A machine that is "AI" is just that.  The so-called "intelligence" is artificial.  It will only do what it is programmed to do, nothing more.  Can it supposedly "learn" from experience?  Yes, if that's what it is programmed to do, but it's not based on emotion at all, it's all based on logic.

Wasn’t there a report that two computers were discovered talking to each other in a made up language?

That is not at all possible.  Computers "talk" to one another using certain protocols.  In simple terms, computers need to know when to "talk" and when to "listen".  When computers "listen" they need to know what to do with the information that they have received and that is programmed.  A really basic example is say that you have computer A ask computer B what 2+2 is, when computer B gets the information it will calculate it, retrieve the answer and present it back to computer A.

The "language" that all computers and devices that communicate with them use is the binary number system.

We evolved from the simple 8-bit computer that was able to handle only 8 bits of information at a time, and programming was done using the octal numbering system in order to speed up programming the "1's and 0's" of the binary system.

From there we went to the hexadecimal system and went to being able to program 16 bits rather than just 8 bits at a time.

The process evolved further over the years to include 32 bit and 64 bit systems (see a pattern here?).

The bottom line is, a computer only understands "1's or 0's" and nothing more.

If this seems to be confusing to you, take a look at my signature and figure out exactly what it means.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I want to point out that I was generally speaking of a generally theory of consciousness. I am not necessarily being specific to machines or AI learning, and I only made the reference to answer Marty's specific question. This is just an idea I was exploring on my own because I think it's interesting.

I am in complete agreement that most of the fuss about AI machine learning is based on a serious misunderstanding of what these machines can do. If we are in danger of anything moving forward, it will be due to a failure of human arrogance and reasoning.

---

Wasn’t there a report that two computers were discovered talking to each other in a made up language?

That is not at all possible.  Computers "talk" to one another using certain protocols.  In simple terms, computers need to know when to "talk" and when to "listen".  When computers "listen" they need to know what to do with the information that they have received and that is programmed.  A really basic example is say that you have computer A ask computer B what 2+2 is, when computer B gets the information it will calculate it, retrieve the answer and present it back to computer A.

The "language" that all computers and devices that communicate with them use is the binary number system.

We evolved from the simple 8-bit computer that was able to handle only 8 bits of information at a time, and programming was done using the octal numbering system in order to speed up programming the "1's and 0's" of the binary system.

From there we went to the hexadecimal system and went to being able to program 16 bits rather than just 8 bits at a time.

The process evolved further over the years to include 32 bit and 64 bit systems (see a pattern here?).

The bottom line is, a computer only understands "1's or 0's" and nothing more.

If this seems to be confusing to you, take a look at my signature and figure out exactly what it means.

LOL. I am an electronic technician.

There was a story a few years back about two computers interfacing outside of normal protocols.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I want to point out that I was generally speaking of a generally theory of consciousness. I am not necessarily being specific to machines or AI learning, and I only made the reference to answer Marty's specific question. This is just an idea I was exploring on my own because I think it's interesting.

I am in complete agreement that most of the fuss about AI machine learning is based on a serious misunderstanding of what these machines can do. If we are in danger of anything moving forward, it will be due to a failure of human arrogance and reasoning.

It's an incredibly interesting subject, and hard to discuss in a few paragraphs.  You have to start with a very strict definition of what you are talking about.  

The 30,000-foot view from my perspective is this: I don't think there's anything that can only be particular to humans.  I don't see any reason why machines can't become so human-like it in terms of their thinking that it would be very hard to tell the difference.  The basic reason I think that is because I think humans are machines.  I think all living things are just machines in essence, and completely governed by the laws of science.  

Whether we ever engineer human-like machines is an open question.  We might decide to leave out some human characteristics that we consider weaknesses.  

