Timeline for answer to Why do most philosophers of religion accept or lean towards a libertarianism conception of free will? by yters
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 28, 2024 at 2:16 | comment | added | yters | @BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft the game of life only exhibits complex order when humans design mechanisms, like Turing machines. GoL populated with random noise just produces trivial "ash" objects. Similarly with LLMs. The algorithm for LLMs is trivial, all the magic is from the training data produced by human intelligence. When LLMs are trained on their own output, this results in "model collapse". | |
| Dec 28, 2024 at 2:14 | comment | added | yters | @SofieSelnes good catch, fixed. | |
| Dec 28, 2024 at 2:13 | history | edited | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed logic error
|
| Dec 27, 2024 at 20:03 | comment | added | BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft | The premise of this answer is wrong. The fact that complex behavior can emerge from randomness and simple rules is well-known, and an active area of study. Ex. Conway's Game of Life can perform arbitrary computations; and modern LLMs, which are no more than fancy predictive text, have arguably passed the Turing Test. | |
| Dec 27, 2024 at 14:12 | comment | added | Sofie Ross | I think this is importantly different, and critically in error, to the above answers. We might say that theism requires free will, but to say free will implies theism is just false - non-theistic dualism is entirely plausible as an option. (I’m compatibilist so it’s purely hypothetical but god/s don’t need to enter the discussion at all) | |
| Dec 27, 2024 at 13:04 | history | answered | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |