. :laugh:
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:56:09 PM
Such cheek from a balding monkey with opposable thumbs!
Oh the HugeManatee!
http://www.cetaceanrights.org/ (http://www.cetaceanrights.org/)
;D :D
Not a monkey, an ape! And while we're on proper taxonomy, dugongs ain't no cetaceans, either! :P
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 24, 2012, 10:17:27 PM
Not a monkey, an ape! And while we're on proper taxonomy, dugongs ain't no cetaceans, either! :P
Touché! On that note im off to put Mr Johnny Walker back in the drinks cabinet and roll all my clocks forward an hour before I hit the waterbed. See what I did there? :laugh:
Seriously though... Bonging? Don't do it! :-\
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:56:09 PM
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 24, 2012, 09:46:37 PM
It's substantiated by my own experience, mostly.
Probably we are talking about different things, because taking up to 7 seconds to make up your mind it's a great deal of time. For instance, you are asked to help someone, would you ponder for 7 secs to give your consent?
Need to read about those tests, what was their aim, or what they were trying to prove, though.
I'd suggest you start with some Spinoza and work from there. Alternatively you could pay for the journal and read all about the experiment and its findings: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html (http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html)
I see, we both mean different things, you are talking about decisions, while my post was about will. Will is much simplier aspect of our perception, and, as a binary code, has only two variants of answer - you will do it, or you won't. Decisions are more complicated stuff, and probably could be programmed beforehead, 'cause they rely on conditions what they are taken upon. Will is unconditional.
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 24, 2012, 10:20:50 PM
I see, we both mean different things, you are takling about decisions, while my post was about will. Will is much simplier aspect of our perception, and, as a binary code, has only two variants of answer - you will do it, or you won't. Decisions are more complecated stuff, and probably could be programmed beforehead, 'cause they rely on conditions what they are taken upon. Will is unconditional.
Errrr nope!
I'd suggest that you review what the meaning of 'free will' is.
Anywhooo im half cut and need to alter my time pieces before bed. Adios.
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 10:19:57 PM
Seriously though... Bonging? Don't do it! :-\
Tell that to Charlize. She bongs so hard she makes hers out of
apples.
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.damnfunnypictures.com%2Fcharlize_apple.jpg&hash=f9d793aa70ada662bc2165cf3ceb3b49b228f66b)
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 24, 2012, 09:19:33 PM
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 07:50:54 PM
Why would a corporation develop a synthetic life form that has 'free will?' There would be little profit in it, especially if the creation decided one day that it didn't want to do what it's creators wished it to any more, a la Frankenstein.
'Free will' is an illusion anyway.
It's no way an illusion, free will enables you with the power to choose and agree or oppose, depending on your choice. I'm not talking about situations when you are obliged to act in certain manner due to laws, conventions, habits, etc, I mean you true reaction, which you always have inside yourself.
Far be it from me to join in with the current direction this thread is taking and argue over free will and other philosophical positions, rather than about Prometheus, but this statement you made is not informed by neuroscience or even modern philosphy in which most philosophers at best, are forced to adopt a stance midway between a sense of "libertarian" free will(in the the philosophical sense not the political one) and no free will, stating that free will and a deterministic universe, governed by physical laws can be compatible. The statement you made that it is in no way an illusion is pretty bold, and flies in the face of at least some data to the contrary and at the very least is not obvious. It has been highly contested in philosophical and scientific circles ever since the late 1600's or so.
Philosphically speaking, once again, it can also be technically argued that 100% accurate and reliable knowledge of the universe in its pure, objective, unfiltered, unprocessed reality, is not possible and not available to us as a limitation of our cognitive capablities(the way our brains are wired, how our thought process works, etc.) So, it logically follows that a person cannot simply trust their own subjective, personal experience of the world to such a degree that they think they could not be mistaken. Strong convictions, senses of identity etc. are not immune to this potential uncertainty.
So what I'm arguing, or at least one of the things I'm arguing is that, neither you nor anyone else is in any position to claim that you know that you make decisions based on free will, unrestrained by subconscious factors, biases, prejudices, genetic predispositions, past experiences, and so on, just because you have a "sense" of making choices and being in control of your actions. Which now leads to a sci-fi related question: If artificial intelligence were possible to engineer, who's to say we couldn't make robots that had the sense of being in control of their own actions, although they were ultimately programmed on some level?
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:56:09 PM
I'd suggest you start with some Spinoza and work from there. Alternatively you could pay for the journal and read all about the experiment and its findings: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html (http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html)
Despicable Dugong, as you are probably are aware, the premise that Free Will is an "illusion" has been around for quite some time. The neuro-scientific studies that have been conducted in the recent past, and cited in scientific journals, pose interesting scientific questions as to how the
brain operates, but shed little light on the properties of our
mind.
