a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
<!--quoteo(post=1605022:date=Feb 9 2007, 12:45 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Feb 9 2007, 12:45 AM) [snapback]1605022[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But perception is reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can define reality as perception, but in that case, why use the term "reality" at all?
I can only assume you're merely stating your definition of reality, for if not and you are actually referring to the dictionary definition, your statement is false. Many other animals perceive the world very differently than do humans, so if perception is reality, their realities are different too. However, reality is "something that exists independently of all other things...", and thus cannot depend on which animal is perceiving.
<!--quoteo(post=1605146:date=Feb 9 2007, 02:00 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a_civilian @ Feb 9 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]1605146[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You can define reality as perception, but in that case, why use the term "reality" at all?
I can only assume you're merely stating your definition of reality, for if not and you are actually referring to the dictionary definition, your statement is false. Many other animals perceive the world very differently than do humans, so if perception is reality, their realities are different too. However, reality is "something that exists independently of all other things...", and thus cannot depend on which animal is perceiving. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Reality isn't a perception, but that's a little inconsequential, since our interface with reality doesn't exist without perception, and thus our individual understanding of reality is based in perception. My definition of reality would be "the context of existence we share with others"
<!--quoteo(post=1604124:date=Feb 5 2007, 07:41 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Feb 5 2007, 07:41 PM) [snapback]1604124[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Actually that's not true. I can give you plenty of programs that you will not be able to tell whether they will terminate. This is a well known problem in computer science called the Halting Problem.
Consider a program that tests the Riemann Zeta Hypothesis, and outputs the first counterexample it finds. Neither you nor anyone else in the world at the moment can tell whether or not it will ever terminate. The same is true of a lot of programs that test conjectures in number theory.
If a human can prove that it will terminate, a computer can also prove that it will terminate, because proofs by definition are no more than a sequence of symbol manipulations and could be generated by a computer, though it might take quite a bit longer. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Humans don't prove, humans believe.
[edit]To get back to the free will discussion... I'm going to somewhat arbitrarily define free will here to simplify the problem. Scot adams originally convolute the problem by essentially making free will impossible to define. Essentially he postulates that free will must be some function of freedom in a non mechanical sense, not defined by random input. This is vaugly true, but the limits of this definition are impossible to understand until you look at the real definition of free will. Free will is the opposite alternative to fate. Disproving fate is fairly easy... at least disproving relevant fate is. If something exists and is relevant then it can be known, if fate exists and is relevant it can therefore be known. If someone can know fate then they can deviate from fate, therefore fate cannot be known, and therefore relevant fate cannot exist. Since by no relevant sense I am fated to do anything, I have free will. Effectively, an artificial intelligence obtains "free will" as soon as that artificial intelligence is able to understand that it is a complicated machine, and act upon that understanding. This entity, if it is somehow able to ascertain fate, will be able to decide weather to act on that information or not and therefore invalidate fate's existence.
Free will doesn't make our actions unpredictable, it simply makes it impossible for us to be able to ever objectively predict our own actions. Since the context of set will, or fate, can't possibly apply to all frames of reference then it doesn't universally apply.
<!--quoteo(post=1605022:date=Feb 9 2007, 12:45 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Feb 9 2007, 12:45 AM) [snapback]1605022[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But perception is reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. The colors we see, the smells we smell, the things we feel are all fake, arbitrary things assigned to arbitrary wavelengths of light (and other things) by evolution. But that doesn't mean that there is no reality. Regardless of the way I see it, a monitor in front of me that is emitting photons that I see as blue. Just because many of the things we sense have arbitrary values associated with them (color and light for example) doesn't mean that there isn't an actual reality of facts. IE: There are atoms here, photons here, etc.
There are facts that will be true whether or not you like them and believe in them. For example the fact that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere. This is a fact of reality and does not depend on what you think about it.
a simple test: "I hear its amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hari Kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!"
you either: - know the line (then lol) - don't know the line (then wth?)
You posted in reaction to the statement that your option was binary while showing (what you thought to be) an exception.
The test was not for the resultant action, but the reaction itself. In reacting to the statement (note: "statement" refers to the statement of your binary option) you confirm that you react. Not only do you react, but you do so in a manner consistent with previous experience. (Even when previous experience causes you to react in a way which would not be immediately apparent, f.ex.: you react in an unexpected manner to a stimuli not because of free will, but because something in the past caused you to change your response to the stimuli to something unexpected as a reaction to the original stimuli.) Your move.
<!--quoteo(post=1602532:date=Jan 28 2007, 06:50 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jan 28 2007, 06:50 PM) [snapback]1602532[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->p.s.: this post is a reaction to your post generated by my current state (partially aggressive) and the content is generated by a combining and contextualizing content taken from various discussions, lectures and various other sources. i am a deterministic device.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, I take it we are in agreement.
<!--quoteo(post=1604940:date=Feb 8 2007, 06:05 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Feb 8 2007, 06:05 PM) [snapback]1604940[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Nah your inability to see the reasons behind things precludes you from winning.
Your sentences don't make sense. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read through topic and have to agree with Nadagast, Smood you make no sense.
<!--quoteo(post=1603241:date=Jan 31 2007, 10:12 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 31 2007, 10:12 PM) [snapback]1603241[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> My point is that our actions aren't linked by reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Virtually all actions are completely dependent on reasons. Consciously or subconsciously, when you decide to do something you are deciding to do it because of something else (a reason). The only actions I can think of which are not dependent on reasons are those who of an automaton (e.g. having a spasm, epileptic fit).
