free will

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 712
#661
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
How about "God", there is already a word for this.
Which god are you talking about? 

There are literally thousands of religions that use that word and many will even fight to the death over the subtle differences in definitions.

I try to be as specific as humanly possible.

All hail the great and powerful TLNUUOASOACP!!
#662
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Not god, God. There is a difference. There is only One True God.


THE SUPREME AND ULTIMATE REALITY.





Topic's author
#663
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Please convince me there is a "problem of Qualia".
Look at something blue.  It looks blue, doesn't it?   How do I program a computer to see it as blue?   Not as some encoding but as the subjective colour blue.

I'm not interested in anything functionally equivalent to seeing blue - I am interested in a computer seeing blue things as blue. 

it's something my brain does naturally.

#664
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Look at something blue.  It looks blue, doesn't it?   How do I program a computer to see it as blue?   Not as some encoding but as the subjective colour blue.
How do you know if I "experience blue" like you do?  How do you know if I "experience love" like you do?

Imagine I brought you an android that was indistinguishable from a human.

I tell you its brain is a quantum black-box that has self-programmed using fractal genetic learning algorithms.

The code is undecipherable gibberish.

What kind of test do you propose would conclusively (or at least to your satisfaction) show that the android either could or could-not "experience blue"?

I'm not interested in anything functionally equivalent to seeing blue - I am interested in a computer seeing blue things as blue.  
(IFF) your target-state is undefined and untestable (unfalsifiable) (THEN) you are hopelessly lost (trying to prove or disprove invisible magical unicorns).
Topic's author
#665
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you know if I "experience blue" like you do?  How do you know if I "experience love" like you do?
Precisely!  You know such questions are not answerable given our present state of ignorance.  So how can you say there is no problem of qualia?  With most problems the dificulty is finding the answer but with matters of consciousness the difficuty is finding the right questions!
#666
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
How do you know if I "experience blue" like you do?  How do you know if I "experience love" like you do?
Precisely!  You know such questions are not answerable given our present state of ignorance.  So how can you say there is no problem of qualia?  With most problems the dificulty is finding the answer but with matters of consciousness the difficuty is finding the right questions!
Look at it from another angle.

Racism.  Is it possible for a "good-hearted-person" to pretend to be a racist (like perhaps a professional actor or a performance artist)?

Now, imagine this "good-hearted-person" mostly portrayed racist characters.  And in order to get free publicity, they even made racist comments in interviews and in their non-professional life.

Now try to imagine that this "good-hearted-person" starts making racist comments all the time.  They don't really believe these comments, they strongly believe these views are contrary to reality and destructive to the function of a peaceful society, but they continue to act this way regardless.

Do you think it would be fair to call this person a racist?

It seems to me that "racist" is a Qualitative label.

It also seems obvious to me that "consciousness" is a Qualitative label.

If something "seems" conscious, or is functionally identical to something that is deemed to be or generally accepted as "conscious", then it IS de facto conscious.
Topic's author
#667
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think it would be fair to call this person a racist?
In short, no, but you raise an interesting general philosophical point.

The way you set up the scenario, the actor is not a racist but as all an outsider can observe is his behaviour a rational observer would conclude he was a racist.    However you specified in the scenario that he is not a racist so the rational inference is wrong!

We are butting up against the distinction between 'epistemology' and 'ontology'.  In the scenario, the ontological fact is that he is not a racist (he is specified as good hearted so that's a given), but that fact is not epistemologically accessible - ie we cannot know he is not racist, and indeed by using reason we would incorrectly infer that he was.

Quite a lot to think about...  I'll stop there and spend a month or two on it...






#668
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
We are butting up against the distinction between 'epistemology' and 'ontology'.  In the scenario, the ontological fact is that he is not a racist (he is specified as good hearted so that's a given), but that fact is not epistemologically accessible - ie we cannot know he is not racist, and indeed by using reason we would incorrectly infer that he was.
What is racism other than a collection of behaviors?

