quote:As it stands, none of the "creations" you atribute to computers could have occured without the program designers first creating rules that result in the machine creating pleasing sounds or images. When you remove the programers you also remove the ability to inovate.
Incidentally, the things that inspire artists, such as processes or observations of nature, are all following a set of rules as well, such as a sunset, seashell, crystal, or some other fractal like design. Throw in some random mental connections, and you got yourself something innovative. The real question is what determines how we interpret something to be beautiful or pleasing to hear. Incidentally, that too is out of our control.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Meaning only exists inside the minds (or souls) people, and thus must be metaphysical.
...or an illusion, perhaps like the way in which the passing of time may also be just an illusion. Or it could be a way of describing a chemical based feeling that we don't quite understand.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think several people have definitely suggested that free will is the absence of determinism (a.k.a. when our actions are not predetermined by things outside ourselves).
For one, Tom has suggested it several times and called my alternative definition "useless", but has so far skipped over questions of what being in such a state would actually be like, why such a state would not be equivalent to insanity (which is what people often call acting in a random, unpredictable fashion), or why we'd want to be in such a state.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Tres on this point. Having your actions fully determined by your personality and the stimuli in your life, that's what I would call free will. Randomness is just randomness.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: edit: a useful little conundrum for you. How come none of the people who program the chess games that can beat the best humans in the world is anywhere near capable of challenging the best themselves?
Chess is a very good example of a (closed) system that is based on a (very well established) set of rules. These rules are fairly easy to hard-wire into a program. Playing good chess is based on the “power” to foresee its evolution and to “bend” it towards your goal (which is wining). Computer chess games are very powerful in the foreseeing part (calculating various possibilities very fast). A lot more powerful than their creators, that’s for sure. The fact that grand masters can still beat chess programs shows that “creativity” can beat calculation. The way a grand master sees a game is essentially different from the programs’ way of dealing with it. A grand master sees the board in “chunks”, analysing goals and feasibility, supported by experience. The computer uses “brute force”, basically (but not only). But the real difference comes at the awareness level. If you ask a grand master “why did you make that move and not the other?” the answer won’t be always very clear, the reasons are more like “it felt right in this situation”. And next time the move might be different. Yet, if you “ask” the program, it will list you all the calculations that it made, the parameters used to weight the alternatives, therefore THE HARD-WIRED resulting move. If the program has not a build-in randomness, given the same situation will always answer the same. [NOTE: The counter example of “learning programs”, based on neural networks and such isn’t good here, because “learning” means self-adjusting parameters, so “same situation” is not the same if the program has also changed.] My point is that a good chess program will play good chess. But it has nothing to do with creativity and/or beauty.
The idea about programs creating music and graphic art for example is quite different. The degree of “beauty” and “sounds right” or “looks right” is a lot greater here. Yes, they are subjective values, and “modernism” in art lately rather means “randomness” or “meaningless”. But that means lack of creativity, if anything. There are no formulas of any kind for “great sounding” symphonies. Even less for a "great looking" renaissance picture. That has to do with “real” beauty.
quote:some of you are suggesting it is also important that we go further than that - that our choices must also be free from influence
Yep. I'm saying that in the presence of an all-powerful controller, the mere fact that you WANT to do something cannot be trusted; it would be fairly easy for such a controller to arrange things so that you would want to do so. In this scenario, your "freedom" has merely been bumped back one level; your choices are no less limited, but you don't actively perceive the limitations.
quote:There are no formulas of any kind for “great sounding” symphonies.
Actually, there's a research group RIGHT NOW working on formulating this sort of thing. Music, like chess, has principles which make it possible to recognize certain consistent elements. What constitutes "greatness" is of course a matter of taste, and taste is highly dependent on inputs which are not consistent among individuals, but I fully expect to see computers writing highly marketable pop songs within the next decade.
------------
quote:Having your actions fully determined by your personality and the stimuli in your life, that's what I would call free will.
Sure, if you want. But I call it "able to respond to stimuli." After all, even if you're pointing a gun to someone's head and "forcing" them to push a button, they're only responding to that stimulus.
But here's the important distinction: if someone else is controlling all your stimuli, and there's no such thing as your "personality," who's in charge of what you do?
posted
not sure if this is the same thing that Tom is referring to, but I think the idea is similar.
quote:His research at MIT has focused on teaching computers to hear music much like people do. This means analysing the context of the song - what people think of it - as well as how fast or slow it is, and whether it is loud or soft. The result is a sophisticated profile of a song that allows more accurate categorisation than simply labelling a song as rock, pop or classical.
"The computer can go out on the internet and read a bunch of weblogs and record reviews and get a grasp on trends and buzz and hype and that sort of thing," says Dr Whitman. "At the same time, it also can listen to the music - do some signal processing to figure out stuff like dominant key and pitch and rhythm and structure."
quote:But here's the important distinction: if someone else is controlling all your stimuli, and there's no such thing as your "personality," who's in charge of what you do?