A fundamental difficultly is the definition of "conscious" and "sub-concious" decisions...and especially as it relates to why one should assign a priority to one at the expense of the other. Putting aside the problems regarding the accuracy in both determining AND timing when a a Free Will event occurs...it also becomes an issue of "definition". Even if one were to concede that a decision event may occur "sub-consciously", why should the agent behind the "sub-conscious" decision be of a different kind then what we ascribe to our alert, conscious state. The very process of studying these issues requires introspection upon the part of the investigator, which raises another level of questions.
In case it isn't obvious, I completely reject the conclusion that Free Will is an "illusion".
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 24, 2012, 11:03:59 PM
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:56:09 PM
I'd suggest you start with some Spinoza and work from there. Alternatively you could pay for the journal and read all about the experiment and its findings: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html (http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html)
Despicable Dugong, as you are probably are aware, the premise that Free Will is an "illusion" has been around for quite some time. The neuro-scientific studies that have been conducted in the recent past, and cited in scientific journals, pose interesting scientific questions as to how the brain operates, but shed little light on the properties of our mind.
A fundamental difficultly is the definition of "conscious" and "sub-concious" decisions...and especially as it relates to why one should assign a priority to one at the expense of the other. Putting aside the problems regarding the accuracy in both determining AND timing when a a Free Will event occurs...it also becomes an issue of "definition". Even if one were to concede that a decision event may occur "sub-consciously", why should the agent behind the "sub-conscious" decision be of a different kind then what we ascribe to our alert, conscious state. The very process of studying these issues requires introspection upon the part of the investigator, which raises another level of questions.
In case it isn't obvious, I completely reject the conclusion that Free Will is an "illusion".
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting here that decisions made by our brains subconsciously count as us being in control and thus making a choice, just as much as conscious decision making? To me that seems crazy. It's not just semantics and how you define the concept of free will.
As far as I'm concerned, if I don't consciously decide something, based on the immediate awareness of the possible options and their potential outcomes, then I haven't made a choice. If as one of these famous studies suggests, that the brain already starts sending a signal to start doing something before the person has any sense of desire to do that particular thing, then they have not chosen to do that particular thing.
Also, think of things this way. You'd agree that ultimately, everything reduces to physics, which are governed by natural laws, self-contained and explicable by scientific means, right? The brain is matter. Matter is made up of sub-atomic particles, at a scale in which quantum mechanics is involved and so on. Thoughts do not occur in some incorporeal void. Conscioussness requires both time and space in order to exist. It also needs the physical brain and nervous system as well. Therefore, the brain, producing thoughts, only happens in ways that are dictated by the physical laws that govern all particles. So given this, the choices are either some kind of complicated, and very, very limited sense of free will or strict determinism. But for all intents and purposes, what most people mean by "free will" is certaintly an illusion.
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 24, 2012, 11:24:36 PM
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting here that decisions made by our brains subconsciously count as us being in control and thus making a choice, just as much as conscious decision making? To me that seems crazy. It's not just semantics and how you define the concept of free will.
As far as I'm concerned, if I don't consciously decide something, based on the immediate awareness of the possible options and their potential outcomes, then I haven't made a choice. If as one of these famous studies suggests, that the brain already starts sending a signal to start doing something before the person has any sense of desire to do that particular thing, then they have not chosen to do that particular thing.
I think it become both a question of definition, as well as identification/classification. I ask you to consider your dreams. Now, if we don't think too carefully, we tend to dismiss our dreams as more or less random and many times incoherent. But if you really think deeply about some of your dreams, you realize that often there is a narrative. Events often occur in your dreams that surprise you, but are still consistent within that particular dream. What part of your mind is planning how the dream unfolds? I am not talking about when your dreams fragment, or go of the rails. But rather the physical continuity of a relatively lucid dream, itself. If, in your dream, you are being chased by a monster, and suddenly come upon a weapon...it was your subconscious that "thought" to include the weapon. If you choose to pick up the weapon, and fire back at the monster...that is all occuring at a "sub-conscious" level. When dreams are vivid, there is a definite sense that some narrative is being planned and played out. Who is writing that narrative?
Evidently, there is a very real agent that resides deep within our mind, that operates on a sub-conscious level. You certainly are making "decisions" within your dreams...and these occur at the "sub-conscious" level...so how exactly does that differ from a decision you make in an awake, "conscious" state?
A brief word on the previously referenced neuro-studies on Free Will. A major difficulty lies in the fact that the subject must identify (by looking at a clock), when they were first aware that they had made a conscious decision to, say, lift their wrist, or push a button. This requires introspection on the part of the subject, and identification of intentionality. The subject does not give the researcher direct access to the moment they were first aware of their "intention"...but must tell them afterwards. They have to recall the position of the clock.
