Another Free-will poll, please bear with me!

[Anima]

Furthermore, why are we rehabilitating at all.  The perpetrator is reacting or acting according to a predetermined set of responses.  There is no person (or no person who can resist the predetermined responses), so why not just kill every offender from the offset and be done with it?  The program of this meat does not fit with the program of the rest of the meat. One does not try to rehabilitate a bad apple into a good one for the sake of the bunch.  One just discards said apple.  More to the point we were predetermined in our action and thus bare no liability for responding to our stimuli to kill them for their infraction immediately.

Think of it as a computer program.  It's a bug fix.  We try to fix the code, because our code might break someday, or the code of someone we're programmed to care about's code may break.  And we'd want them to be fixed as well, rather than trashed.

And you absolutely can just kill every offender.  That's certainly an option.  Plenty of people have throughout history, and many still do.  But our current programming seems to have identified some societal consequences to that which for the most part keeps up from using that strategy at this time in most of the 1st world countries.

Sounds like the computer program has acquired a bug we must fix that was not there at the outset of the programs.

[henryp]

Think of it as a computer program.  It's a bug fix.  We try to fix the code, because our code might break someday, or the code of someone we're programmed to care about's code may break.  And we'd want them to be fixed as well, rather than trashed.

And you absolutely can just kill every offender.  That's certainly an option.  Plenty of people have throughout history, and many still do.  But our current programming seems to have identified some societal consequences to that which for the most part keeps up from using that strategy at this time in most of the 1st world countries.

Sounds like the computer program has acquired a bug we must fix that was not there at the outset of the programs.  

The computers have figured out they are computers.  It's a fun new twist!  

[Cato]

Sure, you can highlight a sequence of events or processes and call the result "learning", I have no problem with that.

I don't have a comment in the broader conversation, but wanted to chime in regarding this idea of learning. I would only call it learning if the computer could later recognize the position and immediately go to the knight move without having to execute the algorithm and be given sufficient time to reach the conclusion.

[Whateverist]

---

Just because we require reasons to believe your god nonsense doesn't mean we reject everything that lacks evidence.  No one can do that.  You seem to think unless we accept the god proposition without evidence we are required to reject all propositions which lack evidence.

But why should I violate my repulsion toward harming others?  It exists because I myself experience it.  It is as real as "I" am.  Your god may seem to you as real as you are, but that isn't giving me any reason to sign on.  Your inability to imagine normal human consciousness sans god is your own failing.  We can't explain it to you so long as you are motivated to persist in your stupidity bias.

---

Ad hominem for the win? From your other posts I took you to be better than that Whateverist.

Certainly not for the win. I apologize. If you will accept stubbornness in place of stupidity I would otherwise stand behind what I wrote. That is the kind of slip which would never happen in person but which can so easily happen on line. Sorry about that.