You don't know that!

lol, you're right. I cannot prove this. but my experience affirms this form. See the SMP thread, I will probably abandon this free will thread because that is more intense.

But the scenario in which the computer plays Player A is not exactly the same as when the computer plays Player B. So your example does not follow from your statement.

Again, if you change the opponent then you are changing the scenario. Therefore, this is not an example of a computer having the ability to do the otherwise in the exact same scenario.

But the computer does not chose between these sets given the same variables, it merely evaluate the conditions. Much like my website analogy. I gave my website a set of options, but it can only choose the one depending on the conditions.

who's to say we choose between these sets given the same variables?

or you could just post in both

This goes back to your statement that a computer doesn't have:

In response to that statement I asked "How about a computer playing chess?"

Your response:
Now you seem to want to say that since the computer can analyze a person's play and make non-random moves based on the player that this now is creating a different scenario. LOL. You go from stating that a computer cannot choose otherwise without it being random to now stating that indeed a computer can make non-random moves and its own decisions. Which one is it?

Even if we were to agree on this you still have to answer for quiescence search which will lead to different moves when playing the same player in the same scenario. You also need to take into account that a chess program can estimate your abilities in real-time and make adjustments to provide a challenging game rather than an all-out-ass-kicking. The moves could be different in that scenario as well.

LOL at introducing opponents as part of the scenario. By doing so, you prove the point that a program can adjust to any players tendencies and make non-random decisions to win the game. Why didn't you bring up opponents as part of the "scenario" earlier?

Both times you have tried to respond to Stu you have made completely irrelevant remarks - total non sequiturs, demonstrating you don't understand the points he's making.

The complete mediocrity of your understanding of basic logic is demonstrated in the first sentence above. Stu never tried to make the point that all atheists think life can't be intelligently designed.

BTW, do you really think humans will someday be able to create ex nihilo? Just wondering.

You are continuing to fail to understand what it means to be in the exact same scenario (as far as free will is concerned). Maybe I am not explaining it correctly,

Madnak,

Can you please try to explain why a computer playing someone for the first time and a computer playing someone for the 10th time is not the exact same scenario even the situation of the game is the same?

Well, I cannot prove that we do choose between these sets. If I could then i could prove free will. You need to realize the argument that I am making, it is not about proof.

Let Stu respond because I do not think you are following the discussion at all. He is making a very simple error in evaluating conditional probabilities from a prior distribution, but obv you don't understand.

This isn't what the thread is about and I don't want to discuss it with you.

You never do respond to a point, do you?

Thanks; I didn't think the theists here would be comfortable answering my questions.

The claim that anything can "prove" ID, which which contains no scientific theory at all, just continues to spew crackpot nonsense.

Biologist blogger PZ Myers debunks some of the initial "objections" to Venter's work, including refuting remarks by the cranks at RTB who say Venter's work is "evidence" for ID. (And lol that PZ uses a poker analogy.)

First round of ill-informed objections to the first synthetic bacterium

PzM couldn't debunk Santa Claus. He's a hate-filled, insult-spewing, narrow-minded, science-worshipping, pinheaded ignoramus.

Here's the quote about RTB:

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with that ministry would immediately realize this clown is way out of his depth - he has no clue what he's yapping about. What RTB was saying is that Venter's first step in this project was to id the minimum genome necessary for life. Why can't a genius like PzM understand such a simple idea?



If you had listened to the podcast I linked you would know he's just another new atheist buffoon with a patina of scholarship that breaks apart as soon as he opens his mouth about anything outside his area of specialty - typical of all the new atheist morons.

You only introduced player history or adjusting to player tendencies as part of the "scenario" recently. You're first statement makes no mention of players and is was based on what a chess engine will do every time in terms of moves... aka in a vacuum. I already said that even if we agree on this, the computer would still make different moves and they would not be random.

Additionally, if a chess computer made the same moves the same time under the same scenario, you could program another computer to find all of these scenarios and create a way to win 100% of the time.

nitty, i was eagerly awaiting jibs reply to your last post itt from yesterday. seemed there was no way out of the corner he put himself in, but i didnt think about passing the buck to madnak. he's a squirmy one! i suppose there's a chance something is being lost in translation that madnak can clear up, but im not seeing it.

