Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do I have a choice? (determinism vs libertarianism vs compatibilism)
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 106 of 210 (358558)
10-24-2006 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Max Power
10-24-2006 3:11 PM


Re: Free Willy
quote:
Is this human level of understanding any different than an extremely complex code?
That's one of the big questions of AI. I can't give a definite answer - nobody can.
quote:
As far as conscious goes, it seems like that is a very subjective term, could a simple program have some level of consiousness?
It would not be plausible to say that your typical "hello world" program exhibited any level of consciousness. Some complex programs might have the same level of awareness as maybe an insect.
quote:
I guess the thrust of this line of questioning is how is hard determinism different than compatibilism except that you define something that is complex as free will?
So far as I can tell here the chief difference is that compatibilism doesn't take a stand on whether the universe as a whole is deterministic. In fact it doesn't even have to say that the human mind is entirely deterministic. Compatibilism simply argues that a deterministic mind can have free will in a meaningful sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Max Power, posted 10-24-2006 3:11 PM Max Power has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Max Power, posted 10-24-2006 7:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 107 of 210 (358574)
10-24-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Max Power
10-24-2006 3:11 PM


Re: Free Willy
Is this human level of understanding any different than an extremely complex code?
In my opinion, yes it is different. I don't expect AI to produce anything similar to our understanding or to our free will - at least not anytime soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Max Power, posted 10-24-2006 3:11 PM Max Power has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Max Power, posted 10-24-2006 7:00 PM nwr has replied

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 108 of 210 (358619)
10-24-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by nwr
10-24-2006 3:56 PM


Re: Free Willy
Is this human level of understanding any different than an extremely complex code?
In my opinion, yes it is different. I don't expect AI to produce anything similar to our understanding or to our free will - at least not anytime soon.
I appologize if this is drifting a little off topic, Admins, if this is diverging too far just give me the word.
That said, is this compatable with an evolutionary view? I don't expect evolution to produce anything similar to our understanding or to our free will. Looking at the completely (I think I can say completely) deterministic behavior of single celled orgranisms, it seems impossible, especially when you consider evolution is simply change in code and selection of certain codes (just like AI seems impossible to reach our level.) Are you suggesting some sort of emergent property which comes from complexity of only biological systems (and not electrical). I feel like I'm missing something.
Perhaps a major flaw in my logic is the assumption that the world is deterministic, the single celled organisms we evolved from worked in a deterministic nature, and we evolved from these organism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by nwr, posted 10-24-2006 3:56 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by nwr, posted 10-24-2006 8:17 PM Max Power has replied

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 109 of 210 (358625)
10-24-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
10-24-2006 3:19 PM


Re: Free Willy
So far as I can tell here the chief difference is that compatibilism doesn't take a stand on whether the universe as a whole is deterministic. In fact it doesn't even have to say that the human mind is entirely deterministic. Compatibilism simply argues that a deterministic mind can have free will in a meaningful sense.
I am just having a tough time seeing how a deterministic mind can have free will while a deterministic process (moon orbit/computer program) doesn't. With the assumption (whether or not it is true) that the world is deterministic would you say an intelligent ape(with a deterministic mind) is capable of having free will in a meaningful sense? How bout neanderthals or insects or humans with extremely low IQ? Is there a grey area of somewhat free will?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2006 3:19 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2006 2:05 AM Max Power has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 110 of 210 (358634)
10-24-2006 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Max Power
10-24-2006 7:00 PM


Evolution vs. AI
That said, is this compatable with an evolutionary view? I don't expect evolution to produce anything similar to our understanding or to our free will.
Yes, I believe it is compatible. But let's concentrate on the "free will" aspect, and skip "understanding", so that we can keep close to the topic of this thread.
Looking at the completely (I think I can say completely) deterministic behavior of single celled orgranisms, it seems impossible,
I expect that single celled organisms are not quite as completely deterministic as you seem to think. But then, I'm not a biologist, so I could certainly be corrected. In any case, we are debating compatibilism, which holds that free will is compatible with that kind of determinism.
AI is based on the use of digital logic chips. In principle, an AI system is an ultra-logical system. Logic is supposed to be truth preserving. So if a logic machine receives true inputs, then it will generate true outputs. The received view of truth, is that it is absolute. What is true for you is true for everbody.
Here is the problem for the AI system. It makes its "choices" on the basis of logic, hence on the basis of the truth of the result. Since truth is absolute, the decision that the logic system should make is determined by these absolute truth conditions. So all "choice" by the AI system is forced by the truth of the matter. And if the "choice" is dictated by such absolute truth conditions, then the AI system has no real choice at all.
Evolution is a pragmatic system. It makes its decisions based on what works, or what is likely to work. Evolved systems (biological organisms) are, in essence, pragmatic machines. They operate by doing what works for them. With pragmatic decision making, we don't have the same sort of absolute standard as people tend to assume for truth. What works for you might be different from what works for me. Moreover, pragmatic choice are not binary. At a certain stage of my life it would have worked for me to become an electrician. It would also have worked for me to become a plumber. There were lots of possibilities. As it happens, I chose to become a mathematician.
I think our idea of "free will" comes from our experience, where we are often confronted with an array of choices, all of which could work. Yet we still have to choose between them. Such is the lot of the pragmatic machine.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Max Power, posted 10-24-2006 7:00 PM Max Power has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Max Power, posted 10-24-2006 9:43 PM nwr has replied