Another problem is determining if the "readiness potential" (identified by neural signature) is always followed by an action. The subject may show definite neural signs/brain waves indicated they have a readiness potential, but no action results. There is no way for the researcher to discriminate between the measurement of a given readiness potential, and the subjects intentionality to act or not to act.
Finally, as I emphasized previously, it is not at all apparent or evident that "willful" actions and influences on our behavior operate exclusively on a conscious level. The aforementioned studies, however, are based specifically on this assumption. The whole thing falls apart if one allows that the "will" can also operate on unconscious processes...or that our mind may also function with "pre-conscious" intentions.
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 24, 2012, 11:24:36 PM
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting here that decisions made by our brains subconsciously count as us being in control and thus making a choice, just as much as conscious decision making? To me that seems crazy. It's not just semantics and how you define the concept of free will.
As far as I'm concerned, if I don't consciously decide something, based on the immediate awareness of the possible options and their potential outcomes, then I haven't made a choice. If as one of these famous studies suggests, that the brain already starts sending a signal to start doing something before the person has any sense of desire to do that particular thing, then they have not chosen to do that particular thing.
Ergh im hungover and have to get the chainsaw out in a minute and get to work on the garden. My poor head. :-\
A nice and accurate summation Ballzanya - pretty much my view on the matter. :)
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 24, 2012, 11:03:59 PMThe neuro-scientific studies that have been conducted in the recent past, and cited in scientific journals, pose interesting scientific questions as to how the brain operates, but shed little light on the properties of our mind.
What is a 'mind?'
You peole have seriously derailed this thread big time.
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 24, 2012, 10:36:57 PMSo what I'm arguing, or at least one of the things I'm arguing is that, neither you nor anyone else is in any position to claim that you know that you make decisions based on free will, unrestrained by subconscious factors, biases, prejudices, genetic predispositions, past experiences, and so on, just because you have a "sense" of making choices and being in control of your actions. Which now leads to a sci-fi related question: If artificial intelligence were possible to engineer, who's to say we couldn't make robots that had the sense of being in control of their own actions, although they were ultimately programmed on some level?
I never said our decisions
are based on free will, I thought I formulated it quite simply and pellucidly
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 24, 2012, 09:19:33 PM
It's no way an illusion, free will enables you with the power to choose and agree or oppose, depending on your choice. I'm not talking about situations when you are obliged to act in certain manner due to laws, conventions, habits, etc, I mean you true reaction, which you always have inside yourself.
For the start, didn't you ever had a feeling, that, while you have made some decision, there was something naggingly uncomfortable, screaming totally against that resolution, but you should have kept on going with what you decided, because that move was rational, prestigious or money-promising?
For the second, let me exemplify with a simple instance, what I imply by
free will. Imagine yourself put in an empty white room with no doors, nor windows. You don't rememeber who you are, also you have no idea where you're now, you're just a man, standing at the centre of the empty room. And you're told to sit, what will you do?
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 25, 2012, 03:25:22 PM
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 24, 2012, 10:36:57 PMSo what I'm arguing, or at least one of the things I'm arguing is that, neither you nor anyone else is in any position to claim that you know that you make decisions based on free will, unrestrained by subconscious factors, biases, prejudices, genetic predispositions, past experiences, and so on, just because you have a "sense" of making choices and being in control of your actions. Which now leads to a sci-fi related question: If artificial intelligence were possible to engineer, who's to say we couldn't make robots that had the sense of being in control of their own actions, although they were ultimately programmed on some level?
I never said our decisions are based on free will, I thought I formulated it quite simply and pellucidly
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 24, 2012, 09:19:33 PM
It's no way an illusion, free will enables you with the power to choose and agree or oppose, depending on your choice. I'm not talking about situations when you are obliged to act in certain manner due to laws, conventions, habits, etc, I mean you true reaction, which you always have inside yourself.
For the start, didn't you ever had a feeling, that, while you have made some decision, there was something naggingly uncomfortable, screaming totally against that resolution, but you should have kept on going with what you decided, because that move was rational, prestigious or money-promising?
For the second, let me exemplify with a simple instance, what I imply by free will. Imagine yourself put in an empty white room with no doors, nor windows. You don't rememeber who you are, also you have no idea where you're now, you're just a man, standing at the centre of the empty room. And you're told to sit, what will you do?
Um.. subconscious processes causing a person to do something does not count as a decision. To decide, implies you have control of your faculties and are unrestricted in the choices you could possibly make.
