My problem with Free Will

[deanwins]

Michael,

I'd say that reality's laws of physics are the causal agent. Quantum (discrete) bits of energy/matter are the constituents that reality works on.

Let me give you a better idea of where I think "random" comes from in a deterministic system. I'm not saying that this system is how our reality works (I'm proposing a much simpler fully self consistent causal system)... but anyways it will show my point.

Let's imagine a system where there is only discrete balls.

• Every ball is the same size (mass = 1kg).
• Balls in this system don't collide, instead they just pass right through eachother, actually instead you could think of them as volumeless points, but saying "balls" is easier to pronounce and visualize.
• The only interraction between these balls is a force just like gravity: F = G/r^2. If it weren't for this interraction, the balls would just maintain a constant speed and direction (velocity).
• The number of balls in such a system remains constant.
• Location is continual. Time is continual.

Now lets say we try to simulate such a system in a computer. Before we start a simulation, we'd have to decide on the number of balls, locations of balls relative to eachother, and initial velocities.

• To make the initialization easier, how about we'll start off all balls at the same point (0,0,0).
• We'll select each ball's speed by rolling a 10 sided dice 6 times in a row to select a speed between 0 and 999,999 meters per second.
• We'll select each ball's direction by with 12 rolls of a 10 sided dice to select theta1 and phi1 which have to be divided into ranges required at the math from http://hbfs.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/random-points-on-a-sphere-generating-random-sequences-iii/ to get a uniform distribution over the spherical 3D vector space.

OK! So now lets try to do this with X number of balls:

0 balls: boring... nothing!

1 balls: still boring: the ball just goes off at a constant speed in its initial direction

2 balls: now its more exciting: the 2 balls oscillate back and forth

3 balls: Uh-oh, math is getting too complicated now to compute continual time. We'll have to now do crude discrete time slicing, so we can't even simulate the system properly now. But we can at least get an idea of what is going on by doing very small time slices. Already, when you start this system, the balls kind of sling around eachother in less predictable ways. Maybe two of the balls would oscilate back and forth closer together, and the third ball might be moving a lot faster when it gets close and then oscillates less frequently.

4 balls: Now maybe 3 of the balls tend to spin around eachother relative to the fourth ball that only oscillates with them once in a while.

1,000,000 balls: globs of seperate oscillating systems form all over the place, sometimes oscillating more seperately, sometimes colliding and mixing and ejecting. There's no way you could look at the current state of the system and predict anywhere near where the balls would be in the next few seconds without actually performing the physical simulation. For all practical purposes, the system is "random": unpredictable! And its deterministic!

And our reality doesn't just have 1,000,000 "balls". A 68kg person (150lb), say if made by 100% water (actually we are somewhere around 72% water, but whatever, close enough), would have 2.2731E27 molecules of water. Each water molecule has ~18 total neutrons and protons, that's 4.0915E28 nuclear particles. That's just in the human body. Neutrons and protons aren't even fundamental particles. Let me type out that number: 40,915,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nuclear particles in a 68kg person. Given that the Earth's mass is 6E24kg, and the sun is 2E30kg... and those are just two little specs out of the increadible vasness of our galaxy let alone visible universe... have I helped give you an idea of how such a system could be absolutely unpredictable, and yet still deterministic?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dean,

Nope.

The moment you said, "Location is continual," you introduced randomness, principally because "constant speed and direction" do not exist in reality. That is an abstraction based on a projection, not an actual existent. At least, I have never heard of such a thing existing.

In your example, if the start is not real, if it is only an abstraction, meaning if your ball (or point) could not possibly exist because nothing in reality acts that way, what difference does it make if you multiply it a bazillions ways to Sunday? You are still multiplying something that does not exist. Zero times a bazillion is still zero. Maybe it should exist according to all kinds of math and projections, but in fact, in reality, as something you can observe, it doesn't.

If you want to consider "constant speed and direction" as one of the bases for determinism, you are deducing reality from a principle, not deriving a principle from observed reality. And that is rationalistic thought based fundamentally on abstraction, not rational thought based on observation.

(Newton, forgive me! )

This is mixing up standard of measurement with outcome. In other words, you can abstract out a feature while ignoring the rest so you can measure something using that abstraction as a standard (and connect it to math), but the outcome sill has to exist in reality for it to be real. The outcome will not be without all the stuff you ignored to get a pure abstraction like "constant speed and direction."

