[QUOTE=Jookia;32996534]I don't think free will exists. That changing of mind would be based on my personality and information I have, plus weighing the outcomes of the decision, not free will.
Also, we can't know outcomes of decisions, as it means by definition it's an outcome. Past tense.[/QUOTE]
I chose to make this reply.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;32996675]I chose to make this reply.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you're quite getting what he's saying.
JOOKIA i agree 100%m lyke if u offer selfish horrid person 1mil$$$ or chance to give to charity he take it, but if u offer generous church moron it he give to charity, it wus choice but its obv y they made choice
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Spammer /shitposter. Giving you a chance to post properly when you come back. Use it." - verynicelady))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=BlkDucky;32996738]I don't think you're quite getting what he's saying.[/QUOTE]
I am:
I could of decided not to make that reply, the fact that no one else did it shows free will as well.
I didn't think of any outcome. We can know the outcome of decisions, it just might not be correct.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;32996776]I am:
I could of decided not to make that reply, the fact that no one else did it shows free will as well.
I didn't think of any outcome. We can know the outcome of decisions, it just might not be correct.[/QUOTE]
That's not free will.
[QUOTE=Jookia;32996777]That's not free will.[/QUOTE]
It contradicts what you said, so if you don't consider that free will then update your post
@jookia: I don't know how you can deny the existance of consiousness outright. Maybe we're operating with diffferent definitions of the word?
[QUOTE=Map in a box;32996776]I am:
I could of decided not to make that reply, the fact that no one else did it shows free will as well.
I didn't think of any outcome. We can know the outcome of decisions, it just might not be correct.[/QUOTE]You aren't getting it.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;32996961]It contradicts what you said, so if you don't consider that free will then update your post[/QUOTE]
I said that every action of ours is dictated by previous actions, previous thoughts, like a long chain reaction.
[editline]28th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;32996965]@jookia: I don't know how you can deny the existance of consiousness outright. Maybe we're operating with diffferent definitions of the word?[/QUOTE]
I don't deny consciousness existing, I just think it's the wrong term, and that every animal has some form of it dictated by their intelligence.
[QUOTE=Jookia;32996991]I said that every action of ours is dictated by previous actions, previous thoughts, like a long chain reaction.
[editline]28th October 2011[/editline]
I don't deny consciousness existing, I just think it's the wrong term, and that every animal has some form of it dictated by their intelligence.[/QUOTE]
No one can really tell as it would be "biased"
Thinking about it more, I'd say it's the right term for what we experience, I think my message was more that I think all living things have it to a degree.
[editline]28th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Map in a box;32997097]No one can really tell as it would be "biased"[/QUOTE]
What?
But I can feel every part of my body. I can see what my eyes can see and hear with my ears. A program following certain logic might as well be inteligent by your definition, yet it wouldn actually see or do anything. It doesnt have a "pilot" that's controling what it does like you and me are.
Sorry for being so abstract. I don't really know how to express what I'm thinking...
[QUOTE=Darwin226;32997410]But I can feel every part of my body. I can see what my eyes can see and hear with my ears. A program following certain logic might as well be inteligent by your definition, yet it wouldn actually see or do anything. It doesnt have a "pilot" that's controling what it does like you and me are.
Sorry for being so abstract. I don't really know how to express what I'm thinking...[/QUOTE]
My computer sees my mouse input, my netbook has a webcam. We're not pilots, we're brains.
[QUOTE=Jookia;32997111]Thinking about it more, I'd say it's the right term for what we experience, I think my message was more that I think all living things have it to a degree.
[editline]28th October 2011[/editline]
What?[/QUOTE]
Hard to explain.