Also your little scenario doesn't really make sense. I don't get what you're aiming at with it. But the choices do seem limited even in that hypothetical scenario. Assuming the voice is from another person in the room, or from a loudspeaker in another room you are unaware of and that the person could presumably hear you, you can talk to the person, actually just sit down, or try and leave. However, these "choices" aren't really unrestrained by other factors.
Presuming that the person with no memory in the room wants to live and is in relatively good mental health, the decision to just sit without question and no hesitation seems astronomically unlikely, so its not as if a person really has the option to do that for all intents and purposes. It may be a possible choice, but if 100% of the time anyone in that situation would never do it, then it's moot as a possible option. So we toss that choice out.
We're left with talking to the person, or leaving. But since the person doesn't know where they are, I think they would be inclined to gather as much information from the person who told them to sit as they possibly could. So once again, unless the person was abnormally irrational or clueless, anyone in the same situation would basically have the desire to find out where they are before just mindlessly walking out the door. So we can rule out just sitting, and also just leaving.
So it seems the person in the room without their memory only had one choice, even if it could break down into minor variations on the conversation etc.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 24, 2012, 11:54:46 PM
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 24, 2012, 11:24:36 PM
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting here that decisions made by our brains subconsciously count as us being in control and thus making a choice, just as much as conscious decision making? To me that seems crazy. It's not just semantics and how you define the concept of free will.
As far as I'm concerned, if I don't consciously decide something, based on the immediate awareness of the possible options and their potential outcomes, then I haven't made a choice. If as one of these famous studies suggests, that the brain already starts sending a signal to start doing something before the person has any sense of desire to do that particular thing, then they have not chosen to do that particular thing.
I think it become both a question of definition, as well as identification/classification. I ask you to consider your dreams. Now, if we don't think too carefully, we tend to dismiss our dreams as more or less random and many times incoherent. But if you really think deeply about some of your dreams, you realize that often there is a narrative. Events often occur in your dreams that surprise you, but are still consistent within that particular dream. What part of your mind is planning how the dream unfolds? I am not talking about when your dreams fragment, or go of the rails. But rather the physical continuity of a relatively lucid dream, itself. If, in your dream, you are being chased by a monster, and suddenly come upon a weapon...it was your subconscious that "thought" to include the weapon. If you choose to pick up the weapon, and fire back at the monster...that is all occuring at a "sub-conscious" level. When dreams are vivid, there is a definite sense that some narrative is being planned and played out. Who is writing that narrative?
Evidently, there is a very real agent that resides deep within our mind, that operates on a sub-conscious level. You certainly are making "decisions" within your dreams...and these occur at the "sub-conscious" level...so how exactly does that differ from a decision you make in an awake, "conscious" state?
A brief word on the previously referenced neuro-studies on Free Will. A major difficulty lies in the fact that the subject must identify (by looking at a clock), when they were first aware that they had made a conscious decision to, say, lift their wrist, or push a button. This requires introspection on the part of the subject, and identification of intentionality. The subject does not give the researcher direct access to the moment they were first aware of their "intention"...but must tell them afterwards. They have to recall the position of the clock.
Another problem is determining if the "readiness potential" (identified by neural signature) is always followed by an action. The subject may show definite neural signs/brain waves indicated they have a readiness potential, but no action results. There is no way for the researcher to discriminate between the measurement of a given readiness potential, and the subjects intentionality to act or not to act.
Finally, as I emphasized previously, it is not at all apparent or evident that "willful" actions and influences on our behavior operate exclusively on a conscious level. The aforementioned studies, however, are based specifically on this assumption. The whole thing falls apart if one allows that the "will" can also operate on unconscious processes...or that our mind may also function with "pre-conscious" intentions.
Well, dreams are fictions created by our brains. Contrary to what some crazy, new-age type whackos might think, we don't leave our body during our sleep, nor can we take control of our dreams, and steer them into a type of "lucid dream" of a fantastic nature(as opposed to the actual concept of dreams that just seem real, which people do have.)
So the subconscious is the ONLY thing at work during dreams in terms of the divide between subconscious and conscious processes at least. Therefore I seem no room to argue any part of a person's dreams can invoke a "will" on their part. The perception of being in control in a dream, which you aren't aware is in fact a dream, is hardly proof of free will. Since unlike reality, we know for sure dreams are illusions.
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 25, 2012, 11:13:07 PM
Well, dreams are fictions created by our brains. Contrary to what some crazy, new-age type whackos might think, we don't leave our body during our sleep, nor can we take control of our dreams, and steer them into a type of "lucid dream" of a fantastic nature(as opposed to the actual concept of dreams that just seem real, which people do have.)
So the subconscious is the ONLY thing at work during dreams in terms of the divide between subconscious and conscious processes at least. Therefore I seem no room to argue any part of a person's dreams can invoke a "will" on their part. The perception of being in control in a dream, which you aren't aware is in fact a dream, is hardly proof of free will. Since unlike reality, we know for sure dreams are illusions.
