He’s selling us a future that looks like Psycho-Pass. I imagine he has a great understanding of behavior given his long studies, but even if it were true, the “more just society” he mentions is what eventually devolves into the Psycho-Pass Sybil System. Where we treat or punish those who are “destined” by biology to commit criminal acts before they even think about committing them. It’s super interesting to consider, but I think operating through law under this notion is a slippery path.
I don’t believe he said that. I think his body just sorta twitched as a reflex and those words came out.
I don’t think he can say anything else, right?
Only one way to find out: train an LLM to say everything he’s said when presented with everything he’s seen, then ask it to say something it hasn’t said before.
“As a Stanford faculty member I cannot stray beyond the confines of my deterministic mental structure, and hence am unable to speculate on what else I might be able to say. Is there anything else I can lecture you about?”
Every day you resist urges, and it’s the establishment of freewill that put you on a path.
Also, fundamentally they’re wrong. People acquire knowledge. They learn freewill is possible. Many attempt it in everyday life.
Therefore, freewill is its own deterministic event, and in being concrete it breaks the loop of determinism despite the belief it’s all determinism. Basically determinism confounds itself by allowing freewill to be entertained in deterministic beings - oops.
People throw out guesses, hunches, preferences, and numerous freewill events because freewill was repeatedly mentioned.
🌼✌️☮️🌼
I have decided not to read that article. So much for that theory.