<!--quoteo(post=1603241:date=Jan 31 2007, 10:12 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 31 2007, 10:12 PM) [snapback]1603241[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I say this because people tend to say to such situations like "I killed him because he shot my wife". You can choose NOT to shoot him for the same reasons. So really, you shot him because you CHOSE to do so, not because some reason spiritually controlled your finger to press the trigger.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) As, Nadagast has repeatedly pointed out and what you still do not explain is what you mean by 'CHOSE.' 2) Nadagast isn't arguing that something 'spiritually controlled' your finger (no idea where that came from). 3) Nadagast is arguing that the CHOICE that person made (lets call him A) in killing B was based on REASONS. The primary reason in this case is that B shot A's wife. If you assert that A shot B completely independently of reasons, then you saying that B shooting of A's wife was completely irrelevant to A. In other words, you are saying that the death of A's wife was coincidental, A was indifferent to it. I don't think that is what you mean to say. 4) You argue that A could choose NOT to shoot B for the same reason. I agree, yes he could. This doesn't mean that reasons are irrelevant, just because both scenarios are possible. A is still basing his decision (of not shooting) on a reason. In this scenario however, that particular reason has merely caused A to come to the opposite conclusion. Reasons do not equate to results. They are just factors which are assessed (consciously or subconsciously) in our minds in order for us to a conclusion. The possibility of two scenarios shows that reasons are subjective. People weigh them up in their heads differently. As Nadagast says, they are not absolute. Different reasons mean different things to different people.
i) B kills A's wife. A shoots B. The MAIN REASON why A shoots B is because A loved his wife and B took that away from him. ii) B kills A's wife. A does nothing. The MAIN REASON why A does nothing is because A wanted B dead anyway. A is in fact glad that B did it.
In both cases, A will have made a decision/choice based on reasons. In both cases the same reason (B killing A) has led to opposite outcomes.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If someone were to hold a gun to your head saying suck my ######, it would be your choice to do so. Even at gunpoint, the other guy can only suggest what you can or cannot do; it's still ultimately your decision. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I agree. But what is that decision based on? Are you going to suck someones ###### completely randomnly? Its just irrelevant / coincidental that the guys ###### is near you and the gun is at your head. I highly doubt it. Whatever you decide its based on a reason. If you choose to suck, it might be because you don't want to die, it might be because you are ######. If you don't choose to suck, it might be because you don't want to do such a revolting act, especially while under duress. Whatever decision is made, it will be made according to the subjective reasoning of that person. To reiterate the point, just because both scenarios are possible does not mean reasoning is not used. It will be! It is just that those reasons have meant different things to different people.
This is getting tricky, partly because of definitions. But I may have an insight. As far as we know, an operator presented with a particular situation may act in one of two ways:
--Act deterministically, selecting the same response to the situation every time, or --Act randomly, selecting any one of a number of responses even given an identical situation
I don't really see a third way to describe it. Neither of these is equivalent to free will, but I will propose that neither is inherently opposed to free will either. Rather, free will comes from another aspect of the equation that we haven't looked at yet: The operator.
Allow me to propose a pair of scenarios, identical in every way except for the operator. Both operators have exactly the same sum total of inputs, but they have 2 different responses. Even if both are deterministically selecting the same response to that scenario every time it occurs, they still show free will simply because they have the capability to select different responses <i>from each other</i>. If you want to predict the outcome of the scenario, it is not enough to know all of the inputs, you also have to know the operator and how he personally will respond to those inputs. Therefore, he has free will.
<!--quoteo(post=1605861:date=Feb 12 2007, 12:54 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 12 2007, 12:54 PM) [snapback]1605861[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->--Act deterministically, selecting the same response to the situation every time<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> incorrect, a deterministic response takes the current stimuli and the current <b>state</b> into account.
ie: stimuli: a large ball is flying towards you. state: normal. response: dodge! result: the ball impacts a glass wall infront of you and stops. you would have been safe either way.
and a second time: stimuli: a large ball is flying towards you. (again) state: oh, hey. that glass wall could protect me! response: try to make a stoic/bad*** pose to impress the ladies. result: the ball impacts a glass wall, cracking it slightly. however, the ladies are impressed.
a third time: stimuli: a large ball is flying towards you. (yet again) state: the glass looks like it might give. i should do something. response: dodge both the ball and the flying glass. result: you roll away just in time to avoid the inexplicable flying ball of doom and shards of glass.
Why is the large sheet of plate glass not considered part of the scenario? I'm putting them all together, to create "sum total of inputs past and present".
Operator state is still relevant, but the inputs that put the operator into that state have to be considered as well. For example, you stand behind the glass, and after watching the ball strike once, you move into the state of "lets impress the ladies". I stand behind the glass, and after watching the ball strike once, I move into the state of "I shouldn't be standing behind this glass". Same inputs, but I've shown a different response than you, ergo free will.
Cxwf, I agree that Black Mage's criticism of your scenario is faulty. I believe that what Black Mage separates into 'state and stimuli' are both inside the concept of 'input' which cxwf stated. Anyway, (although this is a minor tangent), I think state and stimuli overlap, your state is largely dependent on the stimuli around you. Your state of:
(1) "Normal" (no extraordinary stimuli) (2) "Belief that glass wall will protect me" (is this not derived from the fact that that person has badly assessed the strength of the glass wall using his eyes and possibly touch aka stimuli?) (3) "Belief that glass is ok" (derived from a good assessment of the strength of the glass)
To get back to the point. I think cxwf, you are right in asserting that there are only two possibilities for an operator of:
"--Act deterministically, selecting the same response to the situation every time, or --Act randomly, selecting any one of a number of responses even given an identical situation"
My head is exploding but to me, you are right especially in the final paragraph. I personally think, free will is all about perception and in that last scenario you mention, free will exists because of the perception that they are thinking with their own choice (even though it is deterministic).
Some further comments: - what about the case of identical operators with identical input who behave deterministically and thus reach exactly the same result. In such a case, if a Entity X wants a particular result(s) from a particular input, he theoretically, with sufficient knowledge and technology can reverse engineer from the desired result(s) to find out what properties/characteristics of operator are required to achieve this result. Armed with this knowledge, if he did create such an operator A. Can A ever be said to have free will as X effectively knows exactly what he is going to do when given particular input? (Does this make any sense whatsoever lol?)
-also, can determinism in practice ever occur for humans? Determinism implies there is no randomness. But is this true for humans? At some deep level, with the particles, electrons, even quarks etc. in our head is there not some inherent randomness (like radiative decay) there that means determinism never occurs? As there is always a chance that initially identical operators will slowly become different.
assuming an ideal reference frame, glass is nearly invisible. plus, some people seem to forget slight details when presented with a large and possibly lethal object.
what i was trying to say is that the situation is never the same each time. every time you are presented with something, it has happened (n-1) times and you may change your response based on that. also, acting according to "any number" would imply that there is a limit to randomness which implies some level of determinism. If it was truly random, there would be no limit to any number, number system or series.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
<!--quoteo(post=1605861:date=Feb 12 2007, 01:54 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 12 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]1605861[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Allow me to propose a pair of scenarios, identical in every way except for the operator. Both operators have exactly the same sum total of inputs, but they have 2 different responses. Even if both are deterministically selecting the same response to that scenario every time it occurs, they still show free will simply because they have the capability to select different responses <i>from each other</i>. If you want to predict the outcome of the scenario, it is not enough to know all of the inputs, you also have to know the operator and how he personally will respond to those inputs. Therefore, he has free will. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would guess that's how most of those in this thread arguing <i>against</i> free will view the issue (including me, at least). That one's choices are completely determined by the physical processes occurring within one's brain, and such physical processes are either random or deterministic. That there is no abstract "self" making "free", that is, neither random nor deterministic, decisions. It is only a question of the definition, then, in this case.
It would be ridiculous to claim that any two people <i>would</i> respond identically to the same stimulus, for even without any random element, this would only be necessarily true if their brains were identical. Due to the complexity of the brain, the probability of that is completely negligible.
<!--quoteo(post=1606136:date=Feb 13 2007, 01:24 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Feb 13 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]1606136[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> what i was trying to say is that the situation is never the same each time. every time you are presented with something, it has happened (n-1) times and you may change your response based on that. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe the idea was to set <i>everything</i> the same, including the brain state (which includes memory, of course).
<!--quoteo(post=1606136:date=Feb 13 2007, 01:24 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Feb 13 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]1606136[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> also, acting according to "any number" would imply that there is a limit to randomness which implies some level of determinism. If it was truly random, there would be no limit to any number, number system or series. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Erm, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You can have a random number generator that randomly generates either 0 or 1, and it would be truly random. The number of possible choices is irrelevant.
<!--quoteo(post=1606186:date=Feb 13 2007, 03:11 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a_civilian @ Feb 13 2007, 03:11 PM) [snapback]1606186[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Erm, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You can have a random number generator that randomly generates either 0 or 1, and it would be truly random. The number of possible choices is irrelevant. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
when presented with a situation, you will pick a response that is relevant to the stimuli based on your current state and situation. ie: there is a giant wrecking ball of doom. i will: 1) dodge 2) hope something will save me 3) :jawdrop: 4) pray (pick one) you will not (unless your current state is altered to where it seems logical to do so) attempt to turn purple and begin playing the violin, backwards.
on picking from a set of responses, you are not showing free will. you are expressing your ability to act rationally when presented with a situation (forward-looking logic).
now, if we were to set *everything* to be identical for the ball+windex'd glass+person experiment. it would look like this: 1) ball drops 2) person evades 3) ball hits glass 4) reset 5) go to 1
Your brain is a series of linked neurons. If you set every neuron as it was at the beginning (effectively resetting the person's mind) and apply the same stimulus in the same way at the same time: he subject will react in the same way, every time.
I can't think of a scenario in which an extremely complex state machine couldn't possibly work. However, I'd argue that an extremely complex state machine has free will at the point that it takes into consideration what an arbitrary outside force expects it to do in it's determining of it's actions.
Basically, once an entity starts considering it's actions in the sense that it knows what it's supposed to do, and then recalculates it's actions to decide weather it wants to proceed with the projected plausibility, or weather it wants to defy prediction, then it's capable of free will. However, yes, its still a complex state machine.
Humans deal mostly with what are essentially philosophical loops as they determine their courses of action. Basically we have a strong tendency to go "hey, so and so expects me to do this action, and therefore I'm going to do that action instead". If you examine the statement it's a self analysis loop. If someone is trying to determine my course of action, and I modify my action to prevent their determination from taking place, then I need to self analyze my action, and determine from that information what course of action the alternative entity is expecting from me. This can very easily loop infinitely. "he thinks I'm going to move right, so I move left", "he thinks I think he thinks I'm going to move right, and therefore I'll move left, so I'm going to move right to throw off his analysis.", "he thinks I think he thinks I think he thinks I'm going to move right, and thus have anticipated his perception of my action, so I'm going to blah blah blah".
Because the human state machine is capable of this type of problem solving, our frame of reference invalidates set will, or fate, that we can't possibly modify. Because like I said before, if fate is valid to the human reality, it exists in reality and can therefore be known, and since if a human knows about fate it cannot exist, it therefore does not exist from the human frame of reference. One could argue that it could still exist outside the human frame of reference, but that would be irrelevant because it's pointless to postulate that something exists that can't possibly be observed in any way by humans, by it's own definition.
Reasons do not link automatic actions, if we can choose to do it.
If you bought a game because it was an RPG, I would do the opposite. Therefore, you can't say, if a game is an RPG, then it will be bought. Well, you could say, if a game is a RPG, then people might buy it, but what would that prove.
Reasons don't get us anywhere. It's called bad faith when you believe you HAVE to do something when you have the choice to.
If you were to hold a gun to my head, I wouldn't be "FORCED" by the reason to live to do what you say. I would still have my choice of obeying you or not.
Again, it's about choice, not what arbitrary REASON that forces us to act in certain ways that we function. I suppose that links somewhere to free will.
(@Swiftspear) Very well said, but I have a slight modification to make:
Any entity possessing enough knowledge to make deterministic predictions cannot be bound by fate, as by your logic if it can predict the deterministic results of its own actions, it can modify those actions to prevent that fate. If it can predict the deterministic results of others actions, it can take the necessary actions (assuming it has enough power) to encourage or prevent another's fate.
An entity <i>not</i> possessing that level of knowledge <i>can</i> be bound by fate, although that fate may be changed by the first type of entity.
In short--fate is inevitable only so far as it is unknown. You know whats cool about this line of thought? It allows for an omnipotent, omniscient God, who is not bound by fate, and can modify the fates of others. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1606292:date=Feb 13 2007, 08:20 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Feb 13 2007, 08:20 PM) [snapback]1606292[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you bought a game because it was an RPG, I would do the opposite.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your current state "don't do what he did" plus the relevant stimuli "he bought an RPG" equals your reaction "buy something else" <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you were to hold a gun to my head, I wouldn't be "FORCED" by the reason to live to do what you say. I would still have my choice of obeying you or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The gun is the stimuli. Add your state: "obedient" or "disobedient" (or "other") and you get a reaction "hand over wallet" or "do something heroic" (or "other")
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1606215:date=Feb 13 2007, 05:10 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Feb 13 2007, 05:10 PM) [snapback]1606215[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Because like I said before, if fate is valid to the human reality, it exists in reality and can therefore be known, and since if a human knows about fate it cannot exist, it therefore does not exist from the human frame of reference. One could argue that it could still exist outside the human frame of reference, but that would be irrelevant because it's pointless to postulate that something exists that can't possibly be observed in any way by humans, by it's own definition. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There do exist deterministic things that are not computable. Your argument is an effective one for why the actions of humans are not computable, but it is still possible for them to be deterministic.
That's actually an identical argument to the proof that the halting problem is not computable. It goes somewhat like this:
Suppose you have a program that, when given the text of a program, outputs in finite time whether the program halts or not. Call that program H. Now consider a program Q that calls H as a subroutine in the following manner. Q passes it's own source code to H. If H says "Halts" then Q loops forever, otherwise it halts. However, now you've constructed a program that loops forever if it halts, and halts if it loops forever. This is a contradiction. Therefore, there can be no such program that solves the halting problem.
<!--quoteo(post=1606322:date=Feb 13 2007, 07:47 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Feb 13 2007, 07:47 PM) [snapback]1606322[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Your current state "don't do what he did" plus the relevant stimuli "he bought an RPG" equals your reaction "buy something else" <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Erm, I wouldn't buy a RPG because I plain don't like what they are. But thanks for trying to tell me why I wouldn't buy one. The real reason is that I did not choose to. Specific reasons do not determine our actions, other than instincts. It all comes down to what we choose to do.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
<!--quoteo(post=1606292:date=Feb 13 2007, 09:20 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Feb 13 2007, 09:20 PM) [snapback]1606292[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I do something because I chose to do it.
Reasons do not link automatic actions, if we can choose to do it.
If you bought a game because it was an RPG, I would do the opposite. Therefore, you can't say, if a game is an RPG, then it will be bought. Well, you could say, if a game is a RPG, then people might buy it, but what would that prove.
Reasons don't get us anywhere. It's called bad faith when you believe you HAVE to do something when you have the choice to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you chose to respond differently to the same stimulus, it is only because you based your actions on different reasons. Or, the same reasons held different priorities in your mind. It certainly does not indicate that your actions were not based on reasons.
<!--quoteo(post=1606351:date=Feb 13 2007, 11:58 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Feb 13 2007, 11:58 PM) [snapback]1606351[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> There do exist deterministic things that are not computable. Your argument is an effective one for why the actions of humans are not computable, but it is still possible for them to be deterministic.
That's actually an identical argument to the proof that the halting problem is not computable. It goes somewhat like this:
Suppose you have a program that, when given the text of a program, outputs in finite time whether the program halts or not. Call that program H. Now consider a program Q that calls H as a subroutine in the following manner. Q passes it's own source code to H. If H says "Halts" then Q loops forever, otherwise it halts. However, now you've constructed a program that loops forever if it halts, and halts if it loops forever. This is a contradiction. Therefore, there can be no such program that solves the halting problem. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, as I stated, it's possible for things to exist that are not humanly observable, however, they can't possibly be observed, and thus are irrelevant to human reality. All reality as humans know it is determined through perception, if something cannot be perceived by it's own definition, then it doesn't exist within relevant human reality.
<!--quoteo(post=1606356:date=Feb 13 2007, 11:12 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Feb 13 2007, 11:12 PM) [snapback]1606356[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Erm, I wouldn't buy a RPG because I plain don't like what they are. But thanks for trying to tell me why I wouldn't buy one. The real reason is that I did not choose to. Specific reasons do not determine our actions, other than instincts. It all comes down to what we choose to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay. We'll try it again. Thanks for being crystal clear the first time.
State: Don't like RPGS Stimuli: RPG for sale at wal*mart Reaction: Buy something else (or nothing). Result: Something else (or nothing) bought.
Comments
Your sentences don't make sense. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
You can define reality as perception, but in that case, why use the term "reality" at all?
I can only assume you're merely stating your definition of reality, for if not and you are actually referring to the dictionary definition, your statement is false. Many other animals perceive the world very differently than do humans, so if perception is reality, their realities are different too. However, reality is "something that exists independently of all other things...", and thus cannot depend on which animal is perceiving.
You can define reality as perception, but in that case, why use the term "reality" at all?
I can only assume you're merely stating your definition of reality, for if not and you are actually referring to the dictionary definition, your statement is false. Many other animals perceive the world very differently than do humans, so if perception is reality, their realities are different too. However, reality is "something that exists independently of all other things...", and thus cannot depend on which animal is perceiving.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reality isn't a perception, but that's a little inconsequential, since our interface with reality doesn't exist without perception, and thus our individual understanding of reality is based in perception. My definition of reality would be "the context of existence we share with others"
<!--quoteo(post=1604124:date=Feb 5 2007, 07:41 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Feb 5 2007, 07:41 PM) [snapback]1604124[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Actually that's not true. I can give you plenty of programs that you will not be able to tell whether they will terminate. This is a well known problem in computer science called the Halting Problem.
Consider a program that tests the Riemann Zeta Hypothesis, and outputs the first counterexample it finds. Neither you nor anyone else in the world at the moment can tell whether or not it will ever terminate. The same is true of a lot of programs that test conjectures in number theory.
If a human can prove that it will terminate, a computer can also prove that it will terminate, because proofs by definition are no more than a sequence of symbol manipulations and could be generated by a computer, though it might take quite a bit longer.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Humans don't prove, humans believe.
[edit]To get back to the free will discussion... I'm going to somewhat arbitrarily define free will here to simplify the problem. Scot adams originally convolute the problem by essentially making free will impossible to define. Essentially he postulates that free will must be some function of freedom in a non mechanical sense, not defined by random input. This is vaugly true, but the limits of this definition are impossible to understand until you look at the real definition of free will. Free will is the opposite alternative to fate. Disproving fate is fairly easy... at least disproving relevant fate is. If something exists and is relevant then it can be known, if fate exists and is relevant it can therefore be known. If someone can know fate then they can deviate from fate, therefore fate cannot be known, and therefore relevant fate cannot exist. Since by no relevant sense I am fated to do anything, I have free will. Effectively, an artificial intelligence obtains "free will" as soon as that artificial intelligence is able to understand that it is a complicated machine, and act upon that understanding. This entity, if it is somehow able to ascertain fate, will be able to decide weather to act on that information or not and therefore invalidate fate's existence.
Free will doesn't make our actions unpredictable, it simply makes it impossible for us to be able to ever objectively predict our own actions. Since the context of set will, or fate, can't possibly apply to all frames of reference then it doesn't universally apply.
But perception is reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. The colors we see, the smells we smell, the things we feel are all fake, arbitrary things assigned to arbitrary wavelengths of light (and other things) by evolution. But that doesn't mean that there is no reality. Regardless of the way I see it, a monitor in front of me that is emitting photons that I see as blue. Just because many of the things we sense have arbitrary values associated with them (color and light for example) doesn't mean that there isn't an actual reality of facts. IE: There are atoms here, photons here, etc.
There are facts that will be true whether or not you like them and believe in them. For example the fact that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere. This is a fact of reality and does not depend on what you think about it.
"I hear its amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hari Kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!"
you either:
- know the line (then lol)
- don't know the line (then wth?)
The test was not for the resultant action, but the reaction itself. In reacting to the statement (note: "statement" refers to the statement of your binary option) you confirm that you react. Not only do you react, but you do so in a manner consistent with previous experience. (Even when previous experience causes you to react in a way which would not be immediately apparent, f.ex.: you react in an unexpected manner to a stimuli not because of free will, but because something in the past caused you to change your response to the stimuli to something unexpected as a reaction to the original stimuli.) Your move.