It's as easy as what i said in my last post... If a chess engine made the same moves every time under the same scenario, you could program a script to find all of these scenarios and create a way to win 100% of the time.

Deep Fritz, from what I understand, does not retain any information on the players it has played in the past. Deep Fritz and and a human opponent would play a six game match and would lose some of the games within the 6 game match. If Jib's statement is correct, then the human opponent just has to remember the exact game he played that resulted in a win for him. He would win 100% of the time because, according to Jib, the computer would always make the same move in the same scenario.... free from any meta game or past game experiences (playing in a vacuum). It's just not true... computer chess would be easy to beat if this were the case.

You are still failing to understand. You say,

But you are failing to understand that each time that the computer plays again is a new scenario. So if the computer played me in Game A, then played me in Game B, even if every single move was exactly the same up until time T, it is a different scenario then time T in Game A.

When I say "the exact same scenario", I am not talking about the same moves. That is not what we are discussing when we are talking about "choosing otherwise" in regards to free will.

What we are talking about is either rewinding time to time T, or (which is what I prefer) talking about another possible world at time T where the computer would choose otherwise.

You are failing to understand the issue at hand when it comes to free will. There is something that I am not getting across to, that is why I invoked Madnak. He understands, even though he disagrees that it is even possible to choose otherwise.

Your idea of being able to program a computer to beat another computer 100% of the time is flawed, because that even though the computer makes the exact same move in the exact same scenario, the scenario changes with time. When I move Queen to Knight 4 in Game A, it is not the same scenario as me moving Queen to Knight 4 in Game B.

Are you following?

very lol

science fiction ftw

This is what the issue is when discussing free will. I am sorry if I did not make that clear, I thought that you understood the issue at hand.

I didn't read this whole thread, but to OP, I'm not sure why this would disprove God; I feel it gives Him glory and thereby argues strongly for His existence, power and knowledge. One, it takes immense intelligence merely to mimic what He's done (copying His DNA creation synthetically). Two, we observe through DNA that God has used technology that we're only beginning to understand and mimic-and He used this for the most basic elements of life.

When I read the OP, I was suspect of the claim that anyone "created" life. Of course to be true one needs to first create the universe (cf. Carl Sagan), but even the claim that one can make life from non-life is incredible. In reading the article, the key to this question is here:

So scientists took an existing living cell and modified it. The existing, living cell is programmed to read genetic code a certain way, and scientists created a synthetic code for the living cell to read. Then it reproduces. Scientists didn't make anything alive that wasn't already; they merely made a code which is acceptable by the living cell. This is a wonderful breakthrough, but creating life it is not.

How so? Remember we are playing in a vacuum now. Game A and Game B both lead up to the same exact scenario in terms of moves in the game.

Then your statement on which this whole argument is based on is false? This is what you said:

I guess I'm not following. You factored in past player history and tendencies as being part of the "scenario"... which was not in your original statement. I said ok fine, even if we are playing in a vacuum, a computer will still make different decisions when approached with the exact same scenario. If it did not make different decisions, then you could play a style that is proven to beat the computer and win 100% of the time. You could come up with the 56 move formula to beat chess engine x because it always makes the same moves.

Ugh Jib... First you start here:

The "scenario" as described above seems to deal with chess moves and nothing else. Now you're own "scenario" as described above is not sufficient because now we need to factor in opponents which therefore create different scenarios... because the above scenario doesn't seem to go with the point your are trying to make. That's fine.

In the free will thread you state: (link)
I believe I'm showing you this in the form of chess programs. Am I not?

We can't do this for humans either. If we could, we'd know for sure whether things were deterministic or not.

All you're doing is making a case of agnosticism for both human and AI chess players and it doesn't help your argument at all. For some reason, you're just asserting that only humans are able to make a different decision but are failing to say why.

I'm fully convinced (see my other posts above) that you won't accept AI free will unless it looked like a human to you and you weren't told ahead of time. The line is arbitrary because if the same AI looked like an ape instead, you'd say no.

you are right that i cannot prove human free will, i have said that many times. but you, like nitty, is failing to comprehend that this does not mean that we cannot know that a computer does not have free will. we know how the computer is programmed and we know that it does not have free will.

just because you cannot give me an example of a computer having free will does not mean there is a problem with my argument.

i have never said that AI could not have free will, just that it has not yet been done.