Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>   One (maybe not completely physical) possibility would be if the
>>> computer/brain is able to make decision as a closed system. In other
>>> words, it's capable of processing and changing information, and making
>>> decisions without those decisions being the direct and inevitable
>>> consequence of external input or quantum randomness.
> 
>> I understand what you're saying. I'm not seeing how that addresses any of 
>> those questions I asked.
> 
>> Basically, I was trying to investigate what might be the cause of the 
>> (assumed) presence of this non-physical mechanism that's present in humans 
>> but not in rocks.
> 
>   If the decisions made by a sentient being are
> 
> 1) not random (in the quantum-mechanical sense), and
> 2) not a result of external influences, ie. not predictable
> 
> because the decisions are being made in a closed system rather than as a
> consequence of the entire universe, then one could consider that sentient
> being as having a will of its own, with choices which are not just a direct
> consequence of external events, and this without necessarily having to
> ascend above physics. (But, as I said, I'm not sure if this would break
> some laws of physics regarding closed systems and what they can do.)

Right. That's the part I understand you're saying (altho "closed" I don't 
think is the right term there). What I was asking is whether you think a 
sufficiently complex deterministic system can ever show evidence of this 
free choice?  Or whether any sufficiently complex deterministic+quantum 
system can show evidence of free choice?  Would you attribute free choice to 
a sufficiently complex computer program that is good enough to (say) pass 
the turing test indefinitely?

>   Of course if we examine the decisions from *inside* this closed system,
> then we might find out that it is still completely bound to deterministic
> and random consequences. However, from the *outside* it may be exactly as
> if it was a being having true unbounded free will. (In other words, from
> the outside it's impossible say whether the decisions are being done by
> supernatural or natural means.)

I see. You're using "closed" to mean "opaque" sort of. Impossible to examine 
in detail. "Closed system" means something else in scientific theories.

>   This would make the sentient being different from a rock, which does
> not have such an internal closed decision-making system.
> 
>   This might be somewhat similar to what you already wrote in some of your
> replies, and maybe this is just your point sinking in.

Yes, it's part of what I was saying, but then I asked if it was sensible to 
ask whether a "closed" system that makes "free choices" can be distinguished 
from a "closed" system that is affected by QM randomness.

>> Sure. But for it to meet your definition, not just "impossible to predict" 
>> but "supernatural."
> 
>   I didn't really require for free choice to be supernatural. I only required
> that it must not be bound to previous events nor randomness (else it wouldn't
> really be free choice at all).

"Supernatural" as in "not driven by the laws of physics."  Because you 
either have something that's deterministic, or something that's driven by 
randomness inherent in the laws of physics, or you have "supernatural", yes? 
If you discount the random parts of physics and the deterministic parts of 
physics, what else is there?

>   If a closed system I described is physically possible, then (I think) it
> would perfectly *emulate* supernatural free will, even if it isn't really.

Right. And would it emulate free will so precisely that it's 
indistinguishable from actual free will?  It's like asking whether a 
calculator is doing arithmetic, or only simulating doing arithmetic.

>   Wouldn't it be a closed system if the internal decision process is
> impossible to observe from the outside, no matter what kind of stimulus
> is being applied? In other words, the responses are completely unpredictable,
> without necessarily being random (in the quantum-mechanical sense).

I'd call that "opaque."  Normally "closed" means "not interacting with 
something outside itself."  So the second law of thermodynamics says a 
closed system can never become more ordered. By "closed" there, they mean a 
system with nothing entering or leaving.

Now that I understand what you meant by the word "closed", yes, I agree with 
what you were saying.  "Opaque" might be a better word in other 
conversations, tho. It interacts, but you can't see inside.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message