On 9/29/2013 6:26 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>:
On 9/28/2013 7:20 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:47:28PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the
intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topic, but that
will require an uninterrupted period of a day or two, just to pull it all
into a comprehensible document.
I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short
book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which
is one of those rare works in that topic that is not
gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately convincing, he
would get me to stop at step 0 (ie COMP is false), but more on that
later when I finish it.
I am still reading this, but I am a little disappointed that as far as I
can see he hasn't mentioned Huw Price and John Bell's alternative
formulation of Bell's Inequality, namely that it can be explained using
microscopic time-symmetry. (This is despite mentioning Huw Price in the
acknowledgements.) Maybe I will come across a mention somewhere as I
continue, but I've been reading the section on Bell's Inequality and it
doesn't seem that this potentially highly fruitful explanation - all the
more so in that it doesn't require any new physics or even any new
interpretations of existing physics - doesn't merit a mention, which is a
shame because without taking account of that potential explanation, any
subsequent reasoning that relies on Bell's Inequality is potentially flawed.
I have just now finished Aaronson's paper. I would thoroughly
recommend the read, and it is definitely a challenge to John Clark's
assertion that only rubbish has ever been written about free will.
However it is a long paper (more of a short book), so for those of us
it is TL;DR, I'll try to summarise the paper, where I agree with it,
and more importantly where I depart from it.
Aaronson argues that lack of predictability is a necessary part of
free will (though not sufficient), much as I do in my book (where I go
so far as to define FW as "the ability to do something stupid"). He
does so far more eloquently, and with better contact to philosophical
literature than I do.
Where he starts to differ from my approach is that he draws a
distinction between ordinary "statistical" uncertainty and what he
calls Knightian uncertainty. To use concepts of the great philospher
of our time, Donald Rumsfeld :v), Knightian uncertainty corresponds to the
"unknown unknowns", as compared to the "known unknowns" of
"statistical" uncertainty. Nasim Taleb's "black swan" is a similar
sort of concept.
Aaronson accepts the criticism that ordinary "statistical" uncertainty
is not enough for free will. If I have a choice of three paths to
drive to work, with a certain probability of choosing each one, then
choosing one of the paths on any given morning is not an exercise in
free will. However, ringing work and chucking a sickie that day is an
example of Knightian uncertainty, and is an exercise in free will.
I accept this distinction between Knightian uncertainty and
statistical uncertainty, but fail to see why this distinction is
relevant to free will. I was never particular convinced by those who
argue that subjecting your will to a random generator does not make it
free (that is quite true, but irrelevant, as it is the will which is
random, not deterministic and subject to an external
generator). Aaronson accepts the criticism, without much comment, or
explanation why, alas, even though he gives a perfect example in the
form of a "gerbil-powered AI" that cannot have free will.
I agree. I also agree with JC that the 'free' is so ill defined that 'free will' is
virtually meaningless. I think the idea that randomness is incompatible with will
arises because people think of random as meaning 'anything possible'. It's clear to me
that randomness can be very useful in selecting actions and, since it's hard to get rid
of anyway, evolution has undoubtedly kept some. Whether it's inherent quantum
randomness or just FAPP randomness from the environment doesn't really matter.
Accepting Knightian uncertainty as necessary, he goes looking for
sources of Knightian uncertainty in the physical universe, and
identifies the initial conditions of the big bang as a source of
"freebits", as a source of Knightian information.
Aaronson seems hung up on the critereon of predictablity. That's why he wants
'freebits' to underwrite his Knightian uncertainty. But I don't see that this
"unpredictable even by God" standard adds anything to unpredictable because of QM,
because of deterministic chaos, because of event horizons, Holevo's theorem,... There
are plenty of barriers to perfect predictability.
He also argues that the requirement for Knightian uncertainty prevents
the ability for copying a consciousness. As I understand it, the
objection is along the lines of - if I can copy you, the I can use the
copy to make perfect predictions of what you do,
Makes no sense to me, both because there are so many obstacles to predict as noted
above, but also because "you" interact the environment, that's why "you" are a
quasi-classical object. And that means as soon as you are duplicated you and your
duplicate will start to diverge and in a very short time one will not be a good
predictor of the other.
It might actually be a good predictor for a quite a long period of time (minutes or even
longer). Using functional MRI one can predict what seems to be a totally random choice
ten seconds in advance.
Also, you can run the copy inside a virtual environment and then the copies will never
?? I don't think so. Insofar as they are classical objects they depend on decoherence to
remain classical and deterministic. But that means they interact with the environment.
So the environments would also have to be identical at the quantum level. But then how
would you interact with them in order to measure the behavior. So I think the virtual
environment can only give a small extension in predictability.
It is then difficult to argue that the person in the virtual environment isn't
conscious, because in its normal operations the brain itself creates a virtual
representation of reality which you then experience; adding an extra layer on top of
that should not be relevant.
Magicians are good of exploiting the fact that you actually experience a virtual world
which is typically not going to be updated to conform exactly to the real world. If you
walk into your own living room, what you experience is not how the room really looks
according to all the information you could get from your senses, rather you are
presented with a virtual version of it which is almost 100% based on what is stored
about it in your memory.
If someone replaces an object in your room by another one that looks totally different,
you walk past it and don't pay attention to it. Then the information on your brain to
not be updated. But you then can have the experience of having walked past that object,
and that object will then have looked like it used to look.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.