Setting all that aside, and looking at your thought experience from a different angle, randomness will increase with the number of deterministic elements acting with "continual location," i.e., the randomness element (or any other randomness element). Not because the math gets more complex (although that might contribute somewhat), but because the randomness part grows along with the deterministic part.

Michael

[deanwins]

Re "Nope": From the first, I wasn't trying to simulate our reality. I was describing a potential fully self consistent deterministic system which could potentially "exist" completely independently from our reality... welcome to the twilight zone, imagine a different reality. This is in order to make my point about how a deterministic system can be rediculously unpredictable. Or even so complex that its not predictable, you could only just run it and wait for the thing to change, for the future to become present to see what it will become. Just a with 10 balls in the system and it would look like it was going haywire.

Setting all that aside, and looking at your thought experience from a different angle, randomness will increase with the number of deterministic elements acting with "continual location," i.e., the randomness element (or any other randomness element). Not because the math gets more complex (although that might contribute somewhat), but because the randomness part grows along with the deterministic part.

Michael

I'd agree that the system itself is "random"/unpredictable just because it has continual spacetime. Because we can't put exact locations of the balls into our computer, we can only store and operate on ~15 decimal places on modern computers. So errors from rounding fractions would eventually add up to make the simulated system become significantly different from what the system would actually become: AKA unpredictable AKA "random". Deterministic, and yet random/unpredictable!

Also, the math does get harder as you add more balls: you have to sum up F=G/r^2 for each ball relating to each other ball in order to calculate its acceleration during a simulated time slice. If 10 balls, thats 10*9 = 90 times you have to calculate F=G/r^2. If 1,000,000 balls, then 1,000,000 * 999,999 = 999,999,000,000 F=G/r^2 calculations. And again "continual time" in alternative reality real verses discrete time slices in our computer introduces more error (unpredictability/randomness).

=========

So anyways... do you now agree that a deterministic system who's parts all interact in a continual manner... can be an extremely rediculously unpredictable chaotically changing thing? That mind blowingly unpredictable events could happen in a deterministic system, essentially making some things completely non-predictable? That our reality could be deterministic, and yet practically its essentially impossible to predict some kinds of events to the same degree of random as a child playing with fair dice trying to guess which side the fair throw will land on?

[Francisco Ferrer]

Quite right: why am I arguing past you and "demolishing positions [you've] never taken"?

Tell you why, I am attempting to argue logically AND conceptually while you -proof in point of skepticism- have adhered to logic- at times, fallacious logic- all through. I look for the causes (e.g.skepticism)and consequences(individual self-sacrifice, political collectivism) of a particular concept. The one concept I've seen from you is 'determinism'(as much an anti-concept) which I think should be judged on its consequences in reality, not as a floating abstraction.

If you believe in arguing logically and conceptually, why not pause every once in a while and offer some actual proof, some scientific evidence for free will? Sorry, but introspection is no more a proof for free will than it is a proof for God.

Here's another fallacy, a definitional one: "...if you are correct [on reason] then computers must have free will".

No, that is not 'reason' which in O'ism denotes conceptualization. But it explains your error in the identity of reason. Logic is a method of reason, not another name of it.

That "acknowledgment of the existence of consciousness" is pretty weak and unconvincing, if one ignores the evidence of one's senses and its wilful consequent, formation of concepts - to nevertheless still arrive at determinism as the definitive factor of man's nature.

First of all, computers are capable of conceptualization. Secondly, you have not proven that free will is a prerequisite for conceptualization. You have only made assertions.

Evidence of the senses? Which one or more of the five senses do we use to discover this theoretic free will?

It is critical to bring in, that as well as "a being of volitional consciousness", man is also of hierarchical consciousness--in his value system as well as his concept-formation. With free will a presupposed 'given' he can move ahead, not blithely dismissing or negating all the background factors in his development - but relegating them in an order of chosen importance and reality-hierarchy.

That's one more fault in hard determinism I think, the notion - for an individual - that "all facts are equal".

If you have something called "free will," it is apparently doing you no good in processing the facts of reality. Can you quote one determinist who actually took the position that there are no hierarchies and that all facts are equal (another strawman)? Such a person would have to believe that humans are incapable of choosing between edible and non-edible materials. Since animals also regularly form hierarchies, we now have to suppose that animals too have free will.

