Is free will an illusion?

stuh505 wrote:

I think that writing off consciousness to an intrinsic property of complex systems that does not have a definable distinction is a cop-out,

Really? I tend to see it as realisation of fact, but if you think differently you are free to define the distinction. Oh, and make sure your definition can be applied by second and third parties.

stuh505 wrote:

because I think there is enough empirical evidence to show that consciousness can be separate from the rest of the mind.

Well, what are you waiting for, present it.

stuