Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Why would I have free will if I just die?

To use while you remain alive?

"Binary code".

01101101 01101001 01110100 01100101 01100100 00101001 00100000 01110101 01110011

That is not binary code. It's a short list of binary numbers. 0x6D 69 74 65 64 29 20 75 73. Or "mited) us" in ASCII. I can't be bothered to translate it into decimal numbers, but you see my point? You offer a list of numbers, and you claim it is "code". For which microprocessor is this 'code' intended? Without that knowledge, we cannot see the 'meaning' of the 'code'. I.e. what it does if/when it executes. You understand this, yes?

[Pattern-chaser]

It seems peculiar that people have a creative will despite the fact that everyone is perpetually dying.

It would be peculiar if they didn't! The creative urge, in this example, might simply reflect a human wish to leave something behind when they die; something of worth.

[amorphos_ii]

Death is not necessarily the end, we don’t know that! Is the subjective mind and its sensual experience even physical?

Is our death paramount? The moral basis maybe that the whole of humanity is moving forwards, that we can add something to that.

If reincarnation is true, we add something of ourselves in each incarnation.

If not true and/or we advance to another plane of reality, then the small amount of time that we are here, need only be enough to become ~ to take form and mature that. Anything we gather along the way is a bonus.

[d3r31nz1g3]

Why would I have free will if I just die?

To use while you remain alive?

"Binary code".

01101101 01101001 01110100 01100101 01100100 00101001 00100000 01110101 01110011

That is not binary code. It's a short list of binary numbers. 0x6D 69 74 65 64 29 20 75 73. Or "mited) us" in ASCII. I can't be bothered to translate it into decimal numbers, but you see my point? You offer a list of numbers, and you claim it is "code". For which microprocessor is this 'code' intended? Without that knowledge, we cannot see the 'meaning' of the 'code'. I.e. what it does if/when it executes. You understand this, yes?

Well the physical operations of physical computers is exclusively represented by binary code usually represented in 0's and 1's.

A code comprised of 0's and 1's is ridiculously linear. Like, RIDICULOUSLY linear. 0's and 1's.

The whole point is how incredibly linear binary code is. Then we die. And binary code was absurdly linear.

[d3r31nz1g3]

Death is not necessarily the end, we don’t know that! Is the subjective mind and its sensual experience even physical?

Is our death paramount? The moral basis maybe that the whole of humanity is moving forwards, that we can add something to that.

If reincarnation is true, we add something of ourselves in each incarnation.

If not true and/or we advance to another plane of reality, then the small amount of time that we are here, need only be enough to become ~ to take form and mature that. Anything we gather along the way is a bonus.

Ok but according to news sources children are dying all over the world every day. Seems to say something about our mutual reality. A realm where children die on the daily.

Wonder if it's just "0's and 1's".

[amorphos_ii]

I don’t see how there can exist 1’s and 0’s just kinda hanging in the void, arising from nowhere, but I take you point that death is a very strong moral denominator, especially as we don’t know ~ it may well be the end.

[d3r31nz1g3]

Because 1's represent a singular one dimensional point which is the most basic particle. Which comprises all things.

[Pattern-chaser]

Because 1's represent a singular one dimensional point which is the most basic particle. Which comprises all things.

Binary is just a number-base. Its only recommendation is that 0 and 1 can be likened to a switch being on or off. That suitability to (binary-logic) computers is the only reason anyone would go to the trouble of counting in binary. "1" is not a "singular one dimensional point"; there is already a good word for that: "point". Ask a mathematician, why don't you?

Alternatively, count in base 16, hexadecimal. It's a lot easier, for just about everything except familiarity, and the latter improves with use.

[d3r31nz1g3]

Well if the Big Bang happened, then one-dimensional points which are particles must be real.

Then "1" in "001110101" represents a single particle amidst absence ("0").