[dldelancey]

Peter,

It's Troi, not Troy, and I'll thank you to call me Commander.

Deanna

- the real one who is not an empath

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael,

I'd say that reality's laws of physics are the causal agent. Quantum (discrete) bits of energy/matter are the constituents that reality works on.

The laws of physics are general assertions about the natural world. They may be correct assertion or they could be incorrect assertions.

In any case the assert about the world is NOT the world. The word is NOT the thing. And the portrait is NOT the model.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

If you believe in arguing logically and conceptually, why not pause every once in a while and offer some actual proof, some scientific evidence for free will? Sorry, but introspection is no more a proof for free will than it is a proof for God.

There is no science possible in philosophical statements as such for those are deductions with empirical aid while science is basically empirical with deductions as an aid to inquiry. Free will is inferred--as is determinism--out of something(s). God is inferred out of nothing. Empiricism doesn't ramp up--that is, science--until we leave the direct reach of axiomatic reasoning in metaphysics and epistemology. This is why no one can win a free will-determinism debate. If you are ignorant if not dumb you can lose, of course, which is strange for the other side won't win for your losing for actually winning means proving. (A third party judge merely takes sides.)

--Brant

Rand's argumentative power came mostly from her absolutism and logically deductive reasoning, a potent combo used to steam-roller her adversaries and seduce her admirers and had little to do with why she should be--might be--called a "genius," not that she wasn't one, but outside pure philosophy and her fiction writing it is hard to discern

[deanwins]

Ba'al, Laws of physics as discovered by man are not the same as the yet to be discovered reality's true laws. Never the less, if reality is deterministic then such equations must exist.

[Peter]

Deanna wrote, “It's Troi, not Troy, and I'll thank you to call me Commander.”

As Goofy said, “Garsh, Deanna. Are you placing yourself in my StarTrek script?” And if you are a Commander, I will designate myself “Commander” too. Thanks for the correct spelling.

[Peter]

Dean wrote:

Ba'al, Laws of physics as discovered by man are not the same as the yet to be discovered reality's true laws. Never the less, if reality is deterministic then such equations must exist.

end quote

Are you Scien-terrific folk saying equations are floating out there and humans can sometimes snatch them out of the air like a child chasing a bubble? Nowhere in nature are equations posted on a bulletin board or etched into stone. I would say those equations are manifestations of *volition.* *Logic* is a manifestation of *volition.* And it is hard to prove my assertions because WE ARE PART OF THE EXPERIMENT, our logic creates the equations, our experiments are verified by *us,* and our introspection and reason prove the existence of *volition.* I claim with some frustration that a determinist cannot create a NEW thought without utilizing their volition to do so. Proof of human determinism requires predictions which become factual. And jokingly I say, Determinists should all be rich and have all the pretty ladies they want.

As Desi Arnez said, “There has never been a female determinist. ‘Splain that to me Lucy.”

[BaalChatzaf]

Are you Scien-terrific folk saying equations are floating out there and humans can sometimes snatch them out of the air like a child chasing a bubble? Nowhere in nature are equations posted on a bulletin board or etched into stone. I would say those equations are manifestations of *volition.* *Logic* is a manifestation of *volition.* And it is hard to prove my assertions because WE ARE PART OF THE EXPERIMENT, our logic creates the equations, our experiments are verified by *us,* and our introspection and reason prove the existence of *volition.* I claim with some frustration that a determinist cannot create a NEW thought without utilizing their volition to do so. Proof of human determinism requires predictions which become factual. And jokingly I say, Determinists should all be rich and have all the pretty ladies they want.

cosmologist Max Tegmark thinks so. See his latest book.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So anyways... do you now agree that a deterministic system who's parts all interact in a continual manner... can be an extremely rediculously unpredictable chaotically changing thing? That mind blowingly unpredictable events could happen in a deterministic system, essentially making some things completely non-predictable? That our reality could be deterministic, and yet practically its essentially impossible to predict some kinds of events to the same degree of random as a child playing with fair dice trying to guess which side the fair throw will land on?

Dean,

I already said I agree there is a possibility this way of thinking will end up being true for the whole enchilada. I already agree that it is part of the enchilada.

That is not the same thing as saying it is dogmatically true forever and ever for all cases everywhere amen.

