• Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 个月前

    As for chaos needed for determination of will, that’s because will requires intelligence. A controlled environment doesn’t lead to intelligent choice but rather patterned outcome. ChatGPT is a good example of this

    So what turns a controlled environment into a chaotic environment? And what is the problem with a patterned outcome? Intelligence was still used, so what do the results matter?

    This all seems quite arbitrary.

    As for the “all-loving” part, an argument could only be made for that, from my perspective at least, depending on how you define “love” here. If they sees us the same way we see creations we make and love, then it would explain to some degree why the suffering is still allowed.

    The problem with this is than an all loving, omni-benevolent being not just has love for all, but maximal love for all, which contradicts the notion of willingly allowing suffering to exist in any form.

    it could be the same point of view that we have towards a vehicle.

    “You are so lowly that it is permissible to harm you” is not the point of view of an omni-benevolent being.

    • Lumisal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 个月前

      So what turns a controlled environment into a chaotic environment?

      Honestly, don’t know. Maybe mathematicians do, but I imagine it’s a philosophical question. The only agreed upon thing would be that significant varied complexity is what is needed to be determined a chaotic environment, philosophically. How significant would be the disagreement.

      And what is the problem with a patterned outcome? Intelligence was still used, so what do the results matter?

      Well, we’re still trying to determine exactly, precisely is “intelligence”. But ChatGPT is definitely not intelligent, that I do know. I think Google really helped elucidate that point recently to Americans.

      The problem with this is than an all loving, omni-benevolent being not just has love for all, but maximal love for all, which contradicts the notion of willingly allowing suffering to exist in any form.

      Again, that depends what kind of “maximal” love. You have maximal love for your parents for example (assuming you had good parents), but that’s definitely not the same as romantic maximal love.

      If there’s a God and they created everything, well, I assume the “maximal love” would be akin to a human creating something and loving that creation. Considering the massive difference between an omnipotent being and a mortal human, I’m hesitant to even say it’s similar to a human and self aware robot.

      Maybe the old Honda bots?

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 个月前

        The only agreed upon thing would be that significant varied complexity is what is needed to be determined a chaotic environment, philosophically. How significant would be the disagreement.

        Ok, then let’s assume there is a sufficient number of choices to be deemed chaotic. You have 1000 condiments for the sandwich at your disposal, it’s chaotic. However none of them are options which are evil.

        The rather arbitrary requirement of chaos is present, a choice is still at hand meaning free will is still present, all without evil.

        Well, we’re still trying to determine exactly, precisely is “intelligence”. But ChatGPT is definitely not intelligent, that I do know. I think Google really helped elucidate that point recently to Americans.

        So do humans who play tic tac toe lack intelligence? There is a finite and very small number of choices a player can take. It’s a patterned outcome.

        • Lumisal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 个月前

          Ok, then let’s assume there is a sufficient number of choices to be deemed chaotic. You have 1000 condiments for the sandwich at your disposal, it’s chaotic. However none of them are options which are evil.

          That’s not varied complexity, that’s still just a lot of one thing - condiments.

          Significant varied complexity would be more of 5 condiment choices, 2 bread choices, 3 ham choices but 1 might be expired even though it’s your favorite, 3 vegetable choices, peanut butter, 3 jam choices.

          And then between all that, other things are going on too. You might suddenly decide you don’t want sandwich. A roach is wondering if it should scurry across the bread you laid down or near your feet, possibly causing you to injure yourself with the knife. A painter who was painting something dark red may knock accidentally on your door leading to a misunderstanding. And more.

          None of these choices are evil, but they can lead to suffering or the potential to make a bad choice. And then there’s still defining “evil”. Would eating ham be evil? What about the jam? It could involve minor deforestation for monoculture - is that evil? Is spraying crops with pesticides evil? What about GMOs? These are things that depending who you ask, range from evil, bad, neutral, to good.

          So do humans who play tic tac toe lack intelligence? There is a finite and very small number of choices a player can take. It’s a patterned outcome.

          False equivalence. The thing is, you can play tic-tac-toe without intelligent decision. You could win a game through sheer randomness by just flipping a coin (heads = x, tails = o) and randomly picking a square. Want to take it further? You can draw the # on ground in the autumn, and leaves could just fall in place (red vs yellow) and form what looks like a game of tic tac toe. You don’t need intelligence to play tic tac toe, even though an intelligent being is capable of playing tic tac toe. You do need intelligence to invent tic tac toe out of unrelated nothingness, however.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 个月前

            Significant varied complexity would be more of 5 condiment choices, 2 bread choices, 3 ham choices but 1 might be expired even though it’s your favorite, 3 vegetable choices, peanut butter, 3 jam choices.

            This doesn’t fundamentally change what I’m getting at. Of all the choices, none of them are evil. Yet they are still choices.

            None of these choices are evil, but they can lead to suffering or the potential to make a bad choice.

            Call it evil/suffering/sin/etc, the label is irrelevant to my point.

            False equivalence. The thing is, you can play tic-tac-toe without intelligent decision. You could win a game through sheer randomness by just flipping a coin (heads = x, tails = o) and randomly picking a square. Want to take it further? You can draw the # on ground in the autumn, and leaves could just fall in place (red vs yellow) and form what looks like a game of tic tac toe.

            I don’t think you quite understood what I was getting at, so let me rephrase. An intelligent actor with free will and an unintelligent actor without it will both have patterned outcomes to games of tic tac toe.

            So patterned outcome cannot be a deciding factor for what is and what is not free will.