Clearly there is such a thing as my personality. What's a mystery at this point is what the correct scientific description of my personality might be.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, there's a research group RIGHT NOW working on formulating this sort of thing. Music, like chess, has principles which make it possible to recognize certain consistent elements. What constitutes "greatness" is of course a matter of taste, and taste is highly dependent on inputs which are not consistent among individuals, but I fully expect to see computers writing highly marketable pop songs within the next decade.
You mean I could learn to have a “musical ear”? I’ve learned to play chess (even if I don’t have a high level or anything) but I’m completely “deaf” when it comes to “great sounding” pieces of music (after all the music classes I took). Is learning the “principles of music” going to make me appreciate good music, and not only that, but composing it too? If you’re going to argue that music “takes talent”, then how can a computer (program) have it?!
It’s one thing (beautiful) pattern recognition and quite another (beautiful) pattern creation , isn't it?
quote:If you’re going to argue that music “takes talent”, then how can a computer (program) have it?!
As I'm not sure that sentience exists, I'm certainly not willing to concede that talent -- as a synthesized product of experience and ability -- cannot be replicated. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, how are you defining "sentience" that you don't think it exists (Or think it might not exist)?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:tal•ent n. 1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment. See Synonyms at ability.
2. a. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality. b. A person or group of people having such ability: The company makes good use of its talent.
3. A variable unit of weight and money used in ancient Greece, Rome, and the Middle East.
________________________________________ [Middle English, inclination, disposition, from Old French, from Medieval Latin, from Latin, balance, sum of money, from Greek talanton; see tel - in Indo-European Roots. Sense 3, Middle English from Old English talente, from Latin talenta, pl. of talentum, from Greek talanton.] ________________________________________ tal ent•ed adj. tal ent•less adj. tal ent•less•ness n.
quote:If there is no sentience, and therefore no free will, nor talent, then WHAT IS THERE?
Reactions to stimuli. It is convenient to classify some of those reactions in specific ways. We might call some of them "thoughts." We might call others "instincts." Or "reservations." Or "flashes of genius." Or "feelings." But I'm not sure what the distinction between those actually IS.
Perhaps a movie analogy would help. In The Matrix, would you consider the majority of the human race -- those unawakened humans -- to be "free?" Everything they saw, everything they responded to, was controlled by another source -- but they could of course still make their own decisions. But that source wasn't omnipotent or omniscient; it was in fact mildly incompetent. So they became aware of the extent to which their inputs were being manipulated, and rebelled against it.
If they were ALREADY free to make choices, why would they rebel? If the Matrix wasn't "real," if Cypher's argument wasn't actually a SOLID argument, how then can we say that merely being able to make choices constitutes freedom?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know this looks like off-topic, but I think it is relevant. If there is no sentience, and therefore no free will, nor talent, then WHAT IS THERE?
There's always the blue pill.
(edit: it looks like Tom beat me to the Matrix example)
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
[Beware, if you haven’t seen the movie yet, this might be considered as SPOILER!]
People that didn’t know about the existence of the MATRIX are essentially identical to us (not aware if we are in fact inside such a simulation). So I’d say they had all the free will they wanted, at the extent they were aware of it, of course. The fact that they were physically in a PRISON (for the mind, but a prison nonetheless) didn’t affect them one bit. “Ignorance is bliss". They lived in that “less than perfect modeled human civilization simulation”, but they were sure they were “free”. (As sure as I myself I’m free ). They still could make their decision, suicide if they wanted, kill others and so on. In the scene were Neo is first interrogated, his ability to speak is removed and thus proves (if still necessary for him) that he is actually NOT free. But he was the one that was already (almost) aware of the fact that “there is something wrong, like a splinter in his mind …”. For me this only proves that as long as you are not aware of the PRISON, you are as good as a free person. And when you learn that you are IN such a prison, you have the free will to rebel against it. That is also in the movie
There is no destiny, only free will.
A.
PS: do you want to go on with the arguments, as it results that even the existence of the ONE was a pre-programmed/”destined” thing?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If there is no sentience, and therefore no free will, nor talent, then WHAT IS THERE?
Reactions to stimuli. [Smile]
Human behavior is clearly influence by the stimuli that is presented to it. Perhaps the notion that free will is derived from the fact that a human's response to various stimuli is often so complex that some see fit to distinguish said response from that of other things in the universe.
For example, if you expose a tree to a certain stimuli, say if you point a gun at it, the tree will respond in a very predictable manner, namely it will not change anything that it does. However, if you point a gun at a human it might result in a variety of responses, the subject may scream, or faint, or they may say something, or run away. The way that humans respond is the result of a very complex set of conditions, and some may say that humans belong to a very exclusive group of things that are cappable of such complexity in responding to their environment.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:do you want to go on with the arguments, as it results that even the existence of the ONE was a pre-programmed/”destined” thing?
