|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Evolution Have An Objective? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Cheers for the link. I find myself very conflicted about freewill. It seems just so inherently obvious that we do possess freewill of a type that seems incompatible with any serious thought about the matter. I suppose the "obvious" should be rationally rejected. But.........
Mod writes: Compatabilists might argue that choice is really the result of subjective beings presented with imperfect information. I get that. I think. But Mr Jack seems to be talking about a much more stringent form of determinism where imperfect information is not the problem.
Mr Jack writes: It could be predicted with total knowledge, but that's not quite the same thing. And that ability to predict has no baring on whether or not we have free will. Message 18 If "total knowledge" of all things past and present results in the ability to derive immutable knowledge of all things future I still don't see how "choice" is anythng but an illusion? There are no options to choose. There is just the predetermined . No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
No, I decide what choices it can make not what choices it will make. In fact, I could go further and write a completely deterministic program that makes choices I don't know what are but that's by the by.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I don't see how the possibility of alternative choices matters. We have freewill because we decide; how we decide is irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, I decide what choices it can make not what choices it will make. That's not "completely deterministic".
In fact, I could go further and write a completely deterministic program that makes choices I don't know what are but that's by the by. I call shenanigans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: I don't see how the possibility of alternative choices matters. You are advocating decisions that are independent of choice?
Mr Jack writes: We have freewill because we decide; how we decide is irrelevant. If there is only one predetermined path what are you deciding between?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If "total knowledge" of all things past and present results in the ability to derive immutable knowledge of all things future I still don't see how "choice" is anythng but an illusion? Because you still have the choice, even if the choice you make is predetermined. The thing that is an illusion is the feeling that you could have chosen differently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aware Wolf Member (Idle past 1450 days) Posts: 156 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
It's making my head hurt trying to follow this.
Are you saying that deciding is an action we can perform, like eating or running, and that being able to perform this action means we have freewill, like being able to perform the action of running means we have legs? And that, further, it doesn't matter if we are predetermined to decide, like it doesn't matter if we are predetermined to run?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1534 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Modulous writes: To think the big bang boils down to my shoe color selection this morning. I once mistakenly wore both brown and black brogues to work. Maybe I should of chose to turn on the closet light while getting dressed.
The thing that is an illusion is the feeling that you could have chosen differently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Mod writes: Because you still have the choice, even if the choice you make is predetermined. The thing that is an illusion is the feeling that you could have chosen differently. Hmmmm. This seems a bit like saying that I have "chosen" to live on Earth rather than Mars. The fact that it is in effect impossible for me to live on Mars would, by most common usage, make the use of the word "choice" somewhat inappropriate here. The fact is I quite like the idea of living on Mars under certain practical conditions. If it is imposible to choose differently I would dispute that a "choice" has genuinely been made. But at this point I guess it all boils down to the semantics of what one means by the word "choice". I am operating on a sort of instinctive and unstated definition (which I hope you will "get" even if not subscribe to) but I appreciate this may not count for much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Catholic Scientist writes: That's not "completely deterministic". Yes, it is. The response depends on the inputs. Consider a chess playing AI, I would determine how it chooses it moves but not how it would respond to a particular move from its opponent.
I call shenanigans. Any learning algorithm will do this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes, it is. The response depends on the inputs. That's only partially deterministic.
Consider a chess playing AI, I would determine how it chooses it moves but not how it would respond to a particular move from its opponent. That's not completely deterministic.
Any learning algorithm will do this. That's not completely deterministic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1055 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Given that it seems blindingly obvious that a system that works by obeying a set of unwavering rules is wholly deterministic, you can't just say "it's not" without explaining why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Given that it seems blindingly obvious that a system that works by obeying a set of unwavering rules is wholly deterministic, you can't just say "it's not" without explaining why. Well, he's just saying it is without explaining why, and you're just saying its blindingly obvious without saying why. If the decision are not determined in the programming of how it chooses, then its not completely deterministic. If it is completely deterministic, then its going to make the same move for each input and therefore its isn't really making the decision itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
'Programming' and 'inputs' are basically the same thing. If the decision are not determined in the programming of how it chooses, then its not completely deterministic. If it is completely deterministic, then its going to make the same move for each input and therefore its isn't really making the decision itself.They both affect future decisions. If you reset the AI and give it the same programming and inputs: you will get the same decisions. Time after time. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
'Programming' and 'inputs' are basically the same thing.
The programming is the determination of how it chooses its moves, the input is the move that the opponent made.
They both affect future decisions. Indeed.
If you reset the AI and give it the same programming and inputs: you will get the same decisions. Time after time. Then its not actually making a decision.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024