The subject of what is consciousness, and what is unique about human consciousness, will always veer into religion at some point.  To me, the possibilities are divided into two: the natural and the supernatural.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, then you can only believe in the natural, that is, that everything that is and everything that happens is a result of natural forces, which are governed by the laws of nature.  If you do not believe in the supernatural, then you do not believe in the soul.  That makes a human being simply a machine, subject to all the laws of nature.  And then, depending on your knowledge of science, you can design a machine that is completely human-like, with a consciousness that is exactly human-like.  At that point, have you created a human?  

I think a person who believes in the supernatural would say that machines can never be human, and a person who does not believe in the supernatural, who only believes in nature and the laws of nature, would say machines can be human, and that we can create a machine that is a human, with human thoughts and feelings, and that reflects on their existence just like a human does and just like we are doing here.

---

I want to point out that I was generally speaking of a generally theory of consciousness. I am not necessarily being specific to machines or AI learning, and I only made the reference to answer Marty's specific question. This is just an idea I was exploring on my own because I think it's interesting.

I am in complete agreement that most of the fuss about AI machine learning is based on a serious misunderstanding of what these machines can do. If we are in danger of anything moving forward, it will be due to a failure of human arrogance and reasoning.

It's an incredibly interesting subject, and hard to discuss in a few paragraphs.  You have to start with a very strict definition of what you are talking about.  

The 30,000-foot view from my perspective is this: I don't think there's anything that can only be particular to humans.  I don't see any reason why machines can't become so human-like it in terms of their thinking that it would be very hard to tell the difference.  The basic reason I think that is because I think humans are machines.  I think all living things are just machines in essence, and completely governed by the laws of science.  

Whether we ever engineer human-like machines is an open question.  We might decide to leave out some human characteristics that we consider weaknesses.  

The subject of what is consciousness, and what is unique about human consciousness, will always veer into religion at some point.  To me, the possibilities are divided into two: the natural and the supernatural.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, then you can only believe in the natural, that is, that everything that is and everything that happens is a result of natural forces, which are governed by the laws of nature.  If you do not believe in the supernatural, then you do not believe in the soul.  That makes a human being simply a machine, subject to all the laws of nature.  And then, depending on your knowledge of science, you can design a machine that is completely human-like, with a consciousness that is exactly human-like.  At that point, have you created a human?  

I think a religious person would tend to say that machines can never be human, and a non-religious person would say they can.  

And I have to stop there, because I am veering off into what could be the very best and most interesting thing we could discuss on this message board- religion.

If humans are essentially machines and divided into two camps, natural and supernatural, then the same life experiences for two people of the same camp should produce two people who think, believe and behave identically. But it doesn’t. 

However, distilled down to its most basic elements, all of nature is purely mathematical. So, in the purest of essence, we are indeed machines.

---

https://youtu.be/NoAzpa1x7jU?si=a90WW5GouDnoQKkw

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

It's an incredibly interesting subject, and hard to discuss in a few paragraphs.  You have to start with a very strict definition of what you are talking about.  

The 30,000-foot view from my perspective is this: I don't think there's anything that can only be particular to humans.  I don't see any reason why machines can't become so human-like it in terms of their thinking that it would be very hard to tell the difference.  The basic reason I think that is because I think humans are machines.  I think all living things are just machines in essence, and completely governed by the laws of science.  

Whether we ever engineer human-like machines is an open question.  We might decide to leave out some human characteristics that we consider weaknesses.  

The subject of what is consciousness, and what is unique about human consciousness, will always veer into religion at some point.  To me, the possibilities are divided into two: the natural and the supernatural.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, then you can only believe in the natural, that is, that everything that is and everything that happens is a result of natural forces, which are governed by the laws of nature.  If you do not believe in the supernatural, then you do not believe in the soul.  That makes a human being simply a machine, subject to all the laws of nature.  And then, depending on your knowledge of science, you can design a machine that is completely human-like, with a consciousness that is exactly human-like.  At that point, have you created a human?  

I think a religious person would tend to say that machines can never be human, and a non-religious person would say they can.  