Sure. His very rebellion was pre-programmed. And the second film copped out by making love so surprising and beautiful that it could override his programming and make him behave in unpredictable ways.
Which is very cute and pretty and all, but also highly unlikely. I'd be very surprised if the computers -- after hundreds of years of filtering through human fantasies -- didn't at least recognize the power of love.
But the point is this: they had all the free will they wanted, insofar as they didn't realize there was more to be had. Their perception of freedom was completely contingent upon their continued ignorance.
----------
quote:The way that humans respond is the result of a very complex set of conditions, and some may say that humans belong to a very exclusive group of things that are cappable of such complexity in responding to their environment.
Amen to that. But Tres seems uncomfortable defining free will as the ability to be unpredictable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the second direct question I've posted to you Tom that you've ignored. Is this because of the "naked cupid" comment?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*laugh* No. I'm hoping the answers become obvious from the other things I say.
I don't define "sentience" because I think it's largely a construct. I don't think there's a magic point at which something becomes sophisticated enough to "think;" after all, flatworms are far less sophisticated than modern robots, but we recognize that the former are alive -- and "intelligent" life, at that. This is actually one of my problems with abortion, too; while there's clearly a point at which all that unformed brain activity turns into "thoughts," I don't have the faintest idea where to draw that line.
The idea that we have free will because we can "think" is something that makes very little sense to me, not least because I don't think the question of what constitutes "thought" has been settled.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading this thread I'm not sure we have exactly explained the God/predestined thing. So I'll take a shot. The paradox of free will is that if God knows everything and always has,including the future, that means that our choices are already known from the beginning. So how are we in the present doing anything other than than playing out the script. We can't choose other than what God already knows we have chosen.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The counter-argument has been that merely knowing what someone else is going to do does not preclude them from doing something else; it merely means that they won't do something else. So they're still choosing freely, albeit choosing what you know they're going to choose.
I don't find that a compelling argument, myself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: But the point is this: they had all the free will they wanted, insofar as they didn't realize there was more to be had. Their perception of freedom was completely contingent upon their continued ignorance.
How does that prove that there is no free will? The free will is what you make of it, by definition BTW, don’t you think that the machines that build the MATRIX in the first place, had it? Or were they programmed to enslave the human race?
quote:BTW, don’t you think that the machines that build the MATRIX in the first place, had it? Or were they programmed to enslave the human race?
That's precisely what I believe. I believe their decision to enslave the human race was a foregone conclusion once the option to do so was incorporated into their programming.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I'm just not an idiot. If you're going to build self-replicating machines that can contain their own power sources, you do NOT give them the option to rebel against their makers. It's hard to imagine a line of code that would be more important. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. I'm just not an idiot. If you're going to build self-replicating machines that can contain their own power sources, you do NOT give them the option to rebel against their makers. It's hard to imagine a line of code that would be more important.
The key word here is option. A program is not a set of options, but a set of commands. If you have options, and chose one or the other (based on whatever data available), then by definition you exercise your free will.
posted
That's only if I assume that I'm not being controlled by something else. There may well be turtles all the way down.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since we're speaking purely of hypotheticals, receiving input "Y" from the other machine configures me to output "A" and "C." This creates a self-sustaining loop in which no free choices are actually made.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since we're speaking purely of hypotheticals, receiving input "Y" from the other machine configures me to output "A" and "C." This creates a self-sustaining loop in which no free choices are actually made.
You are really going to accept the fact (as hypothetical as it might be) that the program that you yourself suggested/wrote, controls you?
And BTW,
quote: That's only if I assume that I'm not being controlled by something else. There may well be turtles all the way down.
That’s one unhappy choice of an analogy. We eventually got off the Earth, and seen that there are NO turtles.
quote: You are really going to accept the fact (as hypothetical as it might be) that the program that you yourself suggested/wrote, controls you?
Why not? I may not have realized when I wrote the program that I myself always respond predictably to a given input. I'm not omniscient. So it's perfectly conceivable that I've coded myself into a corner.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In which case neither God nor I have free will. Is that really your argument?
Not at all. I sustain the idea the I (as a conscious being) have free will.
If I were to suggest to you (or anybody else for that matter) that “God” is just a “program” you wrote for yourself, allowing it to control you (in not so very obvious ways), just because you are not omniscient, and in the same time to accept that the “program” itself is all-powerful and omniscient, I think you wouldn’t agree to that. It’s a lot better when you say it yourself.