First, my good Ballzanya, if you know anything about me from this forum, I am decidedly not a "new-age" whacko. I am a physicist. Nor, did I ever intimate that we "leave our body's during our sleep"...so, I am not sure why you would even mention such a thing.
Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree (quite emphatically) that we have no control over our dreams. I am certain that there are many people, here, on this forum, that would acknowledge that they have "willed" themselves to wake up from a bad dream. I know that I have. So, the "line in the sand" that you draw between sub-concious will/intention and, conscious (awake) will/intention...seems to me to be quite unreasonable. In fact, you seem to be totally denying that we have any sub-conscious will/intention. Despite the example I just provided; i.e. that many of us actively perceive we are in a dream-state, despite the fact that we are "un-conscious...as you would define it. The fact that many of us can actively "will" ourselves to awaken from a sub-conscious dream state, is strong evidence that our "will" operates at levels beyond what one would classify as an "awake and alert", conscious state of mind.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 26, 2012, 12:08:52 AM
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 25, 2012, 11:13:07 PM
Well, dreams are fictions created by our brains. Contrary to what some crazy, new-age type whackos might think, we don't leave our body during our sleep, nor can we take control of our dreams, and steer them into a type of "lucid dream" of a fantastic nature(as opposed to the actual concept of dreams that just seem real, which people do have.)
So the subconscious is the ONLY thing at work during dreams in terms of the divide between subconscious and conscious processes at least. Therefore I seem no room to argue any part of a person's dreams can invoke a "will" on their part. The perception of being in control in a dream, which you aren't aware is in fact a dream, is hardly proof of free will. Since unlike reality, we know for sure dreams are illusions.
First, my good Ballzanya, if you know anything about me from this forum, I am decidedly not a "new-age" whacko. I am a physicist. Nor, did I ever intimate that we "leave our body's during our sleep"...so, I am not sure why you would even mention such a thing.
Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree (quite emphatically) that we have no control over our dreams. I am certain that there are many people, here, on this forum, that would acknowledge that they have "willed" themselves to wake up from a bad dream. I know that I have. So, the "line in the sand" that you draw between sub-concious will/intention and, conscious (awake) will/intention...seems to me to be quite unreasonable. In fact, you seem to be totally denying that we have any sub-conscious will/intention. Despite the example I just provided; i.e. that many of us actively perceive we are in a dream-state, despite the fact that we are "un-conscious...as you would define it. The fact that many of us can actively "will" ourselves to awaken from a sub-conscious dream state, is strong evidence that our "will" operates at levels beyond what one would classify as an "awake and alert", conscious state of mind.
oh. I didn't imply that you were a whacko. :laugh:
But some people who fit that description,(people who call in to "coast to coast a.m with George Noory" for instance) and those people do believe that sort of stuff.
I don't know how much stock you put into freudian, psycho analysis, but it seems like it may be too much, with the idea of "subconscious desires" being invoked. Now some of that may be true, but it hardly seems appropriate to label repressed impulses as desires. Also this is going to lead to a ridiculous discussion about solipsism and drag the movie plot of "Inception' in it, and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. :D
I must address the "willing yourself awake" stuff though. This suffers from the very same problems that a sense of libertarian free will while in a waking state induces. Just as the perception of a conscious desire on the part of the subject doesn't mean that person actually initiated the sequence of events in a causal chain of cognitive processes, when that person is awake. You simply get a transfer of that problem to a perception of being in control while asleep, regardless if you might be able to recognize you are in a dream.(Which has happened to me before by the way.)
Maybe it helps to frame things this way. Who's to say that subconscious/unconscious processes don't need the consciousness to return to the person for reasons of necessity and thus trigger in the dreaming fantasy-scape, the perception of willing yourself awake when it's needed? I mean, the brain does stuff like this in a somewhat related way, for example if the alarm is going of in real life, sometimes that slips into the dream as a kind of beeping, even if it might not be an alarm clock in your dream. Perhaps when the dreaming process is no longer needed, the brain could induce fearful situations, or even death while in the dream, to wake the person up. But it's not like you'd be describing objective reality, when you simply describe what it felt like from the perspective of being the dreamer, when those things are perceived in a dreaming state.
I guess I could summarize one of the problems with your position, with the fact that the perception of will or being in control is always subject to skepticism, and the difference between waking life, dream, hallucination etc. makes no difference in this regard. Just a mere "feeling" of having initiated something consciously, doesn't mean that it is the real, objective description of what's going on.
This thread should be retitled "College Dorm Level Philosophical Discourse on the Nature of Free Will."
Far out, brah.