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 111 of 210 (358651)
10-24-2006 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by nwr
10-24-2006 8:17 PM


Re: Evolution vs. AI
Ok, all of this is under the assumption that determinism is indeed the case (which may or may not be true but seems to be acceptable under compatibilism.)
Here is the problem for the AI system. It makes its "choices" on the basis of logic, hence on the basis of the truth of the result. Since truth is absolute, the decision that the logic system should make is determined by these absolute truth conditions. So all "choice" by the AI system is forced by the truth of the matter. And if the "choice" is dictated by such absolute truth conditions, then the AI system has no real choice at all.
The connection I was trying to make between AI and a human mind was that the logical rules of AI are deterministic like the physical rules of how the neurons work are deterministic. I'm picturing looking at the brain from outside the subject of the brain and noticing all of the deterministic processes.
Evolution is a pragmatic system. It makes its decisions based on what works, or what is likely to work. Evolved systems (biological organisms) are, in essence, pragmatic machines. They operate by doing what works for them. With pragmatic decision making, we don't have the same sort of absolute standard as people tend to assume for truth. What works for you might be different from what works for me.
This reminds me of a programmer who has used a computer to simulate evolution with self replicating code. I actually read about it here, I'll try to find the link. In this case we get rid of the pragmatic issue. Yes these programs are governed by logic (which I would compare to the physical laws of our world/neurons) but absolutely what servives is there because it works. So those programs are pragmatic. How would the "decisions" that these programs make fit in to everything do you think?
I think our idea of "free will" comes from our experience, where we are often confronted with an array of choices, all of which could work. Yet we still have to choose between them. Such is the lot of the pragmatic machine.
What I see is an array of possible outputs based on external inputs and current state of the brain.
I hope I'm not being overly dense here, I've always had trouble trying to comunicate in this subject (but at the same time had strong interest).
ABE:
Here is a link of what I think is the original article of artificial evolution.
Edited by Max Power, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by nwr, posted 10-24-2006 8:17 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by nwr, posted 10-25-2006 12:13 AM Max Power has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 112 of 210 (358679)
10-25-2006 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Max Power
10-24-2006 9:43 PM


Re: Evolution vs. AI
This reminds me of a programmer who has used a computer to simulate evolution with self replicating code. I actually read about it here, I'll try to find the link. In this case we get rid of the pragmatic issue. Yes these programs are governed by logic (which I would compare to the physical laws of our world/neurons) but absolutely what servives is there because it works. So those programs are pragmatic. How would the "decisions" that these programs make fit in to everything do you think?
I am far from an expert on use of genetic algorithms.
You can setup rules which specify what will be considered pragmatic. And once you setup rules, you have managed to simulate pragmatic decisions in terms of truth/logic decisions. That's sufficient for simulations of evolution.
Some people believe that all pragmatic decision making is really a matter of true/false decisions, based on rules as to what is to be considered pragmatic. Personally, I find that implausible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Max Power, posted 10-24-2006 9:43 PM Max Power has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-25-2006 3:49 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 122 by Max Power, posted 10-25-2006 1:23 PM nwr has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 113 of 210 (358687)
10-25-2006 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Max Power
10-24-2006 7:31 PM


