.

Dear David & George,

.

David wrote :

« I don’t think free will is a matter that can be determined by a scientific process »

.

If we think of “free will” as autonomy (cf., my post to George, page 100 of this thread), do you not consider that robotics technology qualifies as a “scientific process” working towards the development of “free will”, albeit in a very limited and rudimentary form ?

According to Wikipedia, the “scientific process” of robotics technology is advancing rapidly. Apparently it is anticipated that fourth generation robots, robots with human intelligence, will be available sometime between 2040 and 2050.

It indicates that it is estimated that these robots will be equipped with artificial neural networks, mathematical models inspired by biological neural networks, and, like mankind, will dispose of similar relative, limited freedom.

It is planned that they will eventually achieve “full autonomy” in that the machines will be capable of creating and completing “all their tasks” without human interaction.

Though, I imagine, “all their tasks” means within a strictly pre-determined domain, both geographically and functionally, can this not be considered, nevertheless, an artificial form of “free will” ?

Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotics

.

I wouldn’t be so quick to write-off science’s ability to determine the existence or not of free will, guys. From Sam Harris’s book, Free Will:

“The physiologist Benjamin Libet famously used EEG to show that activity in the brain’s motor cortex can be detected some 300 milliseconds before a person feels that he has decided to move. Another lab extended this work using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): Subjects were asked to press one of two buttons while watching a “clock” composed of a random sequence of letters appearing on a screen. They reported which letter was visible at the moment they decided to press one button or the other. The experimenters found two brain regions that contained information about which button subjects would press a full 7 to 10 seconds before the decision was consciously made. More recently, direct recordings from the cortex showed that the activity of merely 256 neurons was sufficient to predict with 80 percent accuracy a person’s decision to move 700 milliseconds before he became aware of it.”

“Imagine a perfect neuroimaging device that would allow us to detect and interpret the subtlest changes in brain function. You might spend an hour thinking and acting freely in the lab, only to discover that the scientists scanning your brain had been able to produce a complete record of what you would think and do some moments in advance of each event. For instance, exactly 10 minutes and 10 seconds into the experiment, you decided to pick up a magazine from a nearby table and begin reading, but the scanner log shows this mental state arising at 10 minutes and 6 seconds—and the experimenters even knew which magazine you would choose. You read for a while and then got bored and stopped; the experimenters knew you would stop a second before you did and could tell which sentence would be the last you read.”

I understand that it’s important for theists to believe that there are some things that science simply cannot touch. But I wouldn’t be so sure that this was one of them.

300..milli-seconds..before..a person feels..
that..he/has..decided..[pre-programing/pre-pared/pre-cognition/pre-diction..?]

dear/banjo..your..thesis..describes..the tin-man
[no-heart]..so..what..i/hear echoed..in..my heart

from
http://99u.com/articles/7000/guy-kawasaki-on-the-art-of-changing-hearts-minds-actions

It*..transforms
situations..and..relationships.
It..*converts..hostility..into..civility...
It*..reshapes..civility..into affinity...It changes..minds..What is it?

http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/292391/jewish/Mind-Over-Heart.htm

You know..your/..inspiration..[or robotic-instruction]..doesn't come..from..the mind-alone..[machines..only gainsay..their reality..via..the creators/creation..creative/instinct's..of man

but..with man..-it..comes from..somewhere..beyond that.
But..yet..for/too..many..not_aware..of cloud-mind..[as opposed to..the loud-mind]..

a lot of..the time,..inner revelation..above base programing
doesn't/come..at all...[to tin-men..[doing..science..by quietening their..*hearts-murmurings..by rote/methodology..or formatted/formulated..ritualistic..route-ein*

[their minds..sadly will..only react..not redact..[its.a com-part-ment..of com'[part-mental]-ized..thought-process..[=machine]..thus..has no free-will

acting within..its programing..
re-acting..autonomously..to..specific instruction..
[not ever invent..anything..by listening to..their heart..revelation..[via freewill]..invention.

