[QUOTE=davar55;335857]Considering you are one of he sanest members of this forum, I wonder what you mean by this.[/QUOTE]
I mean exactly what I wrote, nothing more, nothing less. I do not know how to provide a definition of "one's own mind" which will withstand scientific investigation.
[QUOTE=davar55;335857]
Isn't this just a combination of self-awareness and a scientific
knowledge of some of the workings of one's brain? Regardless
of your "protestations" (not really that), we on this forum are
quite certain that you possess consciousness, intelligence,
and free will. Without any doubt.[/QUOTE]You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

To be precise, I made three claims about myself for which I would like to have a test in accordance with the scientific method. You have asserted my claims are true. Justify your assertion or you stand accused of being as deluded as I am.

[QUOTE=chalsall;335860]Yes.

But why then, exactly, do you think that only humans are capable of free will?[/QUOTE]

I don't think or believe that, and thought I had made that clear in my
other posts. I think where I said "only people" had free will you may
have thought I meant "only humans", but I even referred to the two
beings of the OP from literature and TV as having free will.

[QUOTE=xilman;335864]I mean exactly what I wrote, nothing more, nothing less. I do not know how to provide a definition of "one's own mind" which will withstand scientific investigation.
You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

To be precise, I made three claims about myself for which I would like to have a test in accordance with the scientific method. You have asserted my claims are true. Justify your assertion or you stand accused of being as deluded as I am.[/QUOTE]

Well that's hard to do long distance. I'm sure you're aware of the T-test,
where a program tries to fool a person into thinking it's a thinking human
being. But more pertinent here is the RT-test (reverse T) in which a
person tries to convince others that he's a machine (or at least can't
define his own consciousness and free will).

I'd like to prove we're both not deluded.

One way, avoiding the humour in this attempt, and which way
I don't really suggest, would be for you to start a new thread,
called something like "Prove I have free will", then post stating
your case, and see by any responses that holding the position
of not having free will (or being intelligent or being conscious)
is not tenable. I realize this isn't all you questioned.

[QUOTE=davar55;335865]I don't think or believe that, and thought I had made that clear in my
other posts. I think where I said "only people" had free will you may
have thought I meant "only humans", but I even referred to the two
beings of the OP from literature and TV as having free will.[/QUOTE]Thanks. That clears up one misunderstanding I had. I wasn't aware that your regarded the terms "people" and "entities possessing free will" as synonymous.

[QUOTE=xilman;335867]Thanks. That clears up one misunderstanding I had. I wasn't aware that your regarded the terms "people" and "entities possessing free will" as synonymous.[/QUOTE]

Yes in the sense of all people (assumed healthy, awake, free) are
entities and have free will. And entities possessing free wiill (if
they're peaceful) of right ought to be included (if physically possible)
in human society.

So I wouldn't use the terms interchangeably or synonymously, but
under satisfactory conditions one involves the other.

[QUOTE=davar55;335857]Considering you are one of he sanest members of this forum, I wonder what you mean by this.[/QUOTE]

You had better be careful, Paul might take that as an insult. :razz:

[QUOTE=rogue;335875]You had better be careful, Paul might take that as an insult. :razz:[/QUOTE]

Warning received. :-)

Caution taken. Preparations made. Will proceed carefully.

NO INSULT INTENDED! WE COME IN PEACE!

[QUOTE=rogue;335875]You had better be careful, Paul might take that as an insult. :razz:[/QUOTE]I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad.

[QUOTE=davar55;335865]I don't think or believe that, and thought I had made that clear in my other posts. I think where I said "only people" had free will you may have thought I meant "only humans", but I even referred to the two beings of the OP from literature and TV as having free will.[/QUOTE]

My apologies. I did indeed misread you.

Although I think your definition of "people" is rather circular.

Only people have free will.

But anyone with free will is a "people"?

[QUOTE=chalsall;335863]The test is easy...

Let the subject observe the environment.

Then let the subject be blindfolded.

Ask them questions.[/QUOTE]

Bzzzt! That assumes both that fluent communication is possible, and that the internal models of 'reality' (perhaps 'the environment' is better) are sufficiently similar. Both of which are dubious in a cross-species setting. Like so many other "tests", this one reduces to a same-species tautology.

IWS that R. Daneel Olivaw was sapient because he was able to rationalize the 0th law into existence even though it had not previously existed in the sum of his programming.

It is difficult though to prove that a particular someone is sapient because generally one is assumed sapient just because they are of a species in which some member has shown proof of sapience and that has not been ruled a fluke.

So many humams can live out their entire lives without performing a single accomplishment that would meet a rigorous proof of sapience.

IWS that sapience can be proven by observing the organism in question deciding on (or determining) an option that was previously unknown to him/her/it, and should be assumed for any member of a species that has a member that has proven it.