untermensche
Contributor
The assumption there is that you can't have agency without awareness.
Awareness requires two things. That which is aware. And that which it is aware of.
That which is aware is consciousness.
But consciousness is also that which says everyday: "I will believe this today. I will be a Republican today." It is that which chooses what it will believe at any moment. And it can freely choose to believe something else at any moment.
Why can't an evolved system that has evolved to make decisions not make them freely.
You are talking about an automated decision, not a free decision. Even if it is random. Where the Pachinko ball ends up is random and it is programed. But it is not free.
The only kind of "programming" you can talk about is human designed programming. Programming where the objective exists first.
That's just empirically false. Google 'Genetic algorithms' or just 'self programing AI'.
Those are programs invented with a goal in mind. Most likely they have nothing to do with any natural mechanism.
The computer scientists have to prove their programming applies to biological systems.
Not when they are simulating a biological connectome and working on the processes that animate it - I'd suggest you might want to take a peek at the convergence of neurobiology and neurocomputation.
Yes, working on something.
And proving nothing yet.
That is not assumed. The opposite is assumed.
I think either case cannot be assumed but needs supporting evidence.
The rational assumption minus very good evidence is human programs have nothing to do with natural systems except they were devised whole by one, like mathematics.