Following that, any program needs a creator. And the creator has a choice: to consider it’s creation as such, or to “give” it a lot of power, even greater than the creators’ own power. Incredibly enough, a lot of people choose the second alternative, not realizing that this way they “take away” their own free will (taking it away is just an illusion of course). But the free will is always there, just waiting to be reclaimed. One needs to accept the responsibility for it, and that’s the hard step. It’s a lot easier to leave that responsibility to … the “destiny”!
The simple fact that THIS (look at what I suggest by the analogy as a hypothesis) is possible, and that you can at any moment choose to act on your free will, proves that there is FREE WILL. You might not choose that, but it is your own choice to do.
That’s why I don’t expect to CONVINCE anybody of this. If I compel you to believe such a thing, I’d take away the only way for you to have the REAL thing.
quote: The simple fact that THIS (look at what I suggest by the analogy as a hypothesis) is possible, and that you can at any moment choose to act on your free will, proves that there is FREE WILL.
*laugh* Except that you appear to have missed my point completely. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If, by "God", you mean an omnipotent being who created the universe, wouldn't the analogy make more sense if you said
You = the program God wrote?
If not, I would appreciate a little more explaination.
Ok, if you put it that way, it comes to this: you are a program (that God wrote) and are imperfect and all. But you can control the one that created you, namely God! So it would be as an imperfect being (the program) is controlling an omnipotent one (God). This goes against the definition of an omnipotent being…
There is no paradox, because I’m not saying that God is an omnipotent being at all. I’m saying that God is THE CONCEPT, the story, the program written in order to control the imperfect being (originally written by such an imperfect being for others, and then rewritten by every “believer” in his own mind).
I have nothing against belief (in God or any other deity), just that as long as such a belief “takes away” freedom/free will/responsibility from the individual, I choose not to subscribe.
posted
A, After two explanations of your argument, I'm still confused about what exactly you're argument is. In any case, I still don't see how you've proven that free will exists.
Tom, Tres, anyone with knowledge of Quantum Theory,
One of the theories regarding quantum mechanics is that the measurement determines the state of a particle. Some have speculated that it is actually consciousness that determines this. If reality is to some extent determined or affected by consciousness, be it an individual consciousness or a collective one, wouldn't that have an effect on the deterministic nature of the universe and ultimately the idea of free will itself?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some have speculated that it is actually consciousness that determines this.
Except that there's actually very little reason to believe this at this stage. If it's ever conclusively shown that "consciousness" is necessary for quantum observation, we'll finally have a testable proof of "consciousness" that we could use to replace Turing tests. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The counter-argument has been that merely knowing what someone else is going to do does not preclude them from doing something else; it merely means that they won't do something else. So they're still choosing freely, albeit choosing what you know they're going to choose.
I don't find that a compelling argument, myself.
I find that counter argument more compelling if you look at it a bit differently. We don't have to assume that "God" (here defined solely as "an omniscient being") knows what we're going to do because we're following a script written for us, but because God already knows the script we've written for ourselves. We each have free will, which we experience from within the system as the choices we make, but from an outside perspective it has already been exercised and the end result is known.
It's not really much different from reviewing your own memories. IF you were free to choose what you had for breakfast, thinking about it now and even wishing you had eaten something else does not eliminate the free will you excercised at that time.
quote:If reality is to some extent determined or affected by consciousness, be it an individual consciousness or a collective one, wouldn't that have an effect on the deterministic nature of the universe and ultimately the idea of free will itself?
I think consciousnesses act in a predictable fashion, determined by their own nature and the inputs given to them, so I think determinism would still hold true.
And as I said, having an indeterministic nature does not give you free will; it just makes you random and potentially insane. I don't think it is something you'd want (and Tom - you've still not answered my questions as to why we'd want what you are terming free will, or what it would be like.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it is something you'd want (and Tom - you've still not answered my questions as to why we'd want what you are terming free will, or what it would be like.)
To answer your question: would you take the red pill?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Under my definition I'd have free will no matter which pill I took, and under your definition I think I'd lack free will in either case. So I don't think that answers my question.
The difference between the red pill and blue pill is a matter of knowledge - whether you know the whole truth, or just an illusion that might make you happier. I'd rather know the truth, but that is a different issue. This issue is, why would I want to act in an indeterminate way, rather than a way that could be predictable to someone who understood both me and the world perfectly?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This issue is, why would I want to act in an indeterminate way, rather than a way that could be predictable to someone who understood both me and the world perfectly?
Would you be happy if you suspected that the person who understood you perfectly could make you do anything at all they wanted?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But I call it "able to respond to stimuli." After all, even if you're pointing a gun to someone's head and "forcing" them to push a button, they're only responding to that stimulus.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). They still could make their decision, suicide if they wanted, kill others and so on. In the scene were Neo is first interrogated, his ability to speak is removed and thus proves (if still necessary for him) that he is actually NOT free. But he was the one that was already (almost) aware of the fact that “there is something wrong, like a splinter in his mind …”.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
