Russell: you wrote (among many many others): *"...No free will = deterministic behaviour..." *
I would not equal the two in my agnostic views. There are lots of (known as well, as unknow/unknowable) inputs a/effecting our decisionmaking. We like to call it "free will" for putting ourselves into an elegant, superb position. I accept SOME deterministic trend, stronger and weaker ones in that unfathomable variety of 'everything', but a balance of them results in a decision we ordinarily may even call 'counterproductive'. We (here and now) have no way to select the 'final' decisionmaking from dilemmata we may call free will cases. Respectfully John Mikes On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote: > On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 05:16:43PM -0400, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, May 8, 2015 Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote: > > > > Indeterminacy means uncertainty, maybe my senses just haven't given me > > enough information about the present to predict the future, or maybe the > > computation is so big that by the time I complete it the future will have > > already arrived, or maybe the trouble is the Halting Problem and there is > > no shortcut so if I want to know what the universe is going to throw at > me > > next all I can do is wait and see. Or maybe it's just that some events > have > > no cause. Any of this things will result in me (the first person) being > > uncertain (indeterminate) about the future. Bruno claims and you agree > that > > he has found an additional source of uncertainty but neither of you can > > coherently elucidate exactly what it is. > > > > So you say. Nobody else here seems to agree, > > > > > > >> And even if we ignore the above objection the daemon might know what > > >> we will do next but the daemon couldn't tell us because then the > daemon's > > >> own behavior would alter the prediction; I might be of a argumentative > > >> frame of mind and be determined to do the exact opposite of whatever > the > > >> daemon said I was going to do. In that case to figure out what I > would do a > > >> mega-daemon would be required to figure out what the daemon was going > to > > >> predict. > > >> Obviously before long we'd need a mega-mega-daemon and so on. > > > > > > > > > > Assuming Og has free will, of course. If he doesn't, then it > > > doesn't matter what Laplace's daemon tells him. > > > > > > > Free will? Oh yes I remember now, that means not doing things because of > > cause and effect and not not doing things because of cause and effect. In > > other words free will means gibberish. I said it before I'll say it > again, > > free will is a idea so bad its not even wrong. > > Hence I was rather surpised that you of all people suggested Laplace's > daemon could influence Og in such a way that it could not predict Og's > behaviour. > > No free will = deterministic behaviour. > > > > >>> If I am a computation, I cannot tell whether I'm running on a PC or a > > >>> Mac > > >> > > >> > > >> >> I remind you that both the Mac and the PC are made of matter that > > >> obeys the laws of physics. > > > > > > > > > > So? Relevance? > > > > > > You tell me, you're the one who brought it up. > > No it was you. Your email citation tool is mucking up the attribution. > > > > > > UDA 1-7 shows that whatever the ultimate primitive reality is, > properties > > > of matter (ie physics) must only depend on the fact that the ultimate > > > primitive reality is capable of universal computation. > > > > > > > And the only thing ever found capable of universal computation, or > capable > > of making a computation of any sort, is matter operating according to the > > laws of physics; nothing else has ever come close, nothing else can even > > add 1+1. > > > > Lots of things have been found capable of universal computation, > including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. > > In fact physical systems are not capable of computation at all, > without an observer to provide symbolic meaning to the activity. After > all, what's going on in a PC or Mac are actually changes in analogue > voltage levels, where the engineers designate certain voltage ranges > as 0 or 1. (eg <1v means 0 and > 2v means 1, with in between levels > indeterminate). > > > > > > >> As of today if the laws of physics are not involved nobody has ever > > >> been able to calculate ANYTHING. That's why people still make > > >> computer hardware. > > > > > > > > > > Bruno - can you provide a citation to John. He clearly doesn't > believe > > > you. > > > > > > > I don't want a citation! I don't want ink on paper and I don't want to > look > > at pixels on a computer screen, I want to find a business partner who > can > > add 1+1 without using matter or the laws of physics so we can start a > > computer hardware company and crush the competition because our > > ^^^ > You can't have a computer _hardware_ company selling abstract > computers!!! That's an oxymoron. > > > manufacturing costs are zero. > > > > The problem is that all your customers will be abstract, so your revenue > will probably also be zero. > > > >>> I still don't get it, even today one computer can run 2 separate > > >> programs simultaneously, so what's your point? > > > > > > > > > >> But it can't simultaneous experience being two different persons. > > > > > > > > > >> Why not? > > > > > > > Because then it would be experiencing being a mad person > > > > > > I see absolutely no reason why one piece of hardware, like one computer > or > > one biological brain, couldn't run 2 completely separate programs that > were > > both intelligent conscious and sane. > > Yes, but that is not what is being discussed. Here, the persons involved > are > not _experiencing_ being two different persons simultaneously. > > You are confusing mind and brain. > > > > > > > > >> in the context of Virtual Reality and a conscious AI program that > can > > >> be stopped reset and rerun what does "then and there" mean? > > > > > > > > > > The coordinates of virtual space & time, obviously. > > > > > > > That sounds reasonable, therefore the consciousness of the intelligent > > conscious program doesn't change in "the here and now" even if it's > rerun a > > trillion times because none of the virtual landmarks change, subjectively > > it would be exactly the same if the program was only run once. And the > same > > would be true if you play back a recording of the consciousness; such a > > playback may be of use to a third party watching it but it would do > nothing > > to the intelligent conscious program itself. > > > > I think we're in agreement here. I think the way physical > supervenience is used in the MGA is confusing for exactly this reason. > > > -- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
