Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> How complex can the computer get before you'd say it's a sentient being 
>> making a choice based on what it wants?  If we had SciFi levels of AI 
>> around, would you claim they're not sentient, not really making choices?
> 
>   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.

> The decisions may
> be *based* on the external input, but they are not the inevitable and
> deterministic consequence of it. The computer/brain might be able to
> use its own internal logic to make choices based on the input, but in a
> way that from the outside it's impossible to predict which choises will
> be made.

Sure. But for it to meet your definition, not just "impossible to predict" 
but "supernatural."  I.e., not arising from physical processes, right? I 
mean, "based on quantum randomness" is also impossible to predict, but you 
don't want to take that into account.

So you want basically for the mind to be able to react to something 
unassociated with the brain.  So those questions about an AI are 
investigating what you mean by "mind" in the case it's not necessarily a 
human or advanced animal.

>   Can such closed system exist in the physical world? Could that idea break
> some laws of physics (eg. something along the lines that new information
> cannot be generated in a closed system or something)?

Normally a "closed system" means something different than what you're 
talking about - in particular, you wouldn't be able to observe the behavior 
of a person that's a "closed system", whereas the result of the person 
making the choice is obvious to people outside. If I choose to go to the 
store today, the other shoppers are going to know that, so I'm no longer a 
closed system. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to express.

Also, yes, I *think* the amount of information in a closed system can 
neither go up nor down, hence the people worrying about the quantum effects 
of black holes, holographic universes, and stuff like that. But that's 
really beyond my understandings of QM.

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

Post a reply to this message

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.)

  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.)

  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.

> > The decisions may
> > be *based* on the external input, but they are not the inevitable and
> > deterministic consequence of it. The computer/brain might be able to
> > use its own internal logic to make choices based on the input, but in a
> > way that from the outside it's impossible to predict which choises will
> > be made.

> 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).

  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.

> >   Can such closed system exist in the physical world? Could that idea break
> > some laws of physics (eg. something along the lines that new information
> > cannot be generated in a closed system or something)?

> Normally a "closed system" means something different than what you're 
> talking about - in particular, you wouldn't be able to observe the behavior 
> of a person that's a "closed system", whereas the result of the person 
> making the choice is obvious to people outside. If I choose to go to the 
> store today, the other shoppers are going to know that, so I'm no longer a 
> closed system. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to express.

  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).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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

> In particular, it's caused to a great extent by the balls being convex, 
> thereby amplifying any difference between predicted and actual.

Yes, I remember some small "puzzle" where there is a perfect sphere of 
radius 0.2 (or similar) at every integer grid point in 3D space.  You then 
fire another sphere somewhere and try to predict the position after a few 
seconds :-)

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Ok, time for some philosophical tought.
>

> 1) The human mind does not transcend beyond the physical world, which means
> that free choice does not exist. Everything the human mind comes up with is
> predetermined by deterministic events, sometimes garbled by random quantum
> effects. This is not free choice.
>
> 2) The human mind does transcend beyond the physical world as we know it,
> and is able to perform true choices which change deterministic chains of
> events in non-random ways. In other words, the human consciousness is more
> than just the electric impulses in our brain.
>
>   The religious (and possibly agnostic) point of view ...
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

Master to a group of students: "Who amongst you has transcended the self?"

Particularly ungifted student(waving arms): "Me! Me! Me! Me!"


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'd like to discuss what are, for me, some key terminology in option 2) from the
"agnostic" point of view as the term was originally coined by  T. H. Huxley.
(This is the point of view that asserts that one should not claim to know what
one can not prove.)  It is entirely possible that the human mind could
"transcend beyond the physical world AS WE KNOW IT" without implying the
existence of the supernatural because there is quite a bit about the universe
that we simply don't know.  There's nothing irrational or supernatural about one
saying: "My experience of the universe is such that it seems to me that free
choice does exist, but I can not prove this and must refrain from treating the
existence of free choice as an objective fact when dealing with the rights and
claims of others."  It's very nice to have objective facts when we can get them
and wise to act in deference to those facts when they are relevant, BUT... There
is so much about the universe that we have yet to learn that it is entirely
impractical for us to say nothing and do nothing when we are confronted with
issues that we do not presently have the objective knowledge to resolve on such
a basis.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder wrote:
> Master to a group of students: "Who amongst you has transcended the self?"
> 
> Particularly ungifted student(waving arms): "Me! Me! Me! Me!"