Besides, I'm a top and bottom person, not a bottom up only person. That's the way I lean because it makes sense to me. Your way (for the whole enchilada) makes less sense to me.

Regardless, there is no way either you or I can know for sure at this stage of human knowledge. (However, I believe humans will one day know for sure.)

I know this grates on a math-oriented mind, but all we have is a glorified opinion right now regarding determinism. Slice and dice it any way you want, it always comes back to that: opinion dressed up in big words.

Michael

[Peter]

Jokingly I said, “Determinists should all be rich and have all the pretty ladies they want.”

And (behind the 8) Ba’al responded, "ecosmologist Max Tegmark thinks so. See his latest book."

[Peter]

Are Determinists evaders? Is a human’s subconscious determined? Can humans “volitionally reprogram” their subconscious? Is that determinism? Here are a few letters addressing these questions.

Peter

From: BBfromM@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Question for Gayle (or: Lies and Rights in Gayle's Language)

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:12:32 EST

Gayle wrote: <<Barbara and James have said the following: I think it's impossible to really "lie to yourself.">>

Then I must ask, what is your concept of "evasion"??

Evasion has nothing to do with lying to yourself. It precedes the possibility of telling a lie to yourself -- which, as James has pointed out, is not possible anyway. Evasion means not letting oneself know that which is present in one's subconscious and available to the conscious mind. One doesn't have to lie about it; evasion means that one does not allow it to be conscious; so one doesn't have to deal with the alternative of lying or not lying.

Barbara

Rand wrote about "acquired skills", The Comprachicos, p.156-158:

This skill does not pertain to the particular *content* pf a man's knowledge at any given age, but to the *method* by which he acquires and organizes his knowledge - the method by which his mind deals with its content. The method *programs* his subconscious computer, determining how efficiently, lamely or disastrously his cognitive processes will function. The programming of a man's subconscious consists of the kind of cognitive habits he acquires; these habits constitute his psycho-epistemology."

end quote

From “Mind in Objectivism, A Survey of Objectivist Commentary on Philosophy of Mind,” By Diana Mertz Hsieh:

. . . . In the Q&A period, Binswanger also offers some interesting elaborations on his views. He argues that the entity-action relationship is different when applied to consciousness than to the physical world. On an Aristotelian theme, he claims that both a person's physical body and consciousness are abstractions from the “whole person... given in perception.” In response to a question on emergentism, Binswanger argues that the simple form of emergentism (where the complexity of the organism gives rise to consciousness) is true but unhelpful, whereas the complex form (where the properties of the whole are not predictable from the properties of the parts) would be helpful were it not false. He also offers an explanation of conservation of energy with respect to his idea of mental force and theorizes that the subconscious is just the brain.

My most basic worry about Binswanger's theory of mind is his tendency to reify the mind, if not into a separate entity, then into a semi-disconnected, independent action or existent of some kind. This worry is particularly salient in light of Binswanger's explicit endorsement of dualism in response to a question after the third lecture. Let me quote the question and answer in its entirety, so as ensure accuracy:

Question: This is a question asking for clarification on some basic concepts. I'm having a hard time formulating the question precisely, but it concerns the concept of irreducibility. I understand why consciousness is an irreducible concept, but I'm having difficulty distinguishing that from what I know is a false view of consciousness, which would be a Cartesian metaphysical dualism that there exists some thing called consciousness and then there's the material world and consciousness can exist separate from that. Clearly that's wrong, yet...

end quote

From: "Sindre Berg Stene" <drgnfly@online.no>

To: <Atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Self-Made Soul: How true is it?

Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:44:38 +0200

Although I agree in the claim about heredity and environment being important factors, I will try to defend my view that man can form his own mind on all levels; that any part of man's subconscious mind partaking in making a decision or causing an emotion may be influenced by his conscious mind (Although some parts easier than others).

There are several subconscious "functions" so to speak, that can be influenced by the conscious mind. Alertness, suppressing and provoking emotion, and even training certain faculties: Mathematical, logical, spatial (how to fit lots of things into a small freezer), and social thinking skills can be trained. I'm not thinking of the acquiring of knowledge, but rather the training of faculties with which you use or process knowledge.

You can even influence the way your brain stores knowledge using certain techniques (I use one for remembering 3.141592653589793 etc.). Though this might not be the sort of thing Mr. Foddis was thinking of in his post (memorizing facts certainly isn't)...

