Free will
in [Lisp]
|
From: Bob Felts on 25 May 2010 21:03 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > In article <1jj28cd.1n06j4qoooghsN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the universe deterministic at the quantum level? > > > > > > That depends on what you mean by "at the quantum level." The > > > propagation of the wave function is deterministic, yes. > > > > > > > And the spin of a photon when the wave function collapses? > > It doesn't collapse. But if you suspend disbelief and accept a classical > universe as real, then yes, it's random. (BTW, you probably meant > polarization, not spin. Photons are spin-zero.) > Actually, I meant electrons. But thanks for the correction; either will do. In any case, I'm not sufficiently up on "the quantum-information-theoretical view" to go any further. I'll put it on my reading list. > > > > Theologians deal with axiomatic systems just as much as logicians do. > > > > > > That may be, but their axioms a.k.a. holy texts are not constrained by > > > objective reality > > > > That's simply not true. You are defining "objective reality" to exclude > > a very objective phenomena. > > "Phenomena" is plural. You mean "an objective phenomenon." And I call > shenanigans for claiming this without saying which objective phenomenon > you're referring to. > Intelligence. I already gave you a link (http://stablecross.com/files/category-dialogs.html) > > > > Since morality exists only in minds with creative power > > > > > > But that's not true. If you think it is then you have completely missed > > > the point of Axelrod's work. > > > > > > > It is absolutely true. Axelrod started with an arbitrary "ought" > > (selfishness is good), and lo and behold, discovered that people act in > > a way to maximize their selfishness. > > No. You are as wrong about this as Ralph is about QM. What Axelrod > discovered is that behavior that appears structurally similar to what we > call moral behavior can arise from processes that obey the laws of > Darwinian evolution. There is no "ought" about it. > Of course there is. There is an "ought" to _everything_. There is nothing that _is_ about which we cannot say "this ought/ought not be". Here's how it's done. Why is the product of Darwinian evolution more moral (better) than a course of action based upon deliberation? Are you a slave to your genetics? > > Why not set up another experiment: two people are imprisoned. One of > > them will be released in 6 months. There is exactly enough food to keep > > only one of them alive for 6 months (and the guards will adjust the food > > level as necessary to ensure this). > > If they both eat half the available food that will be difficult to do. Then both die in three months. > Much better to just give them each a pistol and say that one minute from > now, if they are both still alive they will both be executed, but if one > of them is dead the survivor will be freed. > Po-tay-to, Po-ta-to. > > What should the prisoners do? > > This is a one-shot prisoner's dilemma with a somewhat different payoff > matrix than usual, since the payoff for cooperating is zero (death) > regardless of what the other player does. Figuring out the "correct" > action in this case is left as an exercise. That was the whole point, wasn't it? Alexrod's experiment is useless for this. > > Moral behavior only arises in an iterated PD where the number of rounds > is not known in advance. Did you bother to read the post I referred you > to? Yes, I read it. Were I to channel Dirac, I'd say "it's not right. It's not even wrong." Moral behavior arises out of everything we do, because we can (and do) compare every is to multiple oughts. Furthermore, are you saying that if you were alone, that any action you took would be moral? You don't even judge yourself? > > > > > we can logically deduce that it is sufficient, even if not always > > > > necessary, that differences of moral opinion can be settled by > > > > terminating the mind that holds a contrary position. > > > > > > Of course. It is tautological that any conflict can be settled by > > > destroying one or more of the entities that are in conflict. But that's > > > not a particularly interesting or useful observation. > > > > Of course it's useful. We wiped out the neanderthals. Should we have? > > According to what quality metric? "Should" can only ever be decided > relative to some quality metric. > I believe that's the point I've been making. > > > > In this case, might does make right. > > > > > > Only if your quality metric is the absence of conflict. > > > > In the presence of moral conflict, how do you show which side is right? > > How do yo know either side is "right"? > That's what I'm asking you. I've made the claim that science cannot answer that question, since it deals with *is*, not *ought*. Don Geddis disagreed. Got a scientific answer? > > The act of chossing between two ethical systems is itself an ethical > > question; that is "ia moral choice A better than moral choice B?" > > requires a moral choice. How do you break the infinite regress? > > By reading Axelrod more carefully, and in particular paying attention to > the properties of evolutionarily stable strategies. > I did read Axelrod. What part of "maximizing selfishness is immoral" did you not get? We use our intellect to overcome the limitations of evolutionary "engineering" all the time. Why should we assume that the result of purposeless processes is how we ought to live? Why is selfishness more moral than it's opposite, love? > > > If that's your quality metric then eliminating all life would be the > > > greatest good you could do, since that would necessarily eliminate all > > > conflict. > > > > No, just eliminating those who disagree with me. > > I'm pretty sure that would be a temporary solution at best. If you > leave any trace of life you run the risk of intelligent life evolving > all over again and you're right back where you started from. If you > really want to eliminate conflict long term you pretty much have no > choice but to sterilize the planet. > "He loved Big Brother." [...]