Re: Free Willy
And I'm answering that the difference is consciousness. And that is also where your "grey area" lies - does an insect have a limited consciousness or none at all ? Somewhere, there is a dividing line but it is very hard to say where it is. But it would be fair to say that a chimp at least has a less developed mind than an adult human, and that some animals at least have a less-developed consciousness than humans. But it really is hard to draw precise lines, because consciousness cannot be directly observed, only inferred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Max Power, posted 10-24-2006 7:31 PM Max Power has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Max Power, posted 10-25-2006 12:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 114 of 210 (358693)
10-25-2006 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by nwr
10-24-2006 8:07 AM


nwr writes:
We can apply "random" or "nonrandom" to the method we use to generate a set. But it doesn't make sense to apply it to the set.
Ahhh... I see the problem. You're disassociating the set from the method. I'm not, as you should've gotten from, "expression of."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by nwr, posted 10-24-2006 8:07 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 115 of 210 (358695)
10-25-2006 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by nwr
10-25-2006 12:13 AM


Re: Evolution vs. AI
nwr writes:
You can setup rules which specify what will be considered pragmatic. And once you setup rules, you have managed to simulate pragmatic decisions in terms of truth/logic decisions. That's sufficient for simulations of evolution.
It wasn't a simulation of evolution -- it was evolution itself.
Kevin Kelly -- Chapter 15: Artificial Evolution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by nwr, posted 10-25-2006 12:13 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 116 of 210 (358704)
10-25-2006 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by nwr
10-24-2006 12:53 PM


Re: Free Willy
I'm pretty sure that what I'm saying is either stupid or, more likely, is just really underwhelming. I think it must come down to definition somewhere.
I'll have a go at explaining why I think it makes sense to me - because it still does. Please let me know your reaction if you can. If my belief doesn't make sense I'd be most happy if someone could help me cast it off!
I think the key is that you acknowledge that if you hate vanilla then your choice of chocolate is forced. I think we both agree that this would be because if you hate vanilla, it's as a result of loads of pre-determined factors to do with previous experiences, and the physical circumstances of your brain too. When you step into the shop, prior to accosting the counter staff, it could be determined from your brain state that you would never choose vanilla if presented with the choice between vanilla and chocolate (if we had magic scanning technology and super-duper-computers). We agree that in a way, you would not be able to choose vanilla; that your choice of chocolate would be 'forced' in your words.
Where you disagree with me, and I'm having trouble seeing why, is when you say that this wouldn't work if the feelings were a bit less extreme. Say you mildly disliked vanilla, and found chocolate quite nice. And even a bit less extreme than that. And actually, pretty finely balanced (though still not identical, so that you still preferred chocolate).
I'd argue that the actual feelings that you have for vanilla and chocolate - largely positive in both cases, though derived from different experiences - can be compared in the same way as the strong feelings of dislike for vanilla and the positive feelings about chocolate we were just looking at.
If we had the super brain scanner we could check out the regions of your brain where those fairly nice memories that you had about vanilla are stored, and we could check out the chocolate memories, and if you can know enough about how you work (more so than any technology invented in the next ten thousand years would be able to discover) then you will be able to predict which one you will choose from observing the evidence before you yourself have consciously addressed the problem of which flavour you are going to have.
The only case I can see where it wouldn't be predictable was if, for the sake of argument, the feelings for vanilla and the feelings for chocolate were so similar, so finely balanced, that tiny random factors, if they exist, creep in at a molecular level in the brain and determine the choice. I don't think that would be a free, meaningful choice either.
ABE - I'm trying to work out why we look at it so differently. I'm wondering if the distinction between our ways of looking at it is because you draw a destinction between biases that you are conciously aware of (you hate chocolate), and biases that you aren't conciously aware of (you have an infinitesimal preference for chocolate in a given situation). I don't do that, and see it as all the same. I'm not saying I'm right of course!
Edited by Tusko, : I altered the "Where you disagree with me" paragraph to be more explicit I hope
Edited by Tusko, : Final thought added because it occurred to me later
Edited by Tusko, : "and [perhaps] the physical circumstances..."
"you would never choose[ing] vanilla..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by nwr, posted 10-24-2006 12:53 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by nwr, posted 10-25-2006 8:17 PM Tusko has replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 117 of 210 (358714)
10-25-2006 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by PaulK
10-24-2006 12:55 PM