By reflection and judgment, I think it is possible to influence the way your subconscious responds to things. For instance, lets say you are performing a difficult but boring task that needs to be done, but you would rather be doing something else at the moment. This can happen from time to time even if you enjoy your work (don't get me wrong, that should be the case). Now, rather than allowing the frustration to get to you and lose your concentration, you can shortly consider your motives for performing the task in the first place, and how it would feel good to be finished with the task. Generally, be alert about not feeling bad about doing something you actually want to finish, while doing it. If you _do_ feel bad about the task while performing it, not only will the result be worse and/or take more time; but also, the next time you're in a similar situation, your subconscious is more likely to respond in the same negative way, giving the same emotional effect. Maybe even in advance, making you postponing the task.

I believe that when you are at stage in your (mental) life where you are capable of thinking in complex philosophical terms, your mind is no longer "tabula rasa", but may still be treated as if it was.

Why limit your mental "self-discipline" to matters of ethics and esthetics? There are several other ways to influence your own mind on a deeper level, beyond the conscious mind. Generally, by first conscious understanding of what and why, and then understanding the following emotional responses to those whats and whys, you can become aware of the emotional responses that you consciously do not agree with, as they arise. You can correct your own subconscious response (emotional or not), by considering whether or not it is one you would consciously agree with. This is especially tricky when your subconsciously induced emotions tend to influence your conscious thoughts.

Just keep in mind that a silent break to consider the potential benefits of the situation is usually a good idea when (1) you're working on something you want to complete and (2) the difficulties are making you frustrated and tired. Or when (1) you're in a position when your attention is especially beneficial to you but (2) negative emotions are for whatever reason affecting your concentration.

Some of these things came to my attention when reading about artificial neural networks (computer science, artificial intelligence). In one of these models (NN using back propagation and two output nodes.), the output result of a consideration of several inputs is just a yes or no, and to which degree. If you have a set of correct answers, you feed it back to the network that produced the result. If it made an error, it will correct the specific path that produced the error, changing more where the influence was higher, all the way through the internal hierarchy up to the input nodes("senses"). By using a set of "questions and answers" you can train the net until it responds correctly to each question, assuming it can hold enough information.(Sometimes it learns the logic that leads a set of input to the corresponding answer, other times it just remembers all the combinations)

Similarly, in a brain, positive (emotional) feedback about a thought (such as pride of accomplishment), strengthens the paths that lead to that "result". For instance, a child feeling good about completing a math task using the logic of arithmetic, strengthens the "paths" that used that logic to solve the problem. Also, when faced with a similar problem, the child is more likely to solve it using the same method, and each time making the task more of a task for the subconscious (and memory). My point is that the positive emotion about the result might make the brain trace the result back to the problem, strengthening the "path" by which the result was made, as with the artificial NN. Of course, this is rather theoretical(and deterministic), but might serve as a useful model/analogy.

Keeping this effect of a positive emotion (or positive moral judgment) in mind, consider the following example:

Why do you think so many speeches start with a joke? Because telling a joke in a speech not only gets the audiences attention, if also causes them to attempt to retain more information. This causes them to remember the content of the speech more easily, because the positive emotion in laughter causes strengthening of a "link", in this case attention to the speaker. At the other end of the emotional scope, is the characteristic flaw of forgetting facts that a person don't like. Uninteresting facts are easily forgotten. Theories to which you attach negative emotions are easily ignored. Lack of confidence in your ability to understand the theory has the same effect. An exception worth mentioning here, is that the pride of the accomplishment of a proper refutation of those ideas makes the theories easier to remember.

One could say that confidence in your own faculty of reason makes you more intelligent in that it help you approach the problem, and then solving the problem with a positive attitude makes you more confident in solving that kind of problem.

The parallels of the workings of the different levels in the brain are seemingly endless. The most noticeable effect is the immediate emotion that comes from a judgment. You should not take that for granted, because it can be influenced by the values you consciously approve. Regarding values and moral judgments, the ability to influence your own emotional responses by adopting certain values is a well known fact to Objectivists. But beyond that, I believe you can also influence the workings of the subconscious and even memory. Man's faculty of reason is the prime concern here, more specifically the ability to influence the way your mind works as I attempted to describe in this post, approaching what Ayn Rand referred to as man's "self-made soul".