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 26, 2012, 12:23:39 AM
I don't know how much stock you put into freudian, psycho analysis, but it seems like it may be too much, with the idea of "subconscious desires" being invoked. Now some of that may be true, but it hardly seems appropriate to label repressed impulses as desires. Also this is going to lead to a ridiculous discussion about solipsism and drag the movie plot of "Inception' in it, and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. :D
For the record, I hold no stock in Freudian/psycho analysis. The fact that I bring up the subject of dreams, was simply to try to provide an example of a rich sub-conscious landscape that occurs below the level that most anti-"Free Will" advocates ascribe and limit to a purely "conscious" state.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 26, 2012, 12:45:58 AM
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 26, 2012, 12:23:39 AM
I don't know how much stock you put into freudian, psycho analysis, but it seems like it may be too much, with the idea of "subconscious desires" being invoked. Now some of that may be true, but it hardly seems appropriate to label repressed impulses as desires. Also this is going to lead to a ridiculous discussion about solipsism and drag the movie plot of "Inception' in it, and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. :D
For the record, I hold no stock in Freudian/psycho analysis. The fact that I bring up the subject of dreams, was simply to try to provide an example of a rich sub-conscious landscape that occurs below the level that most anti-"Free Will" advocates ascribe and limit to a purely "conscious" state.
Once again, I wasn't trying to insinuate that you believed in pseudo-science, or outdated theories of actual psychology etc., I was just exploring all avenues of potential reasoning for why someone would hold views similar to yours. I don't deny a rich subconscious landscape, but then it seems we simply differ on what we get to call "will". Now if it turns out, we may have a kind of "will" but if it's subconscious, we aren't aware of it and aren't the rational actors so to speak in such a drama of cognitive experience. So it would therefore not be "free will". No one is arguing that everything is completely random, and that within the subconscious or unconscious processes, that absolutely anything goes without structure, making arbitrary things rise to the level of conscious awareness. (Now I know you didn't say that, and I'm not claiming you believe that, but I must comment on it for the benefit of others reading this discussion, I'm just trying to cover all bases, all creative tangents of imagination etc.)
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 26, 2012, 12:54:30 AM
Once again, I wasn't trying to insinuate that you believed in pseudo-science, or outdated theories of actual psychology etc., I was just exploring all avenues of potential reasoning for why someone would hold views similar to yours. I don't deny a rich subconscious landscape, but then it seems we simply differ on what we get to call "will". Now if it turns out, we may have a kind of "will" but if it's subconscious, we aren't aware of it and aren't the rational actors so to speak in such a drama of cognitive experience. So it would therefore not be "free will". No one is arguing that everything is completely random, and that within the subconscious or unconscious processes, that absolutely anything goes without structure, making arbitrary things rise to the level of conscious awareness. (Now I know you didn't say that, and I'm not claiming you believe that, but I must comment on it for the benefit of others reading this discussion, I'm just trying to cover all bases, all creative tangents of imagination etc.)
Fair enough. This issue is extremely complex and fascinating, and we obviously can respectfully "agree to disagree". I do feel that this issue, i.e. "Cognitive Neuroscience has proven that Free Will is an illusion" is a bit of a canard. After all, this was
NOT the conclusion derived by the foremost cited researcher on the subject, Dr. Benjamin Libet, and throughout his life he cautioned his colleagues from making such a deterministic conclusion:
Quote"It is important to recognize the almost universal experience: that we can
act in certain situation with a free, independent choice and control of
whether to act. [...] This provides a kind of prima facie evidence that
conscious mental processes can cause some brain processes. Our own
experimental findings showed that conscious free will does not initiate
the final "act now" process; the initiation of it occurs unconsciously. But
conscious will certainly has the potentiality to control the progress and
outcome of volitional processes. Thus, the experience of independent
choice and of control (of whether and when to act) does have a poten-
tially solid validity as not being an illusion. [...] My conclusion about free
will, one genuinely free in the non-determined sense, is that its existence
is at least as good, if not a better, scientific option than is its denial by
natural law determinist theory."
-- Libet, B. (1999). Do we have free will? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, No. 8–9: 47–57
The Problem is Choice
FYI, it's called the Spoiler tag, and you can use it to hide your giant ugly OT blocks of text and keep the page tidy. Just sayin'.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 26, 2012, 01:44:12 AM
FYI, it's called the Spoiler tag, and you can use it to hide your giant ugly OT blocks of text and keep the page tidy. Just sayin'.
Is there anything else you would like us to improve on oh grand master of Forum etiquette?
Now now, let's not fight, we're here to discuss an dying old man and his pet robot. :)
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 26, 2012, 01:56:14 AM
Quote from: Henry Ellis on Mar 26, 2012, 01:52:23 AM
Is that directed at me?
At all of you.