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 25 May 2010 22:33 Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam(a)hotmail.com> writes: > On 24 May, 23:50, RG <rNOSPA...(a)flownet.com> wrote: >> In article <hteltn$ep...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> �Raffael Cavallaro > >> > While an AI scientist remains purely hypothetical >> >> Wait a couple of years. > > "By 1985, machines will be capable of doing any work that a man can > do" > Herbert Simon 1965 Which is basically true, if you consider the works men were doing in 1965. The problem is that in the mean time, men invented new works! -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
From: Don Geddis on 25 May 2010 23:31 wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote on Tue, 25 May 2010: > RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: >> In article <1jj28cd.1n06j4qoooghsN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: >> > > > Is the universe deterministic at the quantum level? >> > > That depends on what you mean by "at the quantum level." The >> > > propagation of the wave function is deterministic, yes. >> > And the spin of a [electron] when the wave function collapses? >> It doesn't collapse. But if you suspend disbelief and accept a classical >> universe as real, then yes, it's random. > In any case, I'm not sufficiently up on "the > quantum-information-theoretical view" to go any further. I'll put it > on my reading list. You should note that the very popular Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, also has no wave function collapse. Lots more about Many Worlds here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_manyworlds/ or, if you're just interested in [lack of] wave function collapse, here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/q6/collapse_postulates/ >> > > > Theologians deal with axiomatic systems just as much as logicians do. >> > > That may be, but their axioms a.k.a. holy texts are not constrained by >> > > objective reality >> > That's simply not true. You are defining "objective reality" to exclude >> > a very objective phenomena. >> And I call shenanigans for claiming this without saying which >> objective phenomenon you're referring to. > Intelligence. I already gave you a link > (http://stablecross.com/files/category-dialogs.html) You're claiming that Ron defines objective reality to exclude intelligence? Where in the world would you ever get that idea? What a bizarre claim. -- Don _______________________________________________________________________________ Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don(a)geddis.org Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night." -- Charlie Brown, _Peanuts_ [Charles Schulz]
From: RG on 26 May 2010 03:01 In article <1jj2env.bhkk2z1l5wzb4N%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > > > Theologians deal with axiomatic systems just as much as logicians do. > > > > > > > > That may be, but their axioms a.k.a. holy texts are not constrained by > > > > objective reality > > > > > > That's simply not true. You are defining "objective reality" to exclude > > > a very objective phenomena. > > > > "Phenomena" is plural. You mean "an objective phenomenon." And I call > > shenanigans for claiming this without saying which objective phenomenon > > you're referring to. > > > > Intelligence. Oh, puh-leez. This is comp.lang.lisp. This is the Church of Church's (as in Alonzo) thesis. > > > > > Since morality exists only in minds with creative power > > > > > > > > But that's not true. If you think it is then you have completely missed > > > > the point of Axelrod's work. > > > > > > > > > > It is absolutely true. Axelrod started with an arbitrary "ought" > > > (selfishness is good), and lo and behold, discovered that people act in > > > a way to maximize their selfishness. > > > > No. You are as wrong about this as Ralph is about QM. What Axelrod > > discovered is that behavior that appears structurally similar to what we > > call moral behavior can arise from processes that obey the laws of > > Darwinian evolution. There is no "ought" about it. > > > > Of course there is. There is an "ought" to _everything_. There is > nothing that _is_ about which we cannot say "this ought/ought not be". Oh? Ought the earth rotate on its