Sincerely,

Sindre Berg Stene

[deanwins]

Equations that describe how the most fundamental parts of reality interact are yet to be written by man. They will not be discovered written somewhere unless we are visited by an alien intelligence. Otherwise we have to discover them the old fashioned scientific method way: guess and check.

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrel,

"... having a physical explanation for volition is devastating to the arguments for human determinism"

Here's two ways new ideas can be generated: they can be transformations of previously generated ideas, or they can be made from a sequence of "random" information. And transformation algorithms can be generated with random processes too. I totally agree that such "random" processes are critical aspects of learning and planning. Now we just debate whether "random" information is generated by a rediculously vast causal deterministic process, or if things actually happen that are fully independent of the past.

The former can fully satisfyingly explain a source of increadibly high quality unpredictable information generation. The later would seem in my mind to contradict conservation of energy and momentum. Either way we have elements of our behavior that are not controlled by our logic/reasoning.

So let me talk further on your "humans are a source of random information"... given the vast number of atomic particles throughout the universe, and forces between them, and electromagnetic and gravitational forces... whatever they fundamentally break down to, we find that all energy/matter in the universe interacts with all other matter in the universe. So a comet's collision with a solar flare in another galaxy might result in an up spin rather than a down spin of an electron that flowed from one atom to the next across a electrical potential difference in your synapse. Who could have predicted that? Nobody... yet due to our reality's vast quantity of fundamental constituents which all continually interact... it may very well still be a deterministic system.

And its not just humans that generate "random" information. There are all sorts of high quality random number generators made from things like radiation counters to xor & shifting data from an analog to digital converter. From computer science we learn that its actually pretty hard to create cryptographic quality random data. The best source for random data comes from using a sensor that senses data from a large portion of reality rather than using a seed & math function.

Our skin is loaded with sensors, and temperature, pressure, and other data, which is all continually streaming into our nervous system. Surely our brains use this information to create new information ("random" of course, then use increadible parallel processing power to determine whether the generated information is valid and useful).

Hi Dean,

As I attempted to explain here and here, it is possible to have non-deterministic systems that don't "contradict" conservation of energy or momentum. You just have to have a set of differential equations with non-Lipschitz points as explained in this this article. I encourage you to take a look at the article. I don't know enough about you to know whether that article is comprehensible, but you seem quite knowledgeable.

Although the article talks about noise, it is clear that the trajectory of a point on a non-deterministic harmonic oscillator will be random no matter how small amplitude of the noise is. The reason I included a link to the article in my original post on this thread is that it completely undermines the idea that classical physics is deterministic and thereby completely undermines one of the main arguments for determinism.

I think it is interesting that you mentioned the fact that "its actually pretty hard to create cryptographic quality random data." That observation seems to undermine your own argument for determinism. If it is difficult to generate random numbers using a simple mechanical process, one has to wonder whether it is possible to generate random numbers using a more complex mechanical process. It may be possible to tap into random physical processes to generate random numbers, but how do we know that the brain doesn't already tap into random physical processes?

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

4=(3+1)=((2+1)+1)=(2+(1+1)=2+2

I have a program which has done that manipulation. Does this mean my computer + program thinks?

Yes, but clearly if this is all it does, then its thinking ability is quite limited. Defining thinking as processing information, and information as relationships between parts of reality... then any kind of interaction between parts of reality is thinking. Some thinking more complex and having different properties/features than others (such as the ability to sense, simulate/predict, and actuate).

I'm not so sure about your definition of thinking or even your definition of information. Relationships between parts of reality exist apart from any information about them. Information might be taken as the physical representation (as in a computer) of relationships between the parts of reality.

Ayn Rand defines reasoning as the "non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality." Since a computer program for manipulating mathematical symbols using the laws of symbolic logic doesn't identify any facts, it can't be said to be thinking. A similar comment could be made about a chess program.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Consciousness is not the same as free will. As I have said already in this thread there are a number of scientific ways to measure consciousness. There has never been any research to successfully identify and quantify a force called "free will," embedded or otherwise. In fact, work by Benjamin Libet has shown that activity in the brain's motor regions can be detected some 300 milliseconds before a person feels that he has decided to move. Thus, there are specific, material forces that produce choices and actions but which precede our consciousness of them, i.e. our "volition."