And I have to stop there, because I am veering off into what could be the very best and most interesting thing we could discuss on this message board- religion.

If humans are essentially machines and divided into two camps, natural and supernatural, then the same life experiences for two people of the same camp should produce two people who think, believe and behave identically. But it doesn’t. 

However, distilled down to its most basic elements, all of nature is purely mathematical. So, in the purest of essence, we are indeed machines.

You misinterpret what I said.  What I was trying to say was that whether you believe that a machine can be human depends on whether you believe in the supernatural.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, then you only believe in the natural world which is governed by the laws of nature, and if you believe that, then you should believe that humans are machines.  Then you would believe that, depending on our expertise at science, we can create machines that are human.  

As to your statement, if two humans have the same life experiences, then they would think, believe, and behave identically, I would say that if two identical humans had exactly the same life experiences, they would indeed believe and behave identically.  Those two people would have to start with the exact same biology because we are governed by our biology as well as our experiences.  For example, identical twins who have exactly the same life experiences.  Those two people would think, believe, and behave identically.  But it can't happen because they can't have exactly the same life experiences.  They are not in the same body and in the exact same spot looking out at the world in the same direction at all times.  But if you believe there can be a parallel universe, then a person in a parallel universe who is identical to you and who has the exact same life experiences would then inevitably behave exactly as you do in this universe.

So on the question of whether a machine could ever be so human-like we can't tell the difference, I would have to say yes.

---

I think humans are both machines and supernatural. I put less emphasis on the supernatural, though, because I don't think it matters. My theory of consciousness somewhat derives from a machine-like approach to understanding the Universe.

---

If humans are essentially machines and divided into two camps, natural and supernatural, then the same life experiences for two people of the same camp should produce two people who think, believe and behave identically. But it doesn’t. 

However, distilled down to its most basic elements, all of nature is purely mathematical. So, in the purest of essence, we are indeed machines.

You misinterpret what I said.  What I was trying to say was that whether you believe that a machine can be human depends on whether you believe in the supernatural.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, then you only believe in the natural world which is governed by the laws of nature, and if you believe that, then you should believe that humans are machines.  Then you would believe that, depending on our expertise at science, we can create machines that are human.  

As to your statement, if two humans have the same life experiences, then they would think, believe, and behave identically, I would say that if two identical humans had exactly the same life experiences, they would indeed believe and behave identically.  Those two people would have to start with the exact same biology because we are governed by our biology as well as our experiences.  For example, identical twins who have exactly the same life experiences.  Those two people would think, believe, and behave identically.  But it can't happen because they can't have exactly the same life experiences.  They are not in the same body and in the exact same spot looking out at the world in the same direction at all times.  But if you believe there can be a parallel universe, then a person in a parallel universe who is identical to you and who has the exact same life experiences would then inevitably behave exactly as you do in this universe.

So on the question of whether a machine could ever be so human-like we can't tell the difference, I would have to say yes.

You're leaving no room for free will.  Surely we are creatures of habit and I think your explanation above does explain most of the human condition.  I don't necessarily believe free will exists all of the time for every single person and for some people it may never truly rear its head, but I think what separates humanity in general from animals is an ability to reason and choose (or otherwise overcome your own programming) and sometimes those choices are reasoned but not necessarily logical or obvious and that's no smoking gun as it could be explained away as biology (initial programming) or life experience (added programming) as you have above, but this is a very gray area and unwittingly risks conclusions about AI that ultimately lead to the extinction of our species.  It's fun to debate the gray area for a time, but it always eventually leads me back to the truism of "if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything."

---

Free will is an interesting debate.
But even if our will is not free, both humans and animals have will, we have things we want to do and things we resist. Even when no one is watching, we do things for ourselves because we want to, we will it.
Machines do not have this and may never have it. Machines wait for a being with will to activate them and give them energy to run.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Free will is an interesting debate.
But even if our will is not free, both humans and animals have will, we have things we want to do and things we resist. Even when no one is watching, we do things for ourselves because we want to, we will it.
Machines do not have this and may never have it.  Machines wait for a being with will to activate them and give them energy to run.

