Free will
in [Lisp]
|
From: Bob Felts on 28 May 2010 13:56 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > In article <1jj7dmh.k2csyj1ldua4gN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > I think Raffael would say > > This is exactly the problem. We have to guess what Ralph would say > because he refuses to say, and I consider his silence to be > hypocritical. If you're going to stand on the psychophysical evidence > and insist that free will doesn't exist and that this has policy > implications, then you should also stand on the quantum mechanical > evidence and insist that reality doesn't exist and accept those policy > implications as well. But of course he can't do that because the policy > implications of classical reality being an illusion don't suit his > political agenda. > > In this Ralph is no better than a creationist. He emphasizes the > evidence that supports his pre-selected conclusion and pointedly ignores > all the evidence that undermines it. I could say the same thing about those who think that God is, at best, an illusion. Ron, if the Prisoner's Dilemma shows anything, it shows that we give up our self-interest, only when it's our self-interest to do so (i.e. if the PD is really true, truly altruistic behavior doesn't exist). I wish I could find the link to the discussion I had with the fellow who, under no circumstances, would ever cede his "moral sovereignty". > It's hypocrisy of the first order, and I'm calling him out on it. So you > see, no speculation from a third party about what he might be thinking can > possibly resolve this. It isn't an attempt on my part to resolve it. I just want to see if I can move the discussion along so that both sides can see the issues. We may (if we haven't already) end up at the metaphysical equivalent of differing on what form Euclid's fifth postulate should take. > There are only three possible resolutions. Either Ralph explains why > emphasizing psychophysics over QM does not constitute "special pleading", > or he recants, or he cops to hypocrisy. Or maybe we find a fourth option. I don't know. > Failing that, good Scientists everywhere will have no choice but to burn > him at the stake. ;-) When science thinks it has discovered an objective morality then I suspect that won't be far off. The self, whether in individual or communal form, is a terrible thing for others to cross. :-(
From: Bob Felts on 28 May 2010 15:09 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > In article <1jj7f7h.1chnkhc8tyiqtN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <1jj7dmh.k2csyj1ldua4gN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > > > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > [...] > > > Ron, if the Prisoner's Dilemma shows anything, it shows that we give up > > our self-interest, only when it's our self-interest to do so (i.e. if > > the PD is really true, truly altruistic behavior doesn't exist). > > That's right. > Hatred is not the opposite of love -- selfishness is. If we can't truly transcend selfishness then we're royally and truly farked. BTW, did the PD just give a secular proof for what theologians call "original sin"? > > It isn't an attempt on my part to resolve it. I just want to see if I > > can move the discussion along so that both sides can see the issues. > > You can't move *this* branch of the discussion along. Only Ralph can do > that because only Ralph can know what is in his heart of hearts. > Sometimes we have trouble articulating what's in our hearts. Sometimes someone else can say it better than we can, and that breaks the logjam. Sometimes it just causes the other person to go off and sulk. I choose to remain hopeful. We'll see. [...] > > I do believe that a real scientific theory moral behavior is possible. But > it hasn't been done yet, though Axelrod's work certainly represents > significant progress in that direction. I've been studying this for a > while now, and the only fully supportable conclusion I've come to is that > it is nowhere near as simple as anyone on either side of the debate seems > to think. If our imagination is really driven by randomness, then it will be impossible, since science can say that a million sided die can show one to one million, but it can't say what the next throw will be. Science would then have to pick an arbitrary standard and demand that everyone adhere to it (sound familiar?). Woe to the person who says, "why should I cede my moral sovereignity to you and obey you?" (sound familiar?) "Why are you, with your arbitrary standard, right and me wrong?" (sound familiar?) "And, by the way, you're doing things I don't like, therefore you aren't good." (secular theodicy, anyone?) The only way such a thing would work is if science could re-jigger the brain so that the random mapping from imagination space (ought-space) to is-space is the same for everyone. In essence, the self has to be transformed from the focus on self, to something else. "You must be re-born by science!" (sound familiar?) It's really interesting what the analysis of good and evil leads to. Why, if I were writing a book, I'd make it a central theme. Oh, wait... And I can't wait until we create a true human level AI and it starts wondering if it has free will. And, so, the circle is complete. I'm not dropping out of the conversation, by any means, but I want to say it's been a pleasure jousting with you.