How is it possible to know, to within a third of a second, when someone feels that he has decided to move? And why is it that neural activity in the motor regions of the brain invalidates the notion of free-will?

Darrell

[Peter]

Dean wrote:

Equations that describe how the most fundamental parts of reality interact are yet to be written by man. They will not be discovered written somewhere unless we are visited by an alien intelligence. Otherwise we have to discover them the old fashioned scientific method way: guess and check.

end quote

SETI could hear a signal that could rock our world. I saw a documentary about the real head of SETI. Currently she wears her hair short, has heavy rings, and does not remind me of Jodi Foster, but she was quite nice. The SETI listeners have cameras on them in case first contact is made, to record the listener’s reactions. She was nice enough to show the video of herself when she heard our own sun probe (four close bands of radio waves, definitely not natural – her hair was longer and darker) and she thought it was an ET, and danced in her chair like a child. It was very inspiring.

On the TV show The Big Bang Theory we see “young Einstein’s” using a black chalk board which seems quaint. I have always wondered what Albert would have discovered if he had had access to a modern computer? Probably no more than what he had already discovered, but who knows? Imagine trying to teach Einstein to use a computer. “Albert, don’t ever mouse this icon. It is called “Solitaire.”

Dean wrote:

Here's two ways new ideas can be generated: they can be transformations of previously generated ideas, or they can be made from a sequence of "random" information. And transformation algorithms can be generated with random processes too. I totally agree that such "random" processes are critical aspects of learning and planning.

end quote

Our imaginations always predict we will find evidence of an alien intelligence in the ancient pyramids, in a signal from space, or in a monolith as in 2001 A Space Odyssey which will move us forward a thousand years. That’s wishful thinking but advanced computers can certainly crunch the numbers quicker than a human. Old Albert could have more quickly disproved blind alleys which might have speeded up his creative endeavors. Does anyone think computers will give us that desired acceleration? If so, just how? It is certainly worth a grant or two to find out.

Darrell wrote:

Ayn Rand defines reasoning as the "non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality." Since a computer program for manipulating mathematical symbols using the laws of symbolic logic doesn't identify any facts, it can't be said to be thinking. A similar comment could be made about a chess program.

end quote

Excellent reasoning Darrell. I agree with you. I am not worried that a super computer will become “aware,” though I do worry as in the “Sky Net” concept from “Terminator” that someone will program a computer to protect humans, but it is mis-programmed.

[deanwins]

Darrell,

From the paper: "The type of "non-determinism" described above should not be construed as implying stochasticity. Indeed, the behavior of both the NDHO and neutron star model are uniquely determined away from the singular point. It is at this point, and this point only, that the non-deterministic nature of the equations arises. In the presence of random fluctuations, which are ubiquitous (though perhaps small) in physical systems, the non-determinism, albeit it at a single point, becomes important."

It sounds to me like all they are saying is that they found an equation where in the presence of "random fluctuations", when moving through a particular point, the small fluctuations can have a big effect on trajectory. That's not surprising to me. The paper doesn't discuss whether the "random fluctuations" are causal. What I would like to see is a system that generates non-causal "random fluctuations" that conserves energy and momentum.

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrell,

From the paper: "The type of "non-determinism" described above should not be construed as implying stochasticity. Indeed, the behavior of both the NDHO and neutron star model are uniquely determined away from the singular point. It is at this point, and this point only, that the non-deterministic nature of the equations arises. In the presence of random fluctuations, which are ubiquitous (though perhaps small) in physical systems, the non-determinism, albeit it at a single point, becomes important."

It sounds to me like all they are saying is that they found an equation where in the presence of "random fluctuations", when moving through a particular point, the small fluctuations can have a big effect on trajectory. That's not surprising to me. The paper doesn't discuss whether the "random fluctuations" are causal. What I would like to see is a system that generates non-causal "random fluctuations" that conserves energy and momentum.

Random fluctuations aren't really necessary for the theory of non-deterministic chaos. When the system passes through the singularity, its trajectory on the other side isn't determined by the laws of physics. That is, in the case of the NDHO, the system must follow a circular trajectory, but the radius of the trajectory after passing through the singularity isn't determined by the equations.