Ahh...what a buzz kill. ;) :)
Things were getting quite interesting.
Sure, the discussion may have perhaps strayed a bit beyond the scope of the original topic. However, the issue of David's cognition, sentience/sapience, pose incredibly fascinating scientific and philosophical questions. Given the discussion of "Asimov's Laws of Robotics"...it has direct bearing on the issue of Free Will.
Michael Fassbenders a bad guy?...Aww, man, that's bogus.
Quote from: Prime113 on Mar 26, 2012, 07:49:34 PM
Michael Fassbenders a bad guy?...Aww, man, that's bogus.
Never seen "Hunger" then? Steve McQueen's directorial debut, Fassbender plays a convicted IRA terrorist on hunger strike - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986233/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986233/) - fantastic movie.
Quote from: Prime113 on Mar 26, 2012, 07:49:34 PM
Michael Fassbenders a bad guy?...Aww, man, that's bogus.
he also played kind of a "bad" guy in the latest x-men or at least someone becoming the bad guy... my guess is that his character will go through some transformation on a psychological level. at first he'll be the one supervising the hypersleep of the crew giving him enough time to develop some kind of consciousness. later on he'll probably get in contact with the makers of his makers - and maybe there will be some kind of connection with them. kind of a weird situation for him. so i'm pretty sure he won't be the typical bad guy character,
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 26, 2012, 12:45:58 AM
For the record, I hold no stock in Freudian/psycho analysis. The fact that I bring up the subject of dreams, was simply to try to provide an example of a rich sub-conscious landscape that occurs below the level that most anti-"Free Will" advocates ascribe and limit to a purely "conscious" state.
I find it interesting that you 'hold no stock' in Freudian/psycho analysis' and yet you make a point regarding the unconscious nature of our dreams - Surely you know that Freud pioneered the theories of the unconscious mind. Prior to his theories there was no psychiatric / clinical concept of the unconscious / sub conscious. In that respect psychoanalytical work was revolutionary.
Make your mind up Deut! ;D
Saying that, psychoanalysis is of more help/interest to Humanities students to Psychology students (I've been the latter, am currently the former). freud's theories aren't corroborated in psychology at all. But they sure are interesting, as are Jung and Lacan.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 26, 2012, 08:43:14 PM
Saying that, psychoanalysis is of more help/interest to Humanities students than to Psychology students (I've been the latter, am currently the former). freud's theories aren't corroborated in psychology at all. But they sure are interesting, as are Jung and Lacan.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 26, 2012, 08:43:14 PM
Saying that, psychoanalysis is of more help/interest to Humanities students to Psychology students (I've been the latter, am currently the former). freud's theories aren't corroborated in psychology at all. But they sure are interesting, as are Jung and Lacan.
Oh indeed Freud's theories are very left field but his pioneering development of the unconscious mind is the one aspect of his theorems which still stands up to scrutiny in our modern age. Or do you debate the existence of the Unconscious Valaquen?
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 26, 2012, 07:55:21 PM
Quote from: Prime113 on Mar 26, 2012, 07:49:34 PM
Michael Fassbenders a bad guy?...Aww, man, that's bogus.
Never seen "Hunger" then? Steve McQueen's directorial debut, Fassbender plays a convicted IRA terrorist on hunger strike - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986233/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986233/) - fantastic movie.
Quote from: azrael55 on Mar 26, 2012, 08:08:20 PM
Quote from: Prime113 on Mar 26, 2012, 07:49:34 PM
Michael Fassbenders a bad guy?...Aww, man, that's bogus.
he also played kind of a "bad" guy in the latest x-men or at least someone becoming the bad guy... my guess is that his character will go through some transformation on a psychological level. at first he'll be the one supervising the hypersleep of the crew giving him enough time to develop some kind of consciousness. later on he'll probably get in contact with the makers of his makers - and maybe there will be some kind of connection with them. kind of a weird situation for him. so i'm pretty sure he won't be the typical bad guy character,
I've read some great things about "Hunger". I'll have to check it out soon.
And, it's not neccesairly that he is a "bad guy" but being a "bad guy" in this particular movie. I think he can do whatever he wants, hes a terrific actor. So, if he does turn out to be evil, than I think it will be pretty damn good.
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 25, 2012, 11:13:07 PM
...We're left with talking to the person, or leaving. But since the person doesn't know where they are, I think they would be inclined to gather as much information from the person who told them to sit as they possibly could. So once again, unless the person was abnormally irrational or clueless, anyone in the same situation would basically have the desire to find out where they are before just mindlessly walking out the door. So we can rule out just sitting, and also just leaving.
So it seems the person in the room without their memory only had one choice, even if it could break down into minor variations on the conversation etc.