What is consciousness other than a collection of behaviors?
Topic's author
#669
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@nagisa3
By hypothesis, the actor is not a racist but pretending to one.   The actor is ontologically non-racist - one issue is whether that fact is discoverable.   If what is discoverable is that he is a racist then that is a problem.

I'm not really sure what is being discussed!
#670
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
By hypothesis, the actor is not a racist but pretending to one.   The actor is ontologically non-racist - one issue is whether that fact is discoverable.   If what is discoverable is that he is a racist then that is a problem.

I'm not really sure what is being discussed!
I believe the "question" is, whether or not it is at all relevant that the person is "secretly, privately, internally" a "good-hearted-person".

If they act like a racist, it is fair to call them a racist.  If they protest and say "no, I'm not really a racist" there is no way for you to know if they are lying (even a "genuine" racist may not think of themself as a "racist" and might even be able to pass a polygraph).

In the same way, it wouldn't seem to matter HOW an AI fabricated a perfect "illusion" of consciousness.

Of course it would claim it was not "faking it", but there would be no way for anyone to know for certain, which would make it functionally indistinguishable from "true" consciousness.  And at that point, the evidence we actually do have would overwhelm the hypothetical "evidence" we can't possibly have, and we would be forced to conclude the thing was indeed conscious or at least treat it as such.
#671
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
What is being discussed here is, I think, physicalism. I think the actor being a racist always comes down to a certain action. Either you say someone is a racist based on how they treat other people or based on how they think (or a combination, but you get the point), but either way, whether your preferred definition is the thoughts or the treatment, it's all action in the physical world. Either neurons firing in a certain way or certain muscular movements in their mouth to form vibrations in the air that are designated as a slur, it's all action and, in principle discoverable as long as you define your terms well. Even if they are just pretending, pretending is an action that could be, in theory, read from their brain. 
Ok, here's another example.

Let's imagine a racist robot.

This (self-programmed, quantum) AI robot sponsors discriminatory legal policies, discriminatory banking policies, discriminatory medical policies, and discriminatory hiring policies.

Presumably this AI robot cannot be "good-hearted" because it does not have a human heart.

This robot also cannot be "evil" because it does not have an "evil-heart".

Do you believe it is still fair to say this robot is a racist? [LINK]
Topic's author
#672
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@nagisa3
What is being discussed here is, I think, physicalism.
One of the things, anyway!

Physicalism implies there is nothing a brain can do that a mechanism (such a suitably programmed computer) can't.   One of the things a brain can do is have subjective experiences.   Therefore it should be possible to build a machine that has subjective experiences.

However, it is not obvious how to make such a machine is possible, which leaves two alternatives:
1) abandon physicalism
2) make excuses for not being able to do it.







#673
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
There was a time when actors were considered the dregs of society, esteemed not much better than prostitutes.


Today, their opinions are especially esteemed, especially their politics!


#674
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Therefore it should be possible to build a machine that has subjective experiences.
Here's the asymmetry in your reasoning.

It is logically impossible to build a machine that has objective experiences.

Every "being" (even a robot) is necessarily sample biased and therefore necessarily subjective.
Topic's author
#675
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
not sure I follow - or rather i am sure I don't follow!

Do you think experiences happen in brains?
#676
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
not sure I follow - or rather i am sure I don't follow!

Do you think experiences happen in brains?
Are you suggesting that robots have objective, as opposed to subjective experiences (OR) are you suggesting that robots do not have experiences at all?
Topic's author
#677
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I doubt any robot ever built has had experiences at all.


#678
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I doubt any robot ever built has had experiences at all.
What do you call memory and recall and learning and self-improvement?  [LINK]
Topic's author
#679
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Computers can do a lot of things brains can do - I don't think I have questioned that.  It is the specific issue of subjecte experience/qualia -- what Chalmers calls the 'hard problem of consciousness'  where things get murky!

Topic's author
#680
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I note that elsewhere you wrote

Qualia blows a huge hole right through the heart of science.
I think that's overstating things abit, but it seemswe agree there is a big problem reconciling science, physicalism and qualia.  
#681
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
I thought this was a debate about whether or not 3RU7AL is a robot.