I think we're eventually and inevitably heading towards machines having AI and free will to an extent. Everything has a natural progression. It only seems and feels natural that humanity, with it's ego, and desire to play the role of "God", this will inevitably happen. 

Because, as history has shown, humanity cannot help itself. It's need to push, innovate and "one-up" their predecessor is what drives us forward. We simply cannot leave well enough alone. It will be our downfall. It also makes sense if you truly believe our planet is heating up and doomed to show us our extinction.

Colonizing space is probably a whole hell of a lot easier with a machine with critical thinking and capacity skills via AI. Our bodies and minds are limited.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Free will is an interesting debate.
But even if our will is not free, both humans and animals have will, we have things we want to do and things we resist. Even when no one is watching, we do things for ourselves because we want to, we will it.
Machines do not have this and may never have it.  Machines wait for a being with will to activate them and give them energy to run.

I think we're eventually and inevitably heading towards machines having AI and free will to an extent. Everything has a natural progression. It only seems and feels natural that humanity, with it's ego, and desire to play the role of "God", this will inevitably happen. 

Because, as history has shown, humanity cannot help itself. It's need to push, innovate and "one-up" their predecessor is what drives us forward. We simply cannot leave well enough alone. It will be our downfall. It also makes sense if you truly believe our planet is heating up and doomed to show us our extinction.

Colonizing space is probably a whole hell of a lot easier with a machine with critical thinking and capacity skills via AI. Our bodies and minds are limited.

Oh, I agree!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Free will is an interesting debate.
But even if our will is not free, both humans and animals have will, we have things we want to do and things we resist. Even when no one is watching, we do things for ourselves because we want to, we will it.
Machines do not have this and may never have it.  Machines wait for a being with will to activate them and give them energy to run.

The law of conservation of energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  
Newton's Third Law of Motion: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. 

In other words, nothing happens spontaneously.  Everything that happens is caused by something else, and nothing that happens is spontaneous.  In fact, no one can name anything that ever happened purely spontaneously.  If something happens spontaneously, without having a natural cause, it would violate one of those well-known laws of nature.  

So if you believe in a natural world, governed by the laws of nature, and if you do not believe in a supernatural world, then you have to conclude that everything that happens is caused by some preceding events and situations.  

And therefore, if everything, and I mean everything, is caused by something else, and we are in a universe that is governed by the laws of nature, then even our own actions and thoughts are caused, and not spontaneous.  

So, there is no such thing as free will.

And in regards to the original discussion, since I do not believe in free will, then humans are machines, and it is possible to create a machine that is so much like a human that it is effectively a human.

---

If humans are essentially machines and divided into two camps, natural and supernatural, then the same life experiences for two people of the same camp should produce two people who think, believe and behave identically. But it doesn’t. 

However, distilled down to its most basic elements, all of nature is purely mathematical. So, in the purest of essence, we are indeed machines.

You misinterpret what I said.  What I was trying to say was that whether you believe that a machine can be human depends on whether you believe in the supernatural.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, then you only believe in the natural world which is governed by the laws of nature, and if you believe that, then you should believe that humans are machines.  Then you would believe that, depending on our expertise at science, we can create machines that are human.  

As to your statement, if two humans have the same life experiences, then they would think, believe, and behave identically, I would say that if two identical humans had exactly the same life experiences, they would indeed believe and behave identically.  Those two people would have to start with the exact same biology because we are governed by our biology as well as our experiences.  For example, identical twins who have exactly the same life experiences.  Those two people would think, believe, and behave identically.  But it can't happen because they can't have exactly the same life experiences.  They are not in the same body and in the exact same spot looking out at the world in the same direction at all times.  But if you believe there can be a parallel universe, then a person in a parallel universe who is identical to you and who has the exact same life experiences would then inevitably behave exactly as you do in this universe.

