> In most situations this is further limited because one CAN'T know all of the > consequences. So one makes probability calculations weighting things not > only by probability of occurrence, but also by importance. So different > individuals disagree not only on the definition of best, but also on the > weights given to the potential outcomes.
As far as I can tell, the idea of making statistical calculation about what we don't know is only relevant for three conditions. The accuracy of the calculation is not significant. The evaluation is near 1 or 0. The problem of what is not known is clearly within a generalization category and a measurement of the uncertainty is also made within a generalization category valid for the other generalization category. > If "free will" has any other components, what do you think they are? But we can make choices about things that are not known based on opinion. Jim Bromer On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Charles Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Bromer wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Charles Hixson >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> At this point I think it relevant to bring in an assertion from Larry >>> Niven >>> (Protector): >>> Paraphrase: When you understand all the consequences of an act, then you >>> don't have free will. You must choose the best decision. (For some >>> value >>> of best.) >>> >>> If this is correct, then Free Will is either an argument over >>> probabilities, >>> or over "best"...which could reasonably be expected to differ from entity >>> to >>> entity. >>> >> >> That is interesting, I never considered that before. >> I think that free-will has to be defined relatively. So even though >> we cannot transcend anyway we want to we still have free-will relative >> to the range of possibilities that we do have. And this range is too >> great to be comprehended except in the terms of broad generalizations. >> So the choices that an future AGI program can make should not be and >> cannot be dismissed before hand. >> Free will can differ from entity to entity but I do not think a >> working definition can be limited to probabilities or over what is >> 'best'. >> Jim Bromer >> > > I agree with you, but I think that it likely this is due to the fact that > one cannot know ALL the consequences of any choice. If one did, then I > suspect that free will *would* be limited to *best*. E.g., the best move in > a game may not be the move that gives one the highest probability of winning > the game when one considers, e.g., social factors. Thus by considering > wider consequences, the evaluation of best changes, but one still chooses a > best move, for some definition of best. > > In most situations this is further limited because one CAN'T know all of the > consequences. So one makes probability calculations weighting things not > only by probability of occurrence, but also by importance. So different > individuals disagree not only on the definition of best, but also on the > weights given to the potential outcomes. > > If "free will" has any other components, what do you think they are? > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