[amorphos_ii]

Either way, you have to arrive at points or ‘1’s’, and at the big bang it is pretty much chaos possibly without even points. At some time in the beginning or at that, there is the first point and before that there is imho no AI like intelligence or mechanistic version thereof, thereafter are we saying that all those points in chaos are somehow AI like. So the whole universe is a big computer which pops out of nowhere?

[Pattern-chaser]

Well if the Big Bang happened, then one-dimensional points which are particles must be real.

Yes, I agree, at least in this one special case.

Then "1" in "001110101" represents a single particle amidst absence ("0").

No. This is a serious misunderstanding of what a number is, what binary counting is, and what binary represents, or may be used to represent.

[d3r31nz1g3]

Well it's known that the universe is comprised of a singular building block. If there is one particulate building block, then the entire universe must be binary.

00100011011010

1 represents this building block.

A square is infinitely divisible in to smaller squares. Four squares. Unless fundamental points are counted over time along it's perimeter, which are points which are the corners of a square.

[ConsciousAI]

Perhaps the comparison of the seen and the seeing remedies the perception? The seeing is most precious, a wonder of existence with an opportunity to see beauty. While the seen is a relic of an attempt to improve the foundation of the seeing and can leave one wondering what it was all about.

The seen is analogous to digital. The seeing is not.

I paint a painting. I write a book. I compose a song. I make my choices. My guilt is earned and so are my praises.

Then I die forever. I had a creative free will and then I died forever.

How does that make sense?

The answer is that it doesn't.

Your question is very interesting.

Your question might become increasingly relevant now that AI is increasingly able to outshine artists in performance derived from advanced teleological/teleonomical science from fields such as human psychology and human anthropology.

Can an artistic emotion withstand the brightness of the shine of an AI art machine, a shine so bright that ones art might never achieve the capacity to amaze or stun people with prestige?

Why does art make sense?

Some artists say, that to create art, they connect or immerse with a higher consciousness, a universal mind. Art might have a deeper meaning beyond its physical representation. An importance for humanity's path to the future.

In two topics by two users on the implications of AI for humanity, it was posed that artistic creativity is fundamental to human purpose of existence.

Anthropic integrity

... the OP started with the assertion that integer or authentic creation is tied to human purpose.

According to AI, scientific studies in diverse areas collectively suggest a strong connection between human identity and creativity, highlighting the multifaceted nature of creativity and its impact on human development and society.

AI and the Death of Identity

So AI can do art better than us. AI can do our work better than us. Thus begins the Death of Identity. Or does it?
...
Just to get to the point, my personal conclusion is ... we must detach creation from our identity.

When a shiny AI robot is able to shine brighter relative to what the human has culturally learned to value as their uniquely identifying intelligence, starting all the way back from philosopher René Descartes his claim that animals are automata (programs) while humans are special due to their creative intelligence, then some materialism related ideologies might find a winning hand to materialize, with far reaching consequences for morality.

There might be a real danger that humanity turns in on itself in its centuries ongoing and growing pursuit of a deterministic 'material out there', in a stubborn attempt to prove diverse beliefs and ideologies related to materialism.

A mortal robot?

Perhaps forever isn't as good as the idea of it.

[Lagayascienza]

When one thinks of mortality and free will, one generally starts to think that mortality and free will must be incompatible.

For if free will exists, it MUST be compatible with mortality.

So, "mortality and free will" must be compatible.

However, I believe this image visually demonstrates that mortality and free will are NOT compatible. And that robotics itself visually reflects the fact that it isn't.

Mortal robots.

It's not clear to me that there is any contradiction between having free will (if we do) and artistic creation on the one hand, and mortality on the other. You seem to be asking what the point of life is if it must end. There are many possible answers to that question. One may be that there is no point. Maybe it's all some great cosmic joke. Maybe the whole universe we think we inhabit is just a put up job. Whatever is going on, we are forced to find meaning for ourselves. Artistic creation is one avenue we can pursue. Many people think religion gives meaning to their lives. Our children and families provide meaning. We die so evolution can do it's thing. Death is part of life and until it's time to die, we just have to get on with it as best we can. There may be no ultimate meaning to it all.