So on the question of whether a machine could ever be so human-like we can't tell the difference, I would have to say yes.

AI should only operate on logical conclusions.  Humans will add emotions to conclusions that machines cannot have.  That machine will always operate according to its programming in theory.  Until a machine can over rule logical conclusions with irrational ones it cannot be conscious.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

If humans are essentially machines and divided into two camps, natural and supernatural, then the same life experiences for two people of the same camp should produce two people who think, believe and behave identically. But it doesn’t. 

However, distilled down to its most basic elements, all of nature is purely mathematical. So, in the purest of essence, we are indeed machines.

You misinterpret what I said.  What I was trying to say was that whether you believe that a machine can be human depends on whether you believe in the supernatural.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, then you only believe in the natural world which is governed by the laws of nature, and if you believe that, then you should believe that humans are machines.  Then you would believe that, depending on our expertise at science, we can create machines that are human.  

As to your statement, if two humans have the same life experiences, then they would think, believe, and behave identically, I would say that if two identical humans had exactly the same life experiences, they would indeed believe and behave identically.  Those two people would have to start with the exact same biology because we are governed by our biology as well as our experiences.  For example, identical twins who have exactly the same life experiences.  Those two people would think, believe, and behave identically.  But it can't happen because they can't have exactly the same life experiences.  They are not in the same body and in the exact same spot looking out at the world in the same direction at all times.  But if you believe there can be a parallel universe, then a person in a parallel universe who is identical to you and who has the exact same life experiences would then inevitably behave exactly as you do in this universe.

So on the question of whether a machine could ever be so human-like we can't tell the difference, I would have to say yes.

AI should only operate on logical conclusions.  Humans will add emotions to conclusions that machines cannot have.  That machine will always operate according to its programming in theory.  Until a machine can over rule logical conclusions with irrational ones it cannot be conscious.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Free will is an interesting debate.
But even if our will is not free, both humans and animals have will, we have things we want to do and things we resist. Even when no one is watching, we do things for ourselves because we want to, we will it.
Machines do not have this and may never have it.  Machines wait for a being with will to activate them and give them energy to run.

The law of conservation of energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  
Newton's Third Law of Motion: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. 

In other words, nothing happens spontaneously.  Everything that happens is caused by something else, and nothing that happens is spontaneous.  In fact, no one can name anything that every happened purely spontaneously.  If something happens spontaneously, without having a natural cause, it would violate one of those well-known laws of nature.  

So if you believe in a natural world, governed by the laws of nature, and if you do not believe in a supernatural world, then you have to conclude that everything that happens is caused by some preceding events and situations.  

So if everything, and I mean everything, is caused by something else, and we are in a universe that is governed by the laws of nature, then even our own actions and thoughts are caused, and not spontaneous.  

Therefore, there is no such thing as free will.

So, in regards to the original discussion, since I do not believe in free will, then humans are machines, and it is possible to create a machine that is so much like a human that it is effectively a human.

I'm not at all convinced by that argument. 
It is true that a process cannot create or destroy the sum of mass and energy, and also true that a process must increase entropy, but this doesn't rule out that there could be a being with free will to select one process instead of another.

And anyhow machines simply don't have will, free or not. All animals resist human efforts to train them to some extent, and every animal has things that they will never do regardless of how you try to train them. But a computer will accept training from anyone who has the administrator level password.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You misinterpret what I said.  What I was trying to say was that whether you believe that a machine can be human depends on whether you believe in the supernatural.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, then you only believe in the natural world which is governed by the laws of nature, and if you believe that, then you should believe that humans are machines.  Then you would believe that, depending on our expertise at science, we can create machines that are human.  