<<..Your mind..has to open up,..tune in-to..something beyond itself. Then..the juices flow..and..only..then you can play..with-in..the revelations..of your LIVING heart...[its only..our dire-versions/negations..that divide the heart..from art..[or arte]

But,..on..the other hand,..all the time..you are playing,
you have to..keep that mind..in gear.open to revelation/[aware]..

If it..slides..off..the clutch ]..[focus]..and..the heart..takes over alone,..the depth of..the music[creative]..is lost.

Like jazz/musicians say,..you have t.. stay cool.
That's..what we call.."mind over heart."

Okay,..let's say ..you're..*not a musician.
But maybe..you like..playing football...The same
dynamic..inter-flows apply:..If your heart..is not into..it,..
cant..envision..it[..it just..ain't gonna work...

*But if..you let your heart..go wild..[with free/flowing willful passion..abandoning..the rote/note..,you're..not going..to be ..on the league..for too long.

So..some people lose..the mind..
and get caught-up..in the heart....risking losing focus..on..external reality

yet..Others..*forget..about..the-heart
and..become..[warpedf.wrapped-up..in..the mind.

Neither ..way..is good.

The..point is..to get..the soul..to express..itself
in the heart..by reaching..through \*.the..heart-mind...into the..cloud-mind

Getting..this..mind-heart..thing down..pat..is not easy.
First..of all,..during your initial/exposure to life--known as childhood-you are basically..an emotional/animal,..with little chance that..the mind will have..control..of anything.

Secondly,.even once/you grow-up,..the whole world
is..out to..*make you.."just react"..to ..*their stimuli.

After all,..as long as..you have control...
over your..own brain..and own-heart,...you..*know..your acting..of your own..freewill..onto free-action..[writing..your own/programing]

via..free-revelatory-thought..being free..by thinking..acting..enabling*..*free..=free from fee..and from..ill-will.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=the+heart+mind+and+actions&

<<You..know things..about Jesus,
but..you..do_not..go/with..that knowledge,..which He..gives your heart>>..to-hear..only..in prayer...[revelation

knowing only..learn..the miracle..
you..only..thus<<..Know Jesus..with/the mind/the study..of the Catechism:..know Jesuswith t..he heart[revelation]..in prayer,..in dialogue..with Him...>>via him..unto..the cloud-mind[father]

<<..This helps/us..a good bit,..but..it/is..not enough.
There is..a third-way..to know Jesus:..it is..by following-Him.
Go..*with Him,..walk..with Him..>>

..as those older..[by miracle]
yet younger..in faith..[revelation]..must do

http://famvin.org/en/2013/09/28/pope-francis-mind-heart-action/

http://www.innerfrontier.org/Practices/IntegratingBodyHeartMind.htm
we train..in the..practices/of..awareness.
We begin..with establishing..*awareness..of
the sensitive/energy..[aetherised/soul form].body,
as strong..and as stable..as,..is humanly/humanely..possible.

When..in that/state..we can,..at times,
branch out..to incorporate-awareness..of exta-thoughts..and/or intra-emotions.

In..this/way..we train..our..*attention..and awareness
toward /directing..our-will..to the wholeness[all-ness]..that integrates..our parts,..[at-one]-ments..toward..unity of action,..

evolving..ever forward..toward..the_ability..to act
with..as..with/in..the..whole..of ourselves.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=+the+hearts+minds+and+actions&

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=the+difference+between+heart+mind+and+soul
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=enchantment+changing+the+hearts+minds+and+actions

Dear Banjo,

I am an atheist. This is a worldview I have arrived at. However, I don’t argue with facts. The fact is that there are competent scientists who state they are believers in various religions.

You seem to want to argue with that fact by setting up a category called true believers and saying that scientists who claim a religion aren’t true believers. I am satisfied that most of the scientists who say they are believers in religion are believers in religion. I feel that scientists are probably more ethical than most people and have a higher regard for truth and honesty than most people. A scientist has to trust the results of other scientists and report his or her own results honestly. If the scientist did not behave in that manner for the most part science would break down. The requirement of honesty is not so compelling in other occupations such as advertising, selling and military recruiting. When a scientist claims to be a believer and is not compelled to say it to keep his or her position I am satisfied that the scientist is a believer.