http://dananau.com/wabe/humor/monkgloats.pdf

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> perfectly aware that studies on how the brain thinks have shown 
>> "awareness" as a post hock attempt to invent justification for an action,
> 
> Which isn't at odds with the supposition that there's something 
> supernatural involved in helping people make "free will" choices. 
> Perhaps the supernatural part is what starts the chain of events.
> 
Uh.. I have a razor, if you want to shave that beard... Seriously, that 
makes no bloody sense. Why have a supernatural event that does nothing 
but push a button, which sends data through a million separate machines, 
and multiple levels of filters, all so the end machine can tell itself, 
"I picked an apple, instead of an orange, because I haven't had one in a 
while", when the real explanation was, "it was closer", or worse, as at 
least one experiment showed was possible, "even though I absolutely 
despise apples, I decided to try them again, because some guy tricked me 
into thinking I **had** ordered one, and the only logical explanation I 
could come up with for doing that was my personal choice." They did that 
one for real. People, who flat out stated they didn't like certain 
things, rearranged their own perception of events, to justify having 
ordered them anyway, because they where presented with "apparent" 
evidence that they had ordered the item. And, even more crazy, their new 
expectation that they had done in intentionally colored their reaction 
to eating the thing **positively**.

In any case. What would be the point of such a supernatural button 
pusher? It doesn't guide the decisions, it can't prevent the machine 
from being intentionally derailed by someone else, and it doesn't have 
any way to predict what the final, post hock, resolution of all the 
steps are going to be. It would be like playing a video game, where 10 
billion things happen, as you watch, without you being able to control 
*any* of them, every time you clicked 'enter'. The supernatural world 
must be damned boring... lol

>> Sentience is a deterministic machine, 
> 
> I don't think you know that either. :-)  Certainly there's room for 
> quantum effects, even if you leave out the supernatural.
> 
I think the later can be discounted pretty well. The former.. is a bit 
iffy, and some people take it in completely ridiculous directions.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> perfectly aware that studies on how the brain thinks have shown 
>>> "awareness" as a post hock attempt to invent justification for an 
>>> action,
>>
>> Which isn't at odds with the supposition that there's something 
>> supernatural involved in helping people make "free will" choices. 
>> Perhaps the supernatural part is what starts the chain of events.
>>
> Uh.. I have a razor, if you want to shave that beard... Seriously, that 
> makes no bloody sense. 

I didn't say it did. I just said you couldn't draw the conclusion that there 
is no supernatural event simply because the actual knowledge of the decision 
you make comes *after* the supernatural cause of that decision.

> Why have a supernatural event that does nothing 
> but push a button, which sends data through a million separate machines, 
> and multiple levels of filters, all so the end machine can tell itself, 
> "I picked an apple, instead of an orange, because I haven't had one in a 
> while",

The supernatural event would be the decision to pick the apple. Then it goes 
through your brain to make your brain *aware* of it.

Not unlike how when you burn yourself and jerk your hand back, you then know 
you've jerked your hand back. Just because it's "reflex" doesn't mean you 
don't know about it after the fact.  Just because the decision happens 
before you're aware of it doesn't mean you didn't make a decision.

> In any case. What would be the point of such a supernatural button 
> pusher? It doesn't guide the decisions,

It would be guiding the decisions. That's the point. It's not an external 
button pusher. It's the source of you deciding you want one thing over another.

> it can't prevent the machine 
> from being intentionally derailed by someone else, and it doesn't have 
> any way to predict what the final, post hock, resolution of all the 
> steps are going to be.

Presumedly it does, or we wouldn't be saying it's the thing making the 
decision.

>>> Sentience is a deterministic machine, 
>>
>> I don't think you know that either. :-)  Certainly there's room for 
>> quantum effects, even if you leave out the supernatural.
>>
> I think the later can be discounted pretty well.

Why? By definition, you can't discount the supernatural, *especially* in 
something you don't understand the details for.

> The former.. is a bit iffy, 

In what way?

 > and some people take it in completely ridiculous directions.

That's true.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> it can't prevent the machine from being intentionally derailed by 
>> someone else, and it doesn't have any way to predict what the final, 
>> post hock, resolution of all the steps are going to be.
> 
> Presumedly it does, or we wouldn't be saying it's the thing making the 
> decision.
> 
If not for the fact that you can map the decisions process pretty well, 
if not exactly, and there isn't any evidence of some "trigger" event.. 
Nor does there seem to be any feasible reason you need such a thing at 
all. See, the problem here is, people looking for supernatural 
explanations are trying to find "souls", pretty much by definition. We 
can make "simple" brains now, like fly intelligence, which *act* 
deterministic, *act* like they think, and *act* exactly how one of these 
"ensouled" things would, if a supernatural watzit was pushing the 
buttons, yet.. the implications if the supernatural did exist, would be 
that simply "building" something that allowed it to act like a mind 
would "attract" the supernatural, and without it, the thing would just 
sit their and do nothing. This contradicts everything we know, and 
learned, and predict, about brains, minds, thinking, and how/why any of 
it works.