axis? Ought the stars shine in the sky? Ought I point out that your position is untenable? > Here's how it's done. Why is the product of Darwinian evolution more > moral (better) than a course of action based upon deliberation? Ought I point out that this is a straw man? Darwinian evolution isn't "better" than anything, it's just how we got here. > Are you a slave to your genetics? Part of me is. Part of me isn't. This is one of the interesting things about being human -- we're hosts to two different kinds of replicators: genes and memes. They interact with each other in very complicated ways. Writing an essay about this is on my todo list. > > > Why not set up another experiment: two people are imprisoned. One of > > > them will be released in 6 months. There is exactly enough food to keep > > > only one of them alive for 6 months (and the guards will adjust the food > > > level as necessary to ensure this). > > > > If they both eat half the available food that will be difficult to do. > > Then both die in three months. No, you stipulated that the guards adjust the food level as necessary to insure that one of them will be alive in six months. Do you even bother to read what you yourself write? > > > What should the prisoners do? > > > > This is a one-shot prisoner's dilemma with a somewhat different payoff > > matrix than usual, since the payoff for cooperating is zero (death) > > regardless of what the other player does. Figuring out the "correct" > > action in this case is left as an exercise. > > That was the whole point, wasn't it? Alexrod's experiment is useless > for this. I would say "less applicable", not "useless." But as you say, pototo, patoahto. And your point would be...? > > Moral behavior only arises in an iterated PD where the number of rounds > > is not known in advance. Did you bother to read the post I referred you > > to? > > Yes, I read it. Were I to channel Dirac, I'd say "it's not right. It's > not even wrong." Moral behavior arises out of everything we do, because > we can (and do) compare every is to multiple oughts. > > Furthermore, are you saying that if you were alone, that any action you > took would be moral? You don't even judge yourself? Being alone is a red herring. I can have an impact on other people (and they in turn on me) even if we are not in close proximity. Witness what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico right now. But yes, anything that you do that doesn't have a negative impact on someone else is moral. How in the world did we get on this topic? > > > > > we can logically deduce that it is sufficient, even if not always > > > > > necessary, that differences of moral opinion can be settled by > > > > > terminating the mind that holds a contrary position. > > > > > > > > Of course. It is tautological that any conflict can be settled by > > > > destroying one or more of the entities that are in conflict. But that's > > > > not a particularly interesting or useful observation. > > > > > > Of course it's useful. We wiped out the neanderthals. Should we have? > > > > According to what quality metric? "Should" can only ever be decided > > relative to some quality metric. > > > > I believe that's the point I've been making. Then you've been making it very badly. > > > > > In this case, might does make right. > > > > > > > > Only if your quality metric is the absence of conflict. > > > > > > In the presence of moral conflict, how do you show which side is right? > > > > How do yo know either side is "right"? > > > > That's what I'm asking you. I've made the claim that science cannot > answer that question, since it deals with *is*, not *ought*. Don Geddis > disagreed. Got a scientific answer? Yes, but it's complicated, and I can't do it justice here. But I'll be writing about it on my blog in the coming weeks. rg
From: Curt on 26 May 2010 09:33
On 2010-05-26, Bob Felts <wrf3(a)stablecross.com> wrote: > > Yes, I read it. Were I to channel Dirac, I'd say "it's not right. It's > not even wrong." Moral behavior arises out of everything we do, because I'm not sure what it means to "channel" somebody, but I think the "not right, not even wrong" line is attributed correctly to Wolfgang Pauli, not Dirac, if by "channeling" Dirac you meant you were quoting or paraphrasing him (and even if you didn't). |