So, I take it we are in agreement.
Nah your inability to see the reasons behind things precludes you from winning.
Your sentences don't make sense. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read through topic and have to agree with Nadagast, Smood you make no sense.
<!--quoteo(post=1603241:date=Jan 31 2007, 10:12 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 31 2007, 10:12 PM) [snapback]1603241[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
My point is that our actions aren't linked by reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Virtually all actions are completely dependent on reasons. Consciously or subconsciously, when you decide to do something you are deciding to do it because of something else (a reason). The only actions I can think of which are not dependent on reasons are those who of an automaton (e.g. having a spasm, epileptic fit).
<!--quoteo(post=1603241:date=Jan 31 2007, 10:12 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 31 2007, 10:12 PM) [snapback]1603241[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I say this because people tend to say to such situations like "I killed him because he shot my wife". You can choose NOT to shoot him for the same reasons. So really, you shot him because you CHOSE to do so, not because some reason spiritually controlled your finger to press the trigger.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) As, Nadagast has repeatedly pointed out and what you still do not explain is what you mean by 'CHOSE.'
2) Nadagast isn't arguing that something 'spiritually controlled' your finger (no idea where that came from).
3) Nadagast is arguing that the CHOICE that person made (lets call him A) in killing B was based on REASONS. The primary reason in this case is that B shot A's wife. If you assert that A shot B completely independently of reasons, then you saying that B shooting of A's wife was completely irrelevant to A. In other words, you are saying that the death of A's wife was coincidental, A was indifferent to it. I don't think that is what you mean to say.
4) You argue that A could choose NOT to shoot B for the same reason. I agree, yes he could. This doesn't mean that reasons are irrelevant, just because both scenarios are possible. A is still basing his decision (of not shooting) on a reason. In this scenario however, that particular reason has merely caused A to come to the opposite conclusion. Reasons do not equate to results. They are just factors which are assessed (consciously or subconsciously) in our minds in order for us to a conclusion. The possibility of two scenarios shows that reasons are subjective. People weigh them up in their heads differently. As Nadagast says, they are not absolute. Different reasons mean different things to different people.
i) B kills A's wife. A shoots B. The MAIN REASON why A shoots B is because A loved his wife and B took that away from him.
ii) B kills A's wife. A does nothing. The MAIN REASON why A does nothing is because A wanted B dead anyway. A is in fact glad that B did it.
In both cases, A will have made a decision/choice based on reasons. In both cases the same reason (B killing A) has led to opposite outcomes.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If someone were to hold a gun to your head saying suck my ######, it would be your choice to do so. Even at gunpoint, the other guy can only suggest what you can or cannot do; it's still ultimately your decision.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I agree. But what is that decision based on? Are you going to suck someones ###### completely randomnly? Its just irrelevant / coincidental that the guys ###### is near you and the gun is at your head. I highly doubt it. Whatever you decide its based on a reason. If you choose to suck, it might be because you don't want to die, it might be because you are ######. If you don't choose to suck, it might be because you don't want to do such a revolting act, especially while under duress. Whatever decision is made, it will be made according to the subjective reasoning of that person. To reiterate the point, just because both scenarios are possible does not mean reasoning is not used. It will be! It is just that those reasons have meant different things to different people.
--Act deterministically, selecting the same response to the situation every time, or
--Act randomly, selecting any one of a number of responses even given an identical situation
I don't really see a third way to describe it. Neither of these is equivalent to free will, but I will propose that neither is inherently opposed to free will either. Rather, free will comes from another aspect of the equation that we haven't looked at yet: The operator.
Allow me to propose a pair of scenarios, identical in every way except for the operator. Both operators have exactly the same sum total of inputs, but they have 2 different responses. Even if both are deterministically selecting the same response to that scenario every time it occurs, they still show free will simply because they have the capability to select different responses <i>from each other</i>. If you want to predict the outcome of the scenario, it is not enough to know all of the inputs, you also have to know the operator and how he personally will respond to those inputs. Therefore, he has free will.
incorrect, a deterministic response takes the current stimuli and the current <b>state</b> into account.
ie:
stimuli: a large ball is flying towards you.
state: normal.
response: dodge!
result: the ball impacts a glass wall infront of you and stops. you would have been safe either way.
and a second time:
stimuli: a large ball is flying towards you. (again)
state: oh, hey. that glass wall could protect me!
response: try to make a stoic/bad*** pose to impress the ladies.
result: the ball impacts a glass wall, cracking it slightly. however, the ladies are impressed.
a third time:
stimuli: a large ball is flying towards you. (yet again)
state: the glass looks like it might give. i should do something.
response: dodge both the ball and the flying glass.
result: you roll away just in time to avoid the inexplicable flying ball of doom and shards of glass.
Operator state is still relevant, but the inputs that put the operator into that state have to be considered as well. For example, you stand behind the glass, and after watching the ball strike once, you move into the state of "lets impress the ladies". I stand behind the glass, and after watching the ball strike once, I move into the state of "I shouldn't be standing behind this glass". Same inputs, but I've shown a different response than you, ergo free will.
