No, that was a simulation, akin to Conway's cellular automata. You seem to consider being fully under someone else's control to qualify as autonomy, at least in certain casees, which to me comes across as very bizarre.
No, that was a simulation, akin to Conway's cellular automata. You seem to consider being fully under someone else's control to qualify as autonomy, at least in certain casees, which to me comes across as very bizarre.
You seem to be taking about some kind of free will and perfect independence, not autonomy as normally understood. Agents can have autonomy within the environment they have access to. We talk about autonomous vehicles for example, where we want them to still stay within some action boundaries. Otherwise we'd be discussing metaphysics. It's not like we can cross physical/body boundaries just because we've got autonomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_robot
> An autonomous robot is a robot that acts without recourse to human control. Historic examples include space probes. Modern examples include self-driving vacuums and cars.
The same idea is used for agents - they're autonomous because they independently choose actions with a specific or vague goal.
Humans are not physical machines? Please explain.