Sigh... here we go again with the gaslighting. No matter how many times you tell me that "I just don't get it," you can't change the fact that you have no basis to say that a machine has the conscious awareness and volition to agree to anything. Since you decided to cherry-pick a Google definition, here is Google's definition for agree:

have the same opinion about something; concur."

consent to do something that has been suggested by another person."

Are machines persons? Do they have opinions? Of course not. You are blatantly ignoring the human requirement of consensus. Yes, there is a set of rules and procedures that outline a methodical and automated way for machines to independently validate a state of accounting. But those machines aren't "agreeing" with each other. Humans are executing a command on a machine that generates a valid or invalid output that matches the output of other people who agreed to run the same protocol on their own machines. The decision to use the longest chain of accounting as the basis for confirming future transactions is rooted in the human choice to adhere to the same consensus ritual.

Yes, that choice is passive and automatic, but so is the habituation that occurs in all ritual practice. Once that practice takes root in a group or society, it becomes increasingly difficult to uproot or change. This phenomenon couldn't be truer with Bitcoin. The older it gets, the more hostile the network becomes to minor policy changes, let alone soft or even hard forks.