Evidence for God from Science

Be just like it if everybody here was ignorant of STTNG. I just don't have the energy to get you up to speed

IIRC Data could decide to do use his own judgement to do almost anything. But he was programmed not to do evil because of what happened when his brother, Lore, was given regular free will.

Not sure if you can call it limited free will rather than limited ability to EXERCISE his free will.
His behavior modification chip didn't allow him to hurt or allow humans to be hurt, IIRC also, BUT it could be superseded if he choose to.
He killed what's his name, Fajo or whatever in The Most toys, when he didn't really HAVE to.

PaulSacramento wrote:Not sure if you can call it limited free will rather than limited ability to EXERCISE his free will.
His behavior modification chip didn't allow him to hurt or allow humans to be hurt, IIRC also, BUT it could be superseded if he choose to.
He killed what's his name, Fajo or whatever in The Most toys, when he didn't really HAVE to.

Well he didn't actually kill him because he was beamed aboard.

Stu wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Not sure if you can call it limited free will rather than limited ability to EXERCISE his free will.
His behavior modification chip didn't allow him to hurt or allow humans to be hurt, IIRC also, BUT it could be superseded if he choose to.
He killed what's his name, Fajo or whatever in The Most toys, when he didn't really HAVE to.

Well he didn't actually kill him because he was beamed aboard.

Sorry, yes he would have killed him had he not been beamed aboard.
Point is still valid.

So, here is the thing about free will that skeptics seem to either not get or do not want to get or, far more worse, don't care about:
Responsibility and accountability.

IF there is free will then people are responsible AND accountable for their actions.

If there isn't, then people are NOT.

And that means EVERY ACTION, no matter how horrific and vile.

Let that sink in.

I know that Star Trek is a work of fiction, but it did address a number of fascinating philosophical issues through the character of Data.

So I will release my inner geek and jump in.

Star Trek has established the following about Data.
1. Data is sentient (ie... he is self aware)
2. Data has a "creativity" program.
3. Data was deliberately programmed without emotion.

Based on #1 and #2, I would say that Data has "free will". I think that sentience and the capacity for creativity are key components for what many people think of as "free will".
These capabilities are what allows Data to grow and develop as a character throughout the show even though he is incapable (by design) of "emotion".

Dr. Soong (Data's creator) deliberately withheld "emotion" from Data's programming because of the negative impact that emotions had on Data's 'evil' predecessor, Lore.
However, Dr. Soong did create an 'emotion chip' for Data that would be available to Data when he developed to a 'state' where he would be capable of handling emotions without being negatively overwhelmed by them.

In Star Trek Generations (the first TNG motion picture) Data installs the 'emotion chip' and one of the subplots of the movie is Data's struggle to deal with those 'emotions'. In First Contact (the second TNG movie) Data displays the ability to apparently turn his emotion chip on and off at will.

In short, STTNG establishes Data as having sentience, creativity, and free will without necessarily possessing the capacity for "human emotion".

PaulSacramento wrote:

Stu wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Not sure if you can call it limited free will rather than limited ability to EXERCISE his free will.
His behavior modification chip didn't allow him to hurt or allow humans to be hurt, IIRC also, BUT it could be superseded if he choose to.
He killed what's his name, Fajo or whatever in The Most toys, when he didn't really HAVE to.

Well he didn't actually kill him because he was beamed aboard.

Sorry, yes he would have killed him had he not been beamed aboard.
Point is still valid.

Yeah, just had to correct you on the storyline :p

This millennial was confused as heck for a while but yeah I know a little bit about science fiction.

For example, take Siri. "She" is a very sophisticated piece of technology, but is not an AI, but a VI. A virtual intelligence. Basically, a virtual intelligence is an over-glorified speak and spell.

An artificial intelligence that has limitations on what it can say or do is called a shackled-AI. And perfect artificial intelligence is hard to discern. Do we use human characteristics to measure it? If so, which ones? Qualities of a soul, such as appreciation of aesthetics, or pure raw intellect and ability to think?

This also ties in with the material vs immaterial argument going on in the free will debate. If a purely autonomous machine could be created, that would probably put the debate to rest if a purely material AI was created.

Hortator wrote:

This also ties in with the material vs immaterial argument going on in the free will debate. If a purely autonomous machine could be created, that would probably put the debate to rest if a purely material AI was created.

How would that put the debate to rest? The debate was about if an immaterial mind could control the material, right?

So hypothetically, an immaterial human mind creates an autonomous machine. The immaterial human mind would completely control how the machine is programmed to work, correct?

Kinda like the "Get your own dirt" joke.

RickD wrote:

Hortator wrote:

This also ties in with the material vs immaterial argument going on in the free will debate. If a purely autonomous machine could be created, that would probably put the debate to rest if a purely material AI was created.

How would that put the debate to rest? The debate was about if an immaterial mind could control the material, right?

So hypothetically, an immaterial human mind creates an autonomous machine. The immaterial human mind would completely control how the machine is programmed to work, correct?

Kinda like the "Get your own dirt" joke.

Whoops, I put the cart before the Tonton this time.