Cxwf, I agree that Black Mage's criticism of your scenario is faulty. I believe that what Black Mage separates into 'state and stimuli' are both inside the concept of 'input' which cxwf stated. Anyway, (although this is a minor tangent), I think state and stimuli overlap, your state is largely dependent on the stimuli around you. Your state of:
(1) "Normal" (no extraordinary stimuli)
(2) "Belief that glass wall will protect me" (is this not derived from the fact that that person has badly assessed the strength of the glass wall using his eyes and possibly touch aka stimuli?)
(3) "Belief that glass is ok" (derived from a good assessment of the strength of the glass)
To get back to the point. I think cxwf, you are right in asserting that there are only two possibilities for an operator of:
"--Act deterministically, selecting the same response to the situation every time, or
--Act randomly, selecting any one of a number of responses even given an identical situation"
My head is exploding but to me, you are right especially in the final paragraph. I personally think, free will is all about perception and in that last scenario you mention, free will exists because of the perception that they are thinking with their own choice (even though it is deterministic).
Some further comments:
- what about the case of identical operators with identical input who behave deterministically and thus reach exactly the same result. In such a case, if a Entity X wants a particular result(s) from a particular input, he theoretically, with sufficient knowledge and technology can reverse engineer from the desired result(s) to find out what properties/characteristics of operator are required to achieve this result. Armed with this knowledge, if he did create such an operator A. Can A ever be said to have free will as X effectively knows exactly what he is going to do when given particular input? (Does this make any sense whatsoever lol?)
-also, can determinism in practice ever occur for humans? Determinism implies there is no randomness. But is this true for humans? At some deep level, with the particles, electrons, even quarks etc. in our head is there not some inherent randomness (like radiative decay) there that means determinism never occurs? As there is always a chance that initially identical operators will slowly become different.
what i was trying to say is that the situation is never the same each time. every time you are presented with something, it has happened (n-1) times and you may change your response based on that. also, acting according to "any number" would imply that there is a limit to randomness which implies some level of determinism. If it was truly random, there would be no limit to any number, number system or series.
Allow me to propose a pair of scenarios, identical in every way except for the operator. Both operators have exactly the same sum total of inputs, but they have 2 different responses. Even if both are deterministically selecting the same response to that scenario every time it occurs, they still show free will simply because they have the capability to select different responses <i>from each other</i>. If you want to predict the outcome of the scenario, it is not enough to know all of the inputs, you also have to know the operator and how he personally will respond to those inputs. Therefore, he has free will.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would guess that's how most of those in this thread arguing <i>against</i> free will view the issue (including me, at least). That one's choices are completely determined by the physical processes occurring within one's brain, and such physical processes are either random or deterministic. That there is no abstract "self" making "free", that is, neither random nor deterministic, decisions. It is only a question of the definition, then, in this case.
It would be ridiculous to claim that any two people <i>would</i> respond identically to the same stimulus, for even without any random element, this would only be necessarily true if their brains were identical. Due to the complexity of the brain, the probability of that is completely negligible.
<!--quoteo(post=1606136:date=Feb 13 2007, 01:24 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Feb 13 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]1606136[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
what i was trying to say is that the situation is never the same each time. every time you are presented with something, it has happened (n-1) times and you may change your response based on that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the idea was to set <i>everything</i> the same, including the brain state (which includes memory, of course).
<!--quoteo(post=1606136:date=Feb 13 2007, 01:24 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Feb 13 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]1606136[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
also, acting according to "any number" would imply that there is a limit to randomness which implies some level of determinism. If it was truly random, there would be no limit to any number, number system or series.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You can have a random number generator that randomly generates either 0 or 1, and it would be truly random. The number of possible choices is irrelevant.
Erm, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You can have a random number generator that randomly generates either 0 or 1, and it would be truly random. The number of possible choices is irrelevant.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
when presented with a situation, you will pick a response that is relevant to the stimuli based on your current state and situation. ie: there is a giant wrecking ball of doom. i will: 1) dodge 2) hope something will save me 3) :jawdrop: 4) pray (pick one)
you will not (unless your current state is altered to where it seems logical to do so) attempt to turn purple and begin playing the violin, backwards.
on picking from a set of responses, you are not showing free will. you are expressing your ability to act rationally when presented with a situation (forward-looking logic).
now, if we were to set *everything* to be identical for the ball+windex'd glass+person experiment. it would look like this:
1) ball drops
2) person evades
3) ball hits glass
4) reset
5) go to 1
Your brain is a series of linked neurons. If you set every neuron as it was at the beginning (effectively resetting the person's mind) and apply the same stimulus in the same way at the same time: he subject will react in the same way, every time.
Basically, once an entity starts considering it's actions in the sense that it knows what it's supposed to do, and then recalculates it's actions to decide weather it wants to proceed with the projected plausibility, or weather it wants to defy prediction, then it's capable of free will. However, yes, its still a complex state machine.
Humans deal mostly with what are essentially philosophical loops as they determine their courses of action. Basically we have a strong tendency to go "hey, so and so expects me to do this action, and therefore I'm going to do that action instead". If you examine the statement it's a self analysis loop. If someone is trying to determine my course of action, and I modify my action to prevent their determination from taking place, then I need to self analyze my action, and determine from that information what course of action the alternative entity is expecting from me. This can very easily loop infinitely. "he thinks I'm going to move right, so I move left", "he thinks I think he thinks I'm going to move right, and therefore I'll move left, so I'm going to move right to throw off his analysis.", "he thinks I think he thinks I think he thinks I'm going to move right, and thus have anticipated his perception of my action, so I'm going to blah blah blah".
