A Turing machine is a minimal theoretical computer that could compute any algorithm in principle. Back in the 40s when Turing proposed it, it was radical because machines until then had always been built for dedicated tasks. What he defined was a device that could be progrogrammed for any computation, assuming indeed that its task was computable in the first place. Modern computers are what could be considered extensions to a Turing machine in that they are more sophisticated.
An algorithm is a deterministic set of rules to deliver a result in a finite time. Thereās that word again ā deterministic. In other words, itās just following rules. The word āfiniteā is important also. It doesnāt matter if takes a machine a long time, say millions of years, but it must produce a result which does not require infinite resources. An algorithm is therefore both deterministic and finite (whereas the āInfinite Creatorā is not finite).
But I would like to ask your opinion: can algorithm be not in Turing machine way as we are usually used to think? Pure algorithm, for example?
Iām not sure I quite understand you correctly. I think what you are contemplating should not be called an āalgorithmā.
Algorithms cannot, in my view, generate āinformationā. They merely manipulate or transpose existing information using rules. I think all information to which we are exposed has an ultimate source ā the Infinite Creator.
Back in 90s, Roger Penrose wrote a book called the āEmporerās New Mindā in which he suggests animal brains have deep connections to the underlying quantum world (which is not deterministic).
Here he is discussing computation (aka algoritms) and consciousness:
Iām sorry to interrupt your dialogue. I just wanted to say that many people have tried to get to the quantum world from the point of view of the psyche, but so far I have not seen convincing works that could be purposefully applied to a human being and human societies. Maybe you are more knowledgeable than I am?
So far, Lynne McTaggartās book The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe seems to me the most interesting at the moment.
Will add this for now. Described very well as a ācreate conditionā:
11.18Questioner: Then we have crusaders from Orion coming to this planet for mind control purposes. How do they do this?
Ra: As all, they follow the Law of One observing free will. Contact is made with those who call. Those then upon the planetary sphere act much as do you to disseminate the attitudes and philosophy of their particular understanding of the Law of One which is service to self. These become the elite. Through these, the attempt begins to create a condition whereby the remainder of the planetary entities are enslaved by their own free will.
If you some one threatens your livelihood, or even your life, or takes away all other options in order force you to do something that you would not otherwise doā¦ and you eventually do it because you feel you have no other choiceā¦
does that count as your own free-will?
I remember asking God that questions a couple of years back.
There is a contradiction in your question Iām trying to untangle (but cannot). Youāre saying āyou have no (other) choiceā and asking ādoes that count as your own free-willā at the same time. Maybe itās a question does it count by others as your own free-will. So if you donāt count why youāre asking. Maybe because in this case itās an issue because even if you donāt count you have not much to tell them against ābut you did agree/sign etc.ā.
The ātrolley problemā is incorrect. If someone put people on rails itās not your problem what to do. If you donāt touch itās karma of who has put 'em on rails, but if you pull the lever you intrude. Itās a third choice to avoid the incorrect choice. Very often we donāt see the third choice and forget of who has created the situation, but Iām not saying the third choice is always correct.
So Iām not answering you but noting that the binary logic of the questionās choice is not always binary in fact.
Also itās more or less generally accepted that tortures is an indication that such confession is not a free-will (ālessā because itās not always, as for example in Crocus City Hall). But itās still an issue because such conditions are reached gradually by small steps when people say it counts as free-will.
And I have an observation that in this binary logic if (as you say) you did something they will say āyou did it by your own choiceā, if you didnāt do they will say āyou didnāt do by your own choiceā, so they are trying to ignore your third choice (which is ignore the wrong choice). Quiet quitting - is another example of the third choice.
We all know that you are news - but are you king King of the Jews?
I understand the issue of false dichotomies. Moreover, I agree with you about the trolley problem. But try expressing it in a real world situation, and watch how shocked people are and how they look on you as a moral misfit!
But there is some dilemma here in connection to the question of free-will. I grappled with it a couple of years back, as I have said, and Iām reminded of a piece I wrote in which I expressed the following:
āMy consent may be taken by force, but I do not give it freely.ā
Indeed, I am aware of the contradiction here but it alludes to the heart of matter.
Hereās another question I guess, but thereās no dilemma here for meā¦
If you feed poison to a trusting animal, could you then declare that the animal ate it because of its own free-will?
Something about this reminds me of
vocabulary, as if the extent of a personās
vocabulary are like rails limiting where
language can take them. The Ra Materials
seems chocked full of obscure words
Iād guess many people donāt comprehend
well. But in the chance they strive to
understand context and meaning then
might that drag them along to new
horizons? This spills into the idea of
reading the Law of One in another
language with a similar striving to seek
context and meaning - which then may
extend the reach of their rails. Language
translation tools seem a growing
beneficial influence of AI interaction,
for many, many literary works. The
effort to provide access to the Law of
One in many languages seems admirable,
thank you for multi-lingual outreach.