Someone let me know if I start sounding stupid or miss the point but[QUOTE=Darwin226;32997410]But I can feel every part of my body. I can see what my eyes can see and hear with my ears. A program following certain logic might as well be inteligent by your definition, yet it wouldn actually see or do anything. [b]It doesnt have a "pilot" that's controling what it does like you and me are.[/b]Sorry for being so abstract. I don't really know how to express what I'm thinking...[/QUOTE] That's the point. Are we truly controlling anything? The whole "free-will is an illusion" thing basically boils down to: if you were placed in a scenario, you'd resolve that scenario by weighing up the possible outcomes, taking into account your personality and whatnot and doing what you chose to do.But, no matter how many times you were placed in that scenario, provided you have exactly the same knowledge as the first time (i.e. you don't remember the first time, haven't learned anything new. You are in exactly the same state.), and all the parameters of the scenario are identical, you would do the same thing again.Therefore, if you "choose" the same thing every time without fail, was there ever truly a choice? i.e. the free-will to decide for yourself. So how is this any different from a computer? An AI would do the same thing, every time, based on the predicted outcomes.
wow, chromium took out all of my newlines for some reason
[editline]28th October 2011[/editline]
wow, way to break my automerge
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;32994145]This is actually something I think about pretty frequently. Lots of things resemble these sort of complex networks of simple parts. It's interesting to wonder if we aren't all too dissimilar from neurons and whether society as a whole is its own 'brain' with its own ideas, decisions, and motivations. Also, it's probably why fractals disturb me just a little -- I think they say something about the nature of the universe that I really don't care to know.[/QUOTE]
I think that's entirely plausible. Just like individual cells in your body only "know" about their own local environment, responding to local stimuli, and can't perceive that they're part of a larger organism. A skin cell on your fingertip, and another one on your thumb, would see each other as being impossibly far away from their own limited perspectives — yet you can bring them together with barely a thought. Think for a moment about how complex that "simple" action really is at the level of nerves, muscle cells, and the chemical reactions that happen within them.
The whole of human interactions is far too complex for any human to comprehend, but when you consider that we've created whole industries for things like bringing food from the fields to people's mouths, and healing people who are injured or sick, you can start to see these as body functions, just like blood vessels or an immune system, in a larger organism that is the human race.
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;32994145]However, if you look at a computer in its most primitive form, something which might be akin to [url=http://xkcd.com/505/]moving rocks[/url] according to some very simple predefined rules, then you consider whether such a system may have consciousness (Descartes' "I think, therefore I am", being aware of our own existence), you see just how wide the disparity is between the two.[/QUOTE]
Are you familiar with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life]Conway's game of life[/url]? It's a 2D grid of bits and a few simple rules about bits turning on or off based on the state of their immediate neighbors. But certain patterns have emergent properties: a "glider", for example, reproduces its own pattern at an offset position, so that over time it [i]moves[/i] across the grid. And a "glider gun" produces and endless stream of gliders moving away from itself.
The fascinating thing about the Game of Life is that it's Turing-complete — in fact, someone has even [url=http://rendell-attic.org/gol/tm.htm]made a Turing machine with it[/url]. So any program you can write on your computer can be carried out by the GoL's four simple transition rules. And assuming a deterministic brain, any thought you can think can also be "thought" by those same four simple rules.
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;32994145] How can rocks, being lifted and moved around by a person, have their own consciousness? I can't really can't reconcile this gap without admitting that there's something missing from the puzzle.[/QUOTE]
How can a bunch of molecules and ions, interacting according to the ordinary laws of physics, have their own consciousness? That's all your brain really is.
[editline]28th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BlkDucky;33000091]Therefore, if you "choose" the same thing every time without fail, was there ever truly a choice? i.e. the free-will to decide for yourself. So how is this any different from a computer? An AI would do the same thing, every time, based on the predicted outcomes.[/QUOTE]
It's still free will even if it's deterministic, because the choice was made without coercion from an outside force. The outcome of a choice is a function of two inputs: the external stimulus, and the state of your brain. The fact that it's the state of [i]your[/i] brain is what makes it [i]your[/i] choice.