Because the human state machine is capable of this type of problem solving, our frame of reference invalidates set will, or fate, that we can't possibly modify. Because like I said before, if fate is valid to the human reality, it exists in reality and can therefore be known, and since if a human knows about fate it cannot exist, it therefore does not exist from the human frame of reference. One could argue that it could still exist outside the human frame of reference, but that would be irrelevant because it's pointless to postulate that something exists that can't possibly be observed in any way by humans, by it's own definition.
Reasons do not link automatic actions, if we can choose to do it.
If you bought a game because it was an RPG, I would do the opposite. Therefore, you can't say, if a game is an RPG, then it will be bought. Well, you could say, if a game is a RPG, then people might buy it, but what would that prove.
Reasons don't get us anywhere. It's called bad faith when you believe you HAVE to do something when you have the choice to.
If you were to hold a gun to my head, I wouldn't be "FORCED" by the reason to live to do what you say. I would still have my choice of obeying you or not.
Again, it's about choice, not what arbitrary REASON that forces us to act in certain ways that we function. I suppose that links somewhere to free will.
Any entity possessing enough knowledge to make deterministic predictions cannot be bound by fate, as by your logic if it can predict the deterministic results of its own actions, it can modify those actions to prevent that fate. If it can predict the deterministic results of others actions, it can take the necessary actions (assuming it has enough power) to encourage or prevent another's fate.
An entity <i>not</i> possessing that level of knowledge <i>can</i> be bound by fate, although that fate may be changed by the first type of entity.
In short--fate is inevitable only so far as it is unknown. You know whats cool about this line of thought? It allows for an omnipotent, omniscient God, who is not bound by fate, and can modify the fates of others. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
Your current state "don't do what he did" plus the relevant stimuli "he bought an RPG" equals your reaction "buy something else"
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you were to hold a gun to my head, I wouldn't be "FORCED" by the reason to live to do what you say. I would still have my choice of obeying you or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The gun is the stimuli. Add your state: "obedient" or "disobedient" (or "other") and you get a reaction "hand over wallet" or "do something heroic" (or "other")
Because like I said before, if fate is valid to the human reality, it exists in reality and can therefore be known, and since if a human knows about fate it cannot exist, it therefore does not exist from the human frame of reference. One could argue that it could still exist outside the human frame of reference, but that would be irrelevant because it's pointless to postulate that something exists that can't possibly be observed in any way by humans, by it's own definition.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There do exist deterministic things that are not computable. Your argument is an effective one for why the actions of humans are not computable, but it is still possible for them to be deterministic.
That's actually an identical argument to the proof that the halting problem is not computable. It goes somewhat like this:
Suppose you have a program that, when given the text of a program, outputs in finite time whether the program halts or not. Call that program H. Now consider a program Q that calls H as a subroutine in the following manner. Q passes it's own source code to H. If H says "Halts" then Q loops forever, otherwise it halts. However, now you've constructed a program that loops forever if it halts, and halts if it loops forever. This is a contradiction. Therefore, there can be no such program that solves the halting problem.
Your current state "don't do what he did" plus the relevant stimuli "he bought an RPG" equals your reaction "buy something else"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, I wouldn't buy a RPG because I plain don't like what they are. But thanks for trying to tell me why I wouldn't buy one. The real reason is that I did not choose to. Specific reasons do not determine our actions, other than instincts. It all comes down to what we choose to do.
I do something because I chose to do it.
Reasons do not link automatic actions, if we can choose to do it.
If you bought a game because it was an RPG, I would do the opposite. Therefore, you can't say, if a game is an RPG, then it will be bought. Well, you could say, if a game is a RPG, then people might buy it, but what would that prove.
Reasons don't get us anywhere. It's called bad faith when you believe you HAVE to do something when you have the choice to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you chose to respond differently to the same stimulus, it is only because you based your actions on different reasons. Or, the same reasons held different priorities in your mind. It certainly does not indicate that your actions were not based on reasons.
But this was stated at least 2 pages ago...
There do exist deterministic things that are not computable. Your argument is an effective one for why the actions of humans are not computable, but it is still possible for them to be deterministic.
That's actually an identical argument to the proof that the halting problem is not computable. It goes somewhat like this:
Suppose you have a program that, when given the text of a program, outputs in finite time whether the program halts or not. Call that program H. Now consider a program Q that calls H as a subroutine in the following manner. Q passes it's own source code to H. If H says "Halts" then Q loops forever, otherwise it halts. However, now you've constructed a program that loops forever if it halts, and halts if it loops forever. This is a contradiction. Therefore, there can be no such program that solves the halting problem.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, as I stated, it's possible for things to exist that are not humanly observable, however, they can't possibly be observed, and thus are irrelevant to human reality. All reality as humans know it is determined through perception, if something cannot be perceived by it's own definition, then it doesn't exist within relevant human reality.
Okay. We'll try it again. Thanks for being crystal clear the first time.
State: Don't like RPGS
Stimuli: RPG for sale at wal*mart
Reaction: Buy something else (or nothing).
Result: Something else (or nothing) bought.