Free will
in [Lisp]
|
From: RG on 22 May 2010 00:35 In article <1jiv1sx.nlpkc79qkohaN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > Don Geddis <don(a)geddis.org> wrote: > > > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010: > > > Hence my question about an AI with a large state space that uses a > > > quantum random generator to drive its behavior. Is it determined, or > > > free? An argument can be made for both. > > > > Or, if you realize that free will is not incompatible with determinism, > > Absent quantum randomness, and assuming a strict naturalistic worldview, > I'd like to see a compelling argument how this could be so. Such an > argument cannot depend on one's knowledge of good and evil, either; i.e. > "man must be free in order to be responsible" is one such fallacious > argument. > > > you can realize that these aren't opposite ends of a spectrum, and the > > random generator really has nothing at all to do with the question of > > whether the AI has free will or not. It either does have free will, or > > it doesn't, but it doesn't matter whether it has a quantum random > > generator inside of it, for answering the question. > > > > If the will doesn't incorporate randomness, then in what sense is it > free? Is the function (defun hello () (print "Hello, World!")) free? > Don, if you'll permit me, I'd like to take a whack at this and see if I understand your point of view. Please correct me if I get this wrong: A system can be deterministic without being predictable. A stochastic system, for example, is deterministic but unpredictable. A human brain is not only stochastic, but also a sufficiently complex information processing system that it can generate subjective experiences, self-awareness, desires, and the ability to deliberate and plan, but not to predict its own behavior (by virtue of its being stochastic). Those properties collectively produce a (real) phenomenon that can be usefully labelled "free will." Is that close? rg
From: Bob Felts on 22 May 2010 07:39 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > In article <1jiv1sx.nlpkc79qkohaN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > Don Geddis <don(a)geddis.org> wrote: > > > > > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010: > > > > Hence my question about an AI with a large state space that uses a > > > > quantum random generator to drive its behavior. Is it determined, or > > > > free? An argument can be made for both. > > > > > > Or, if you realize that free will is not incompatible with determinism, > > > > Absent quantum randomness, and assuming a strict naturalistic worldview, > > I'd like to see a compelling argument how this could be so. Such an > > argument cannot depend on one's knowledge of good and evil, either; i.e. > > "man must be free in order to be responsible" is one such fallacious > > argument. > > > > > you can realize that these aren't opposite ends of a spectrum, and the > > > random generator really has nothing at all to do with the question of > > > whether the AI has free will or not. It either does have free will, or > > > it doesn't, but it doesn't matter whether it has a quantum random > > > generator inside of it, for answering the question. > > > > > > > If the will doesn't incorporate randomness, then in what sense is it > > free? Is the function (defun hello () (print "Hello, World!")) free? > > > > Don, if you'll permit me, I'd like to take a whack at this and see if I > understand your point of view. Please correct me if I get this wrong: > > A system can be deterministic without being predictable. A stochastic > system, for example, is deterministic but unpredictable. Stochastic systems incorporate randomness. Throwing a die is deterministic but unpredictable. > A human brain is not only stochastic, but also a sufficiently complex > information processing system that it can generate subjective experiences, > self-awareness, desires, and the ability to deliberate and plan, but not > to predict its own behavior (by virtue of its being stochastic). Those > properties collectively produce a (real) phenomenon that can be usefully > labelled "free will." Just becasue a label is _useful_ doesn't mean that it's _true_. In any case, again, this argues that we're free due to a randomness in the brain.
From: Don Geddis on 22 May 2010 10:46 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote on Sat, 22 May 2010: > Subjective experience is likewise flawed when it suggests that it is > causing our actions; it is not; it is simply being informed of them > post hoc. That's just false. You keep claiming this, but scientific experiments do not at all prove that conscious deliberation has zero causal impact, and that in reality there is ONLY post hoc rationalization. You've made this claim before, and your claim is simply false. _______________________________________________________________________________ Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don(a)geddis.org The Meaning Of Life: The reason that we're all here is that it was too crowded where we were supposed to go. -- Steven Wright
From: Don Geddis on 22 May 2010 10:59 wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010: > Don Geddis <don(a)geddis.org> wrote: >> Or, if you realize that free will is not incompatible with determinism, > > Absent quantum randomness, and assuming a strict naturalistic worldview, > I'd like to see a compelling argument how this could be so. Everyone thinks they know what "free will" is supposed to mean, but few people carefully define it. As you clarify the intuition, you'll find that it's something about being able to decide on whatever action you wish. That you (or a robot) can be modelled as having beliefs and desires and goals and a decision process, and the question is whether your decisions are a consequence of YOUR beliefs and desires and goals, or of someone (or something) else's. When presented with a choice between chocolate or vanilla ice cream, you have free will if you wind up choosing chocolate, in the case where you prefer chocolate (and otherwise vanilla if you prefer vanilla). Your decision-making process is attempting (with perhaps some errors) to maximize your goals, given your potential actions. This is what people generally mean by "free will", as contrasted with an entity making decisions which are coerced by the goals of some different entity. This kind of free will is easily compatible with determinism. You could put it in a computer program written in some ordinary programming language, for example. > Such an argument cannot depend on one's knowledge of good and evil, > either; i.e. "man must be free in order to be responsible" is one > such fallacious argument. (You don't know me well, but if you did, you wouldn't have found this warning to be necessary. :-) ) > If the will doesn't incorporate randomness, then in what sense is it > free? Neither coercion nor randomness addresses free will. Free will is about controlling your destiny, about choosing actions that maximize your goals. Randomess is the opposite of control, so it doesn't help at all. > Is the function (defun hello () (print "Hello, World!")) free? It isn't a decision procedure with goals and actions, so ... no. -- Don _______________________________________________________________________________ Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don(a)geddis.org A "Frisbeterian" believes that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof, and you can't get it back down.
From: Don Geddis on 22 May 2010 11:06
RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010: > Don, if you'll permit me, I'd like to take a whack at this and see if I > understand your point of view. Of course! > Please correct me if I get this wrong: > A system can be deterministic without being predictable. A stochastic > system, for example, is deterministic but unpredictable. A human brain > is not only stochastic, but also a sufficiently complex information > processing system that it can generate subjective experiences, > self-awareness, desires, and the ability to deliberate and plan, but not > to predict its own behavior (by virtue of its being stochastic). Those > properties collectively produce a (real) phenomenon that can be usefully > labelled "free will." > Is that close? I don't disagree with what you wrote, but it seems like more of an aside, than a direct answer to the question. Lack of (practical) predictability of deterministic system is indeed an interesting property, and lots of people confuse theoretical predictability with practical predictability, and thus their intuitions about these things greatly mislead them. But the free will itself isn't so much about the lack of predictability (which you can get from randomness too!), as it is about being able to choose whatever it is that you want. You (generally) can't change what you want, and you (generally) can't change how your decision procedure works, but is your decision procedure (generally) working to maximize your goals, given your beliefs? If so, then you have "free will". -- Don _______________________________________________________________________________ Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don(a)geddis.org The German poet Heinrich Heine left his entire fortune to his wife, but with one catch: she had to remarry "because then there will be at least one man to regret my death." |