Our views remain incompatible.

There has even been a scientist pope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_II

Pope Sylvester II [reigned] from 2 April 999 to his death in 1003. .... He endorsed and promoted study of Arab/Greco-Roman arithmetic, mathematics, and astronomy, reintroducing to Europe the abacus and armillary sphere, which had been lost to Europe since the end of the Greco-Roman era. He is said to be the first to introduce in Europe the decimal numeral system using the Arabic numerals after his studies at the University of al-Karaouine in Morocco.

A perfect number is greater than 1 and the sum of its aliquot divisors. 6 = 1 + 2 + 3. Six is the smallest perfect number. Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE – 40 CE), a Jewish philosopher, regarded as significant that the biblical account of creation took six days, a perfect number. Twelfth century Rabbi Josef ben Jehuda Ankin recommended study of perfect numbers in his book, ‘Healing of Souls.’

continued

continued

There is a formula relating the primes to perfect numbers. There has been no exception found, but, to the best of my knowledge, it has been not been proven to be true for all primes or all perfect numbers. There is a great preoccupation with numbers in Jewish philosophy and mysticism.

Even St. Augustine was fascinated by perfect numbers and wrote: “Six is a number perfect in itself, and not because God created all things in six days; rather the inverse is true; God created all things in six days because this number is perfect. And it would remain perfect even if the work of six days did not exist.”

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Perfect_numbers.html is a website which will lead you into the world of perfect numbers. IMHO a perfect number is a number that numbs perfectly.

I am a missionary for number theory. If it is for you it brings joy and has a low environmental impact.

http://psuvanguard.com/news/an-appetite-for-richard-dawkins/ contains Richard Dawkins opinion that religion and science cannot coexist.

A robot cannot act autonomously. A robot must complete the task it is ordered to do. It may consult its neural circuits on how best to complete that task. One would expect that given inputs describing the parameters of the task the neural circuits would generate outputs describing how best to complete the task. That is neither free will nor autonomy. If the robot were free to say, “That task is pointless so I won’t do it.” Then the robot might be judged to have free will. I certainly would not want a rebellious robot. However, if a random number generator were programmed into the robot and one of the possible responses were “That task is pointless so I won’t do it.” Then that response would not be one of free will since it would be a generated response. Therefore it would be determinate and not from free will.

A number that is generated cannot be random. A random number generator generates pseudo-random numbers.

In short, I know of no way one can be sure that a response stems from free will.

< The more one assigns insanity to a criminal X, the less can he be held responsible for his crimes, and vice versa. Thus without free will, the actions of X - or any criminal, big or small - would be due only to the laws of physics or biology, like an earthquake or the preying of a predator, and one would not be able to condemn and punish X. The assumption that people are free to act is the basis of moral judgement. Without belief in free will our world would be totally different, incomprehensible.>

Dear George,

I think one problem with our criminal justice system is its emphasis on free will as a guide to punishment. Concentration on free will treats crime as a problem of individual action. The criminal is a bad person. If we punish that bad person that bad person will fear punishment and be less likely to offend again. Our society is motivated by an individualist philosophy which does not recognise the degree with which we are affected by social forces.

I think we should attack the sources of crime, make it less likely for the criminal to re-offend and protect society. A source of crime is social conditions – lack of education, poverty, inequity of resources. These are not attacked for the most part through the criminal justice system. Just as public health improved by better sanitation, nutrition and indoor plumbing rather than treatment of disease crime can be lessened by creating a more equitable society.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/inequality-is-a-choice/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131014&_r=0 is by the economist, Stiglitz, and makes the case that inequality is a government choice.

The criminal justice system can see that a prisoner is educated and better able to make an honest living. Poverty and inequity of resources can be remedied by governmental and intergovernmental action. Whatever we do some criminals will re-offend. If these offenses are crimes of violence the criminal must be locked up to protect society. In other cases the criminal must be monitored. In general I regard crime as more a social problem than an individual act.