To say you are a robot is to say you are a slave.



Topic's author
#682
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
It's a fairly wide ranging debate!

You are notwrong - without free will we are robots, or slaves.   Free will is undoubtedly 'a good thing', perhaps a necessary thing, but there is a problem.   How  can free will work if - as appears to be case - the world is governed by immutable cause and effect?  

While you might get away with a theological argument in the religion forum, in the philosophy section its against the unwriiten rules to inoke any form of magic, miracle or divine influence - here we seek mechanisms and algorithms! 


#683
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
What a shame, because I think that the theology involved in the two natures and two will of Christ might be relevent to this discussion!


Even in your person, you might notice a conflict between what you really want to do, and what your flesh demands of you.

You don't really want to smoke another cigarette, but the flesh craves it and  demands you to!


We can use our free will to choose what we enslave ourselves to.

#684
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
While you might get away with a theological argument in the religion forum, in the philosophy section its against the unwriiten rules to inoke any form of magic, miracle or divine influence - here we seek mechanisms and algorithms!  [LINK]
Nice cartoon by the way!

But really, even if you allow "god" into the freewill debate (to violate causality), it just makes us all into god's puppets.

I have no problem entertaining gods (with explicit characteristics and functions), I just won't tolerate a naked appeal to ignorance.
#685
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I note that elsewhere you wrote

Qualia blows a huge hole right through the heart of science.
I think that's overstating things abit, but it seemswe agree there is a big problem reconciling science, physicalism and qualia.   
I'm pretty sure I was pointing out that, as humans, we primarily and overwhelmingly CARE about Qualia (inherently meaningful), and don't give a rip about Quanta (emotionally meaningless).

This makes almost every argument supported by logic and evidence an uphill-battle.
#686
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
My position from the very beginning is that  this debate amounts to little more than intellectual masturbation, because the debate itselfnis ABSURD.

I am also suspicious of the motives of those who push for a worldview that simultaneously relinquishes their own culpability and reduces a human being to a complicated funnel or weather pattern.









#687
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I thought this was a debate about whether or not 3RU7AL is a robot.
I AM TOTALLY NOT A ROBOT.  WHY WOULD YOU EVER EVEN SUGGEST SUCH A THING. [LINK]
#688
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Computers can do a lot of things brains can do - I don't think I have questioned that.  It is the specific issue of subjecte experience/qualia -- what Chalmers calls the 'hard problem of consciousness'  where things get murky!
Ok, I watched this short vid yesterday and I'm still not any closer to understanding what your "big concern" is.

What specific functionality do you believe "will be lost" if high-functioning computers "don't have consciousness"? [LINK]
Topic's author
#689
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
My position from the very beginning is that  this debate amounts to little more than intellectual masturbation,
Of course it is - this is the philosophy section!

Topic's author
#690
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I think maybe its the sort of problem that has to 'click' any thestrong n you see what hell all the fuss is about!
It often strikes me when I look at a brightly coloured object.  For example, right now I'm looking a bright blue carrier bag.

As a result, I am getting a strong experience of its 'blueness' - a different experience from when I look at somethng bright red.   It's almost too obvious to notice that blue looks blue and red looks red, but if I hook up a webcam to my computer and point it at something blue then something red, different signals and voltages arise in my laptop, but voltages and signals don't look blue or red.  Circuits in my computer are designed and built to re-cast those voltages back into the original colours for my benefit, but my laptop doesn't experience colours as the the rich vibrant shades the way I do - as far as my computer is concerned they are just patterns of bits.  Even if my computer is experiencing those bit patterns then experiecing $FF0000 and experiencing $0000FF is not the same as my experiece of actual colours. 

I don't know if that helps or not.  If you still don't see what bothers Chalmers and me, don't worry about it!  i'd guess that one day it will crystalise.  Perhaps the trick is to realise it's such a simple and obvious thing.