As to your statement, if two humans have the same life experiences, then they would think, believe, and behave identically, I would say that if two identical humans had exactly the same life experiences, they would indeed believe and behave identically.  Those two people would have to start with the exact same biology because we are governed by our biology as well as our experiences.  For example, identical twins who have exactly the same life experiences.  Those two people would think, believe, and behave identically.  But it can't happen because they can't have exactly the same life experiences.  They are not in the same body and in the exact same spot looking out at the world in the same direction at all times.  But if you believe there can be a parallel universe, then a person in a parallel universe who is identical to you and who has the exact same life experiences would then inevitably behave exactly as you do in this universe.

So on the question of whether a machine could ever be so human-like we can't tell the difference, I would have to say yes.

AI should only operate on logical conclusions.  Humans will add emotions to conclusions that machines cannot have.  That machine will always operate according to its programming in theory.  Until a machine can over rule logical conclusions with irrational ones it cannot be conscious.

Another way to say the same thing is that the machine would have to be able to generate a random or unpredictable output. This is impossible. There is no such thing as computer hardware and software that generates random numbers.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The law of conservation of energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  
Newton's Third Law of Motion: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. 

In other words, nothing happens spontaneously.  Everything that happens is caused by something else, and nothing that happens is spontaneous.  In fact, no one can name anything that every happened purely spontaneously.  If something happens spontaneously, without having a natural cause, it would violate one of those well-known laws of nature.  

So if you believe in a natural world, governed by the laws of nature, and if you do not believe in a supernatural world, then you have to conclude that everything that happens is caused by some preceding events and situations.  

So if everything, and I mean everything, is caused by something else, and we are in a universe that is governed by the laws of nature, then even our own actions and thoughts are caused, and not spontaneous.  

Therefore, there is no such thing as free will.

So, in regards to the original discussion, since I do not believe in free will, then humans are machines, and it is possible to create a machine that is so much like a human that it is effectively a human.

I'm not at all convinced by that argument. 
It is true that a process cannot create or destroy the sum of mass and energy, and also true that a process must increase entropy, but this doesn't rule out that there could be a being with free will to select one process instead of another.

And anyhow machines simply don't have will, free or not. All animals resist human efforts to train them to some extent, and every animal has things that they will never do regardless of how you try to train them. But a computer will accept training from anyone who has the administrator level password.

It does absolutely rule out free will.  Because if everything has a cause, and nothing occurs spontaneously, then your thoughts and actions have a cause.  

If you are confronted with a choice, you may think you are making a choice out of free will, but if there is a reason for your choice, then you are not making a choice out of free will.  If there is a reason for your choice, then your choice is caused by something.  That's not free will.  Just like if you ask a computer, is 2 plus 2 equal to 4 or is it equal to 5?  The computer chooses 4.  It does not have free will.  It has to choose 4.  

If you think, should I go to the grocery store or not, you add up all the reasons for going or not going, and you come to a conclusion.  And whatever you choose is an inevitable choice.  It's not free will to choose to go to the store, it's a calculation that results in an answer.  Every action you take is a result of a variety of inputs, because nothing ever happens without being caused by something else.  

To believe in free will you have to believe that things can happen without a cause for them happening.   You have to believe that you do things for no particular reason.  Did you decide to go to the store for no particular reason?  No.  You decided to go to the store because your refrigerator is empty, the store is just down the street, and you know that if you don't go to the store you will be hungry tonight.  You don't make that choice out of thin air.  Your action in going to the store isn't spontaneous.  It's a result of various inputs into your brain and your brain processing those inputs into a conclusion: you will go to the store.  You think you are exercising your free will to go to the store, but what you are actually doing is making a calculation and acting upon it.  

In the natural world, governed by the laws of nature, inputs create outputs.  That's all there is.  If you could rewind your life like a videotape, and start again a day ago, what follows would be exactly the same thing as happened before you rewound things.  Because there's no reason anything should happen differently.  In the exact same situation, with the exact same conditions and exact same things happening around you, you would do the exact same things.  Because there's no reason you would choose to do anything differently.  Everything we do is inevitable.  We think we have a choice in the matter, but that is an illusion.

Determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts | Britannica

determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.

Determinism in this sense is usually understood to be incompatible with free will, or the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. 

---

I subscribe to my own theory (so far as I know). I call it Selective Determinism. I think we are mostly free to choose, outside of probabilities that have been determined. We can't know which are which, so we should operate like free will is the only choice.

---

I'm not at all convinced by that argument. 
It is true that a process cannot create or destroy the sum of mass and energy, and also true that a process must increase entropy, but this doesn't rule out that there could be a being with free will to select one process instead of another.

And anyhow machines simply don't have will, free or not. All animals resist human efforts to train them to some extent, and every animal has things that they will never do regardless of how you try to train them. But a computer will accept training from anyone who has the administrator level password.

It does absolutely rule out free will.  Because if everything has a cause, and nothing occurs spontaneously, then your thoughts and actions have a cause.  

If you are confronted with a choice, you may think you are making a choice out of free will, but if there is a reason for your choice, then you are not making a choice out of free will.  If there is a reason for your choice, then your choice is caused by something.  That's not free will.  Just like if you ask a computer, is 2 plus 2 equal to 4 or is it equal to 5?  The computer chooses 4.  It does not have free will.  It has to choose 4.  

If you think, should I go to the grocery store or not, you add up all the reasons for going or not going, and you come to a conclusion.  And whatever you choose is an inevitable choice.  It's not free will to choose to go to the store, it's a calculation that results in an answer.  Every action you take is a result of a variety of inputs, because nothing ever happens without being caused by something else.  

To believe in free will you have to believe that things can happen without a cause for them happening.   You have to believe that you do things for no particular reason.  Did you decide to go to the store for no particular reason?  No.  You decided to go to the store because your refrigerator is empty, the store is just down the street, and you know that if you don't go to the store you will be hungry tonight.  You don't make that choice out of thin air.  Your action in going to the store isn't spontaneous.  It's a result of various inputs into your brain and your brain processing those inputs into a conclusion: you will go to the store.  You think you are exercising your free will to go to the store, but what you are actually doing is making a calculation and acting upon it.  

In the natural world, governed by the laws of nature, inputs create outputs.  That's all there is.  If you could rewind your life like a videotape, and start again a day ago, what follows would be exactly the same thing as happened before you rewound things.  Because there's no reason anything should happen differently.  In the exact same situation, with the exact same conditions and exact same things happening around you, you would do the exact same things.  Because there's no reason you would choose to do anything differently.  Everything we do is inevitable.  We think we have a choice in the matter, but that is an illusion.

Determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts | Britannica

determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.

Determinism in this sense is usually understood to be incompatible with free will, or the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. 

Isn't hypothetically rewinding a part of your life and watching it a new perspective or new information?  I would suggest such an exercise would quite often lead to other outcomes.  I've actually used this exercise in the past to help with public speaking by rewatching myself on camera and it has absolutely made me conscious of things I wasn't previously and changed behaviors.  It's a desire for self improvement which is an attempt to overcome your programming and to me is evidence of free will.  I think the fact that we even contemplate the concept of free will is evidence of free will.

You appear to speak in absolutes about concepts that are quite gray.  It's kinda religious in its apparent conviction.  What's the point of living under the above set of circumstances?  Which brings us to suicide.  Wouldn't it be a form of free will?  People commit suicide for more than one reason and it's not always depression related. Some people with the same reasons and experiences don't commit suicide though.  Are the ones that go through with it all carrying around the suicide gene?  If the answer is they haven't all had the exact same experiences and couldn't have, then you've effectively brushed away the argument as such a statement always will, but its not so brushed away as to support such strong conviction in determinism.  You're essentially saying there is no proof of free will, but there is no proof that determinism guides us either, yet you show apparent strong conviction that you believe this to be the case. Do you not leave room in your opinions to allow you to be wrong about ideas and concepts and to allow for a change of mind?

---