Back on the topic of the ability for computers to simulate an intelligent being (in the way the desert rocks simulate a universe): Is the only possible intelligence organic in nature?
Neural nets and genetic algorithms, the two main things used by simple AI, are both organic in nature. The nodes have a "flow" sort of system that either activates the output sigma function or doesn't. The fact that there is a sigma function to translate the "analog" organic values to digital shows the "natural imperfection", and is also the reason for error (organic beings will always have a margin of error).
I'm wondering: is it possible for there to be a purely logical intelligence? That is, one that operates on "perfect" ideas.
:argh:, I'm finding it difficult to convey my thoughts into words..
It's similar to the idea of parallel lines: two lines perfectly next to eachother.
Although we can conceive the idea, we can never find two perfectly parallel lines in nature, nor can our minds imagine it. We can approximate it (however our wonderfully impressive brains do that) and understand it using simplifications (maths), but we can never truly comprehend it with our organic minds.
Is it possible (and feasible) to create an intelligence that can comprehend this idea?
One that could be given [url=http://thinkzone.wlonk.com/MathFun/Triangle.htm]geometric proofs[/url] and prove them? (given basic starting proofs if necessary).
Humans can do this, but as above: it's all organic approximation.
Once a purely... "logical"(?) intelligence were to be created, it may be possible to expose it to organic inputs and see if it is actually able to understand the real world.
If it can, imagine how useful it would be..
[QUOTE=Wyzard;33003428]It's still free will even if it's deterministic, because the choice was made without coercion from an outside force. The outcome of a choice is a function of two inputs: the external stimulus, and the state of your brain. The fact that it's the state of [I]your[/I] brain is what makes it [I]your[/I] choice.[/QUOTE]
The current state of your brain is a function of all historical inputs, so you could simplify that to the outcome of a choice is a function of the current external stimulus and all historical stimuli. I wouldn't call that free will myself.
In a deterministic universe, [i]everything[/i] that [i]ever[/i] happens is a function of all historical inputs.
Lack of free will is when you [i]would[/i] choose one thing, but some external influence prevents you and forces you to choose something else instead. The rules of a deterministic universe may lead you inevitably to one outcome, but there's no [i]other[/i] outcome that it's preventing you from choosing instead. You choose whatever it makes sense for you to choose in a given situation.
BTW, it turns out that there are actually names for these viewpoints: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism]compatibilism[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatibilism]incompatibilism[/url]. Unsurprisingly, it basically comes down to differing definitions of "free will"; see mine above. And there's an angle I hadn't thought of: can people be held accountable for their actions if they didn't freely choose them? ("But judge, it's not my fault, a function of all historical inputs made me do it!")
It seems I'm a compatibilist and didn't know it. The explanation under "alternatives as imaginary" on that wiki page matches very closely with things I've previously thought of on my own.
I appear to be an incompatiblist then, although I agree with a lot of things on the compatiblism page. My own definition of free will is that there is more than one possible outcome and your mind can freely choose between them, which is fundamentally at odds with determinism.
[editline]28th October 2011[/editline]
I could argue that the deterministic nature of the universe (assuming it is deterministic) is the force that is preventing you from making a free choice.
This is one of those things that depend on how we define "free will", and because that is a human construct and not defined in any solid way in the universe itself, there is no right answer.
[QUOTE=Ziks;33005297]I could argue that the deterministic nature of the universe (assuming it is deterministic) is the force that is preventing you from making a free choice.[/QUOTE]
I thought about that while I was writing my previous post, and spent awhile trying to decide whether it was a flaw in my reasoning. In a non-deterministic universe you might have made a different choice under the same circumstances — except you're never [i]in[/i] quite the same circumstances because the rules of the universe itself are different. So I don't think the comparison is valid, but I'm still not entirely certain.
I agree that "free will" is vague, just like "consciousness" (as I mentioned earlier). This is getting into philosophy, and I don't think there are any real answers to be found there, just baseless speculation and untested hypotheses.