Even if a system isn't precisely non-deterministic in the sense that the singularity isn't exactly singular, but close to singular, there is still a problem. Because, if the singularity is very small, then the system would have to be capable of storing an enormous amount of information in order for its trajectory to be deterministic. You are claiming that such trajectories are to be viewed as being represented by real numbers, but I have argued in a previous post that there is a limit to the amount of information that an actual, physical system can represent, so it would be impossible for any physical system to deterministically pass through a point that is nearly singular. Alternately, information about the past would be lost while passing through a choke point and not replaced with anything so that the evolution of such systems, indeed almost all systems, would become simpler over time.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

First of all, computers are capable of conceptualization. Secondly, you have not proven that free will is a prerequisite for conceptualization. You have only made assertions.

Expert systems do not have concepts and who the heck is Charles Malcolm Hatton?

Darrell

[deanwins]

Because, if the singularity is very small, then the system would have to be capable of storing an enormous amount of information in order for its trajectory to be deterministic. You are claiming that such trajectories are to be viewed as being represented by real numbers, but I have argued in a previous post that there is a limit to the amount of information that an actual, physical system can represent, so it would be impossible for any physical system to deterministically pass through a point that is nearly singular

You are treating reality being itself with a discrete computer simulating reality (which requires operating/modifying discrete relations between parts of reality). Or if you want to fall back to using an analog computer, analog computers are extremely succeptable to noise (again facing another problem with simulating reality using a computer within the reality rather than reality being itself). Hence your demand that a real system not being able to have exact continuous relations is not necessarily true. Hence information may very well be preserved through "near singularities" if reality can just be its exact contuous self.

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrell wrote:

Ayn Rand defines reasoning as the "non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality." Since a computer program for manipulating mathematical symbols using the laws of symbolic logic doesn't identify any facts, it can't be said to be thinking. A similar comment could be made about a chess program.

end quote

Excellent reasoning Darrell. I agree with you. I am not worried that a super computer will become “aware,” though I do worry as in the “Sky Net” concept from “Terminator” that someone will program a computer to protect humans, but it is mis-programmed.

Hi Peter,

I'm not concerned about a computer accidentally becoming "aware" but I agree with Dean that it will probably, eventually be possible to create computers that are conscious and aware. At the same time, we should be careful not to confuse the kind of processing performed by a chess program or a theorem prover with thinking. Such programs may contain some elements that are required for conscious thought, but they don't contain all of the necessary ingredients.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Because, if the singularity is very small, then the system would have to be capable of storing an enormous amount of information in order for its trajectory to be deterministic. You are claiming that such trajectories are to be viewed as being represented by real numbers, but I have argued in a previous post that there is a limit to the amount of information that an actual, physical system can represent, so it would be impossible for any physical system to deterministically pass through a point that is nearly singular

You are treating reality being itself with a discrete computer simulating reality (which requires operating/modifying discrete relations between parts of reality). Or if you want to fall back to using an analog computer, analog computers are extremely succeptable to noise (again facing another problem with simulating reality using a computer within the reality rather than reality being itself). Hence your demand that a real system not being able to have exact continuous relations is not necessarily true. Hence information may very well be preserved through "near singularities" if reality can just be its exact contuous self.

Quantum theory requires that the relationships, whether spatial relationships between objects or energy levels, be quantized. So, it is not clear that reality is continuous in the sense necessary for information to be preserved through near singularities. If elementary particles can only exist in certain states and no others, then there really is a limit to the amount of information that can be represented by a physical system. So, the current science points towards the idea that the information representation capacity of a physical system is limited.

In my view, the fact that a real physical system must have a limited capacity to represent information is actually more fundamental than quantum theory. It is a consequence of the philosophical principle that anything that exists must be finite applied to the notion of infinitesimal. Anything that exists must have a specific nature meaning that it cannot be either infinite or infinitesimal. That means, in any existing physical system, there is a limit to how small a difference in position (or velocity or momentum or energy) can be represented by that system at any point in time. That is to say, if a particle can be in a particular state within a system, then it cannot be in many other states, particularly those that are too close to the original state.

I should point out that I'm not saying that a particle cannot exist at any real valued point in space. I'm saying that within a system of particles where, say, one particle is moving and the others are stationary, the orbits of the moving particle cannot be infinitesimally distinguishable. Quantum theory is a consequence of the principle that all real physical systems are finite. That is why there is only a finite number of stable electron orbits around any given nucleus. That's what happens when continuous math bumps up against finite reality.

Darrell