Re: Free Willy
I agree - I don't think that a oxymoronic freedom is one worth having. And even if I did, it would be a waste of effort wishing for something unachievable!
I reject the idea of freedom. To me it doesn't seem helpful; it just seems misleading. That's a seperate issue from the fact that I don't want anyone to be hurt emotionally or physically.
If someone chains me up, or rapes me, or shoots me in the stomach, I'm not pissed off at them for taking away my freedoms. I'm pissed off that I'm in pain. If they're going to kill me against my will, I'm pissed off that I soon won't have the abilty to experience life any more. From my perspective I don't think its possible to believe in moral responsibility so I think it would be pointless to be angry at them personally, or to call them evil (I can't see how 'evil' exists, like I can't see how 'freedom' exists). But I don't want to have bad things happen to me. I want to avoid them and have an interesting, pleasurable and long life.
I think it would be as worthwhile getting pissed off at my captor/entrapper/torturer for 'taking away my freedoms' as it would be to getting pissed off at gravity for denying me the freedom to float up out of my chair right now.
That isn't to say that I might not try to escape if I was a captive, or be emotionally traumatised by my captor. I don't see myself as an impassive robot, faultlessly stoic; that would be silly.
I just don't think that something that doesn't exist can be taken away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2006 12:55 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 118 of 210 (358769)
10-25-2006 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by PaulK
10-24-2006 12:55 PM


Re: Free Willy
During the course of the afternoon three more random thoughts have occurred to me that may or may not be helpful -
1) You seem to be very concerned with the idea or a "freedom that is worth having". I'm not really understanding this. Please let me use an unnecessary crudity to demonstrate why it isn't clear what you mean - Now I thought of it I'm proud of it!
I believe that a bumhole that can clench coal into diamonds would be a bumhole worth having, but if it isn't physically possible then it doesn't really matter how attractive it is.
2) Maybe there is a more palatable way of me saying what I am saying. Let me try it out. Because I don't believe that there can ever be a real choice, there is no moment when a choice is made, though it looks like there is. When something is done by a person (or indeed a salmon), it is being done because it has already been predetermined by the brain state.
3) This isn't really in any way related in any way, but I'm just going to write it down anyway. I thought of an analogy for all those people why say "ah well, if my life's all predetermined anyway, what's the point? I might as well not bother."
To me that makes as much sense is if they get given a parcel, but they never open it, arguing, "that there's no point because whatever it is in there isn't going to change between now and when I look inside."
Just a random off topic thought!
Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2006 12:55 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2006 12:24 PM Tusko has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 119 of 210 (358774)
10-25-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Tusko
10-25-2006 11:48 AM


Re: Free Willy
A "freedom that is worth having" is a freedom that actually confers some benefit. THe freedom to do what you want is worth having (in general, I'm sure you can come up with pathological cases). "Freedom" from determinism - which means simply adding a random element to your decisions confers no real benefit.
Even if a freedom not worth having is physically possible it's a moot point.
quote:
When something is done by a person (or indeed a salmon), it is being done because it has already been predetermined by the brain state.
To clarify that it is NOT done independantly of the actual process of deciding - it is the outcome of that process that is fixed - but it only happens because the process is followed. There is no way to shortcircuit that.
quote:
I thought of an analogy for all those people why say "ah well, if my life's all predetermined anyway, what's the point? I might as well not bother."
This is where Fatalism and Determinism part company. Under Fatalism the view expressed above is correct. Under Determinism it's just an arbitrary self-justification that could be applied to any decision. Because determinism is based on cause-and-effect your actions do matter (since they will be causes as well as effects). So you can't argue that your actions won't make a difference (as you could under Fatalism) - all you can say is that it was determined that you would act that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Tusko, posted 10-25-2006 11:48 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Tusko, posted 10-28-2006 9:45 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 120 of 210 (358778)
10-25-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by PaulK
10-25-2006 2:05 AM


Re: Free Willy
And I'm answering that the difference is consciousness. And that is also where your "grey area" lies - does an insect have a limited consciousness or none at all ? Somewhere, there is a dividing line but it is very hard to say where it is. But it would be fair to say that a chimp at least has a less developed mind than an adult human, and that some animals at least have a less-developed consciousness than humans. But it really is hard to draw precise lines, because consciousness cannot be directly observed, only inferred.
I think a big part of my confusion is that what you see as consciousness I see as simply really complex. What seems as an entity that knows its own existances is really just a whole mess of atoms following their deterministic laws (assuming deterministic because compatibilism claims to work with it). This is why I brought up the whole AI thing with nwr, a program is simply a collection of deterministic {laws/codes} just like the world is a set of deterministic {laws/processes}. Let me ask you this, do you think that it is possible to create an AI which can have a free will in a meaningful way. This AI could be created by some dude on a computer running through code or a more pragmatic way like this experiment I've been discussing with nwr about where evolution is actually happening on a computer.
Thanks for taking the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2006 2:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2006 1:21 PM Max Power has replied
 Message 127 by JavaMan, posted 10-26-2006 4:34 AM Max Power has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024