(On the philosophy front: ROBO_DONUT mentioned Descartes, and I've read some Descartes, as part of a philosophy course. I wasn't impressed. The famous "I think, therefore I am" is actually part of a "proof" of the existence of God, which can be summarized as: I can imagine perfection as an abstract concept, and nobody in an imperfect world could have come up with the concept of perfection on their own, therefore the idea must have come from an actual perfect being who exists. Very hand-wavy and [url=http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node42.html]totally worthless[/url] as a proof IMO.)
Put a brain inside of it?
[QUOTE=Wyzard;33003428]Are you familiar with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life]Conway's game of life[/url]? It's a 2D grid of bits and a few simple rules about bits turning on or off based on the state of their immediate neighbors. But certain patterns have emergent properties: a "glider", for example, reproduces its own pattern at an offset position, so that over time it [i]moves[/i] across the grid. And a "glider gun" produces and endless stream of gliders moving away from itself.
The fascinating thing about the Game of Life is that it's Turing-complete — in fact, someone has even [url=http://rendell-attic.org/gol/tm.htm]made a Turing machine with it[/url]. So any program you can write on your computer can be carried out by the GoL's four simple transition rules. And assuming a deterministic brain, any thought you can think can also be "thought" by those same four simple rules.[/QUOTE]
Yep. It's really neat stuff.
[QUOTE=Wyzard;33003428]How can a bunch of molecules and ions, interacting according to the ordinary laws of physics, have their own consciousness? That's all your brain really is.[/QUOTE]
This is only relevant if you assume consciousness is the product of observable phenomena, which I'm not sure of. Maybe we don't see the whole picture like we think we do. That, I think, was my point from the beginning. I can see how these physical interactions produce thought, and I am aware of my own consciousness, but I can't see [i]how[/i] such simple interactions can produce such an 'awareness'. This, I think, is very different from the simple thought processes that occur.
I think we're starting to go in circles, though. I've run out of ideas on the subject.
[editline]28th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Wyzard;33005684](On the philosophy front: ROBO_DONUT mentioned Descartes, and I've read some Descartes, as part of a philosophy course. I wasn't impressed. The famous "I think, therefore I am" is actually part of a "proof" of the existence of God, which can be summarized as: I can imagine perfection as an abstract concept, and nobody in an imperfect world could have come up with the concept of perfection on their own, therefore the idea must have come from an actual perfect being who exists. Very hand-wavy and [url=http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node42.html]totally worthless[/url] as a proof IMO.)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that was probably a bad example.
[QUOTE=Wyzard;33005222]
BTW, it turns out that there are actually names for these viewpoints: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism]compatibilism[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatibilism]incompatibilism[/url]. Unsurprisingly, it basically comes down to differing definitions of "free will"; see mine above. And there's an angle I hadn't thought of: can people be held accountable for their actions if they didn't freely choose them? ("But judge, it's not my fault, a function of all historical inputs made me do it!")[/QUOTE]That doesn't make sense, if you're a function of all historical events then you would have known it was illegal and you should have come to a different conclusion. The best choice would be re-abilitate people who have bad historical input
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;32995085]You should team up with Mr. T.[/QUOTE]
I know an excellent name for the team.
[B][I]Artificial Ideas[/I][/B]
You're using python? That's easy then.
[code]import soul[/code]
[QUOTE=danharibo;33012457]That doesn't make sense, if you're a function of all historical events then you would have known it was illegal and you should have come to a different conclusion.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't mean you "know" all of history, it means your choices are shaped by the experiences you've had in your life, which are shaped by others' actions, which are shaped by the experiences they've had in their lives, etc. all the way back to the beginning of time.
It's like saying that someone became a crook "because" they grew up in a bad neighborhood, but at the level of specific thoughts and actions instead of general lifestyles.
Fuck it. Im tempted to try something like this just for the sheer boredom that im facing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