Its an unnecessary addition, and it contradicts "existing" simple 
examples that we *have* replicated.

>>> I don't think you know that either. :-)  Certainly there's room for 
>>> quantum effects, even if you leave out the supernatural.
>>>
>> I think the later can be discounted pretty well.
> 
> Why? By definition, you can't discount the supernatural, *especially* in 
> something you don't understand the details for.
> 
I would argue that, in fact, we have a clear enough picture at this 
point that the odds of the supernatural being involve is... slim to 
none. I would even go so far as to say that people *researching* the 
matter would state it even more strongly, based on everything I have 
read on behavioral and the "physical" mechanics of modern neuroscience.

>> The former.. is a bit iffy, 
> 
> In what way?
> 
Answered in the other part, about ridiculous directions. But, in 
reality, at this point, it simply doesn't rise above "hypothesis". There 
being only slightly more evidence to support the assertion than their is 
for the supernatural, and then only due to there being pretty much no 
support for the supernatural, other than the persistence of people to 
insist it exists, and invent new ways to misunderstand things like 
emeters, photography, noise analysis, and random patterns on toast, to 
really support it. Hell, most of the BS people call "supernatural" is 
**known** to have been made up by con artists in the early 18th century, 
during the rise of the "spiritualist" movement. What wasn't, is a mish 
mash of re-editing of things invented by the same people that built 
"flying chariots", "doors that open on their own" and other contrivances 
for their temples to various mythological figures, which they knew damn 
well where engineered, not magicked.

As someone put it in a thread somewhere else recently, its all about the 
inane concept of "sheep and shepards". Sheep are raised to be fleeces, 
bred, so you can fleece more of them, and/or eaten. One may make up 
ghosts and spirits to fill in things one doesn't know how to explain, 
but in the end, the people that "promote them" as the best answer for 
something tend to have shears stuck in their back pockets, or are just 
some shearer's head sheep. Before you suggest the supernatural as a 
plausible explanation for *anything* you first have to show that the 
supernatural itself is at all *plausible*. Otherwise, you might as well 
suggest alien's playing video games, or Santa Claus.

So, sure, quantum effects, to explain free will, never mind having 
failed to prove you need to explain what you can't prove exists in the 
first place, is more likely, but only because Santa Claus is "still" a 
poor explanation for how presents got under your tree, even if no one in 
the family remembers putting them there. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>> it can't prevent the machine from being intentionally derailed by 
>>> someone else, and it doesn't have any way to predict what the final, 
>>> post hock, resolution of all the steps are going to be.
>>
>> Presumedly it does, or we wouldn't be saying it's the thing making the 
>> decision.
>>
> If not for the fact that you can map the decisions process pretty well, 
> if not exactly, and there isn't any evidence of some "trigger" event.. 

Now you're talking about science. That's exactly *not* the point.

We're not arguing whether such a supernatural bit exists or not. We're 
speculating on what it "means" to people if it exists or not, regardless of 
the truth of the proposition.

It's like Larry Niven talking about all the cool things that would happen 
with society if cheap instant teleportation was available, and then you're 
complaining "but physics says you can't do that."

> Nor does there seem to be any feasible reason you need such a thing at 
> all.

Sure there is.

> See, the problem here is, people looking for supernatural 
> explanations are trying to find "souls", pretty much by definition. 

Sort of, I suppose.


> This contradicts everything we know, and 
> learned, and predict, about brains, minds, thinking, and how/why any of 
> it works.

Well, that's why I described it as supernatural, rather than just "neither 
deterministic nor random." :-)

> Its an unnecessary addition, and it contradicts "existing" simple 
> examples that we *have* replicated.

You're arguing that it doesn't exist, but that isn't the point of the 
discussion.

>> Why? By definition, you can't discount the supernatural, *especially* 
>> in something you don't understand the details for.
>>
> I would argue that, in fact, we have a clear enough picture at this 
> point that the odds of the supernatural being involve is... slim to 
> none.

I would disagree that it's possible to know such a thing, by definition of 
the word "supernatural."  By definition, research into the supernatural will 
never show you the existence of the supernatural. Otherwise, it would be 
natural.

> Answered in the other part, about ridiculous directions. But, in 
> reality, at this point, it simply doesn't rise above "hypothesis". 

Sure. But we're discussing the consequences of what the hypothesis being 
true or false would be, not whether it's true or false.

We're arguing over whether Luke Skywalker *would* have done X, and how the 
future of the Empire would have changed had he done so.  The fact that it's 
all fictional doesn't detract from the discussion.

> Before you suggest the supernatural as a 
> plausible explanation for *anything* 

Show me where I did that.

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

Post a reply to this message