From: RG on 28 May 2010 16:58 In article <1jj7i6q.tbj89w6vozzaN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > > > In article <1jj7f7h.1chnkhc8tyiqtN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > > > RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <1jj7dmh.k2csyj1ldua4gN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > > > > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > Ron, if the Prisoner's Dilemma shows anything, it shows that we give up > > > our self-interest, only when it's our self-interest to do so (i.e. if > > > the PD is really true, truly altruistic behavior doesn't exist). > > > > That's right. > > > > Hatred is not the opposite of love -- selfishness is. If we can't truly > transcend selfishness then we're royally and truly farked. > > BTW, did the PD just give a secular proof for what theologians call > "original sin"? No. And one of the reasons my patience with you is running short is that you keep trying to hijack a scientific and philosophical discussion and turn it into a theological one. > I'm not dropping out of the conversation, by any means, but I want to > say it's been a pleasure jousting with you. Glad you enjoyed it. rg
From: Bob Felts on 28 May 2010 17:51 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > In article <1jj7i6q.tbj89w6vozzaN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <1jj7f7h.1chnkhc8tyiqtN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > > > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > > > > > RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <1jj7dmh.k2csyj1ldua4gN%wrf3(a)stablecross.com>, > > > > > wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Ron, if the Prisoner's Dilemma shows anything, it shows that we give up > > > > our self-interest, only when it's our self-interest to do so (i.e. if > > > > the PD is really true, truly altruistic behavior doesn't exist). > > > > > > That's right. > > > > > > > Hatred is not the opposite of love -- selfishness is. If we can't truly > > transcend selfishness then we're royally and truly farked. > > > > BTW, did the PD just give a secular proof for what theologians call > > "original sin"? > > No. Actually, it did. I said, "if the PD is really true, truly altruistic behavior doesn't exist". You said, "that's right." All of us are inherently selfish meat machines. QED. > And one of the reasons my patience with you is running short is that you > keep trying to hijack a scientific and philosophical discussion and turn > it into a theological one. > Guilty for the point about OS. However, for everything that followed, I showed that given the worldview invariant definition of morality as a "distance" between is and ought, the assumption that randomness drives the imagination (and, hence, morality); the evolutionary mechanisms that support PD; and your claim that science can develop an objective morality. Were that to happen, then science is going to have to deal with the exact same questions that theologians and philosophers have dealt with. I didn't hijack anything. I showed how all three are related. > > I'm not dropping out of the conversation, by any means, but I want to > > say it's been a pleasure jousting with you. > > Glad you enjoyed it. > I hope you did, too.
From: Don Geddis on 28 May 2010 18:08
wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote on Fri, 28 May 2010: > Don Geddis <don(a)geddis.org> wrote: >> wrf3(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote on Thu, 27 May 2010: >> > What determines what you imagine? > So if you don't fully understand it, how can you exclude randomness? I don't "exclude" randomness. But you keep asserting its critical importance, despite basically zero evidence that randomness matters at all. Yet every time you had a chance, in the discussion on free will, you'd talk about the two alternatives of either or soul, or else randomness. You're confusing your hypothesis (maybe randomness matters?) with a conclusion (randomness is the critical factor). Your conclusion is not justified by your current state of knowledge. Personally, I'm agnostic about randomness. I see no example in human cognition where it seems to be important. (Especially _real_ randomness, as opposed to deterministic pseudorandomness.) Yet there is much we don't yet know. Maybe it'll be important later, maybe not. > There is a story that when Gene Roddenberry was filming one of the early > Star Trek episodes (it may have been the pilot, "The Cage") he grew > increasingly frustrated with the set designers because he wanted alien > plants, but he kept getting deduction and induction from existing earth > forms. In frustration, he took a potted plant someone had given him, > yanked the plant out and stuck it in upside down saying, "this is more > like what I want!" You're jumping way, way, way beyond your understanding, to use a story like this in an attempt to justify that randomness is more important than deterministic algorithms. You have no idea what caused Roddenberry's thoughts. This is not at all evidence for your claims. > So, yes, induction and deduction are two of the methods we use when we > imagine. But we're also capable of off-the-wall new things. Deduction and induction can also produce "off-the-wall new things". It all depends on context, on what is common and expected. > In fact, one way to expand the imagination is go break existing > patterns and go off in new directions. Something powers those new > directions, and it's different for every one of us. Sure. And nothing you have said is outside the bounds of deterministic algorithms. >> >> > _Why_ don't you consider randomness free will? >> >> Because there's no sense of choice or responsibility with >> >> randomness, which intuitively seems like a criticial component of >> >> what people mean when they use the term "free will". >> > But there's likewise no sense of choice or responsibility with >> > determinism. >> Says you, over and over again. > For the record, _I_ don't say this. But a lot of other people do. You can understand my confusion. That quote right there, "but there's likewise no sense of choice or responsibility with determinism" are words that you wrote. It sure seems like your opinion. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to realize that you're just mentioning something that other people say, that you personally don't believe. > Many, many, many people have the intuitive moral sense that if they are > determined then they aren't responsible. Of course. Most people are mistaken about a great many things. > For the record, I don't think either randomn or deterministic decisions > has anything to do with responsibility. Ah. So, then, you're on Ralph's side of "if humans don't have an extra-physical soul, then our whole moral and legal structure collapses"? -- Don _______________________________________________________________________________ Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don(a)geddis.org Mr. Attlee is a very modest man. Indeed he has a lot to be modest about. -- Winston Churchill |