Ballzanya, I'm really adored how much you have drawn out of my little virtual experiment, supplying your opinion with earnest specifications and explanations, however I'd have wished you'd been at least as one tenth attentive, as you were logically stringent. As I said room was
emply (read: there was nobody bar said person in there) and had neither door, nor window(s) (read: person could's just walk out of there). Condition of isolation, teamed up by condition of disorientation (person didn't remember who they were, nor had a clue where they were placed) serves the purpose to freed the testee from determining factors, which normally direct us with our mundane life (social links, self-perception, etc.). The aim of all this is to show, that you won't mindlessly perform what you are asked for. And even if you comply with an undefined number of orders (sit, stand, lie down), at one moment, you are going to resist this, looking for the reasons why you should do that. Whereas trained animals and machines, devised for performimg specific tasks, will not ever oppose the routine they are used for. Saying this, I of course express my own opinion on what
free will is.
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 26, 2012, 12:23:39 AMWho's to say that subconscious/unconscious processes don't need the consciousness to return to the person for reasons of necessity and thus trigger in the dreaming fantasy-scape, the perception of willing yourself awake when it's needed? I mean, the brain does stuff like this in a somewhat related way, for example if the alarm is going of in real life, sometimes that slips into the dream as a kind of beeping, even if it might not be an alarm clock in your dream. Perhaps when the dreaming process is no longer needed, the brain could induce fearful situations, or even death while in the dream, to wake the person up. But it's not like you'd be describing objective reality, when you simply describe what it felt like from the perspective of being the dreamer, when those things are perceived in a dreaming state.
Speaking of subconscious behaviour in the dream state, I'm not agree, that you always need some external impulse (sound, light or other) or glimpse of awareness (I should wake up by 6 am or will be late to plane!!!) to end your dream. If you don't like your current dream, you can terminate it just by
wishing that. (In my most bizzare inctanse, when plain wishing didn't work, I jumped from fifth floor balcony. Regardless of such odd way to get rid of annoying, wearing dream, nevertheless I gained the desired outcome.) And I'm sure, everyone can be in subconcsious controll of their dreams.
Well, I personally think discussing the questions, related to consciousness, principles of making choices are immideately tied with such, as will ever he machine consciousness be created or to which stage the non-deterministic programming will force the machine to develop itself, as these aspects concern one of the main character of the film. In the last interview, Fassbender revealed he tryed with David 8 to investigate the steps of robot's development, meanwhile observing surrounding him people and the complex situation they all get in, and considering how everything David 8 learns during their journey affects him. And, probably, if he turns to be
bad robot in the end, it would not be 100 per cent his fault or failure of his system (like it appeared with HAL in
2001).
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 26, 2012, 08:39:51 PM
I find it interesting that you 'hold no stock' in Freudian/psycho analysis' and yet you make a point regarding the unconscious nature of our dreams - Surely you know that Freud pioneered the theories of the unconscious mind. Prior to his theories there was no psychiatric / clinical concept of the unconscious / sub conscious. In that respect psychoanalytical work was revolutionary.
Make your mind up Deut! ;D
Hi Despicable,
I think you misunderstand my intent...when I put forth the subject of dreams. It has absolutely nothing to do with Freud. I am speaking from a purely scientific (cognitive neuroscience) perspective. Those who draw the conclusion that the "Libet" style experiments prove that "Free Will is an illusion", are making a clear distinction that our experience of will and "intention" is a purely conscious (alert/awake) state. As I stated in a previous post, this entire "conclusion" falls apart like a house of cards, if one accepts that will/intention can occur at a subconcious or "pre-conscious" level. I don't think anyone would argue against the assertion that when we are in deep REM sleep (stage 3 or 4), and experience lucid dreams, that we are also in an "unconsicous" state.
Furthermore, everyone seems to forget the fact that Libet himself did
NOT draw the conclusion that "Free Will is an illusion". His experiments are the most often cited, and are the foundation for all subsequent research in this area. I have already cited a rather important quote from the man himself, but here it is again:
"It is important to recognize the almost universal experience: that we can
act in certain situation with a free, independent choice and control of
whether to act. [...] This provides a kind of prima facie evidence that
conscious mental processes can cause some brain processes. Our own
experimental findings showed that conscious free will does not initiate
the final "act now" process; the initiation of it occurs unconsciously. But
conscious will certainly has the potentiality to control the progress and
outcome of volitional processes. Thus, the experience of independent
choice and of control (of whether and when to act) does have a poten-
tially solid validity as not being an illusion. [...]
My conclusion about free
will, one genuinely free in the non-determined sense, is that its existence
is at least as good, if not a better, scientific option than is its denial by
natural law determinist theory."
-- Libet, B. (1999). Do we have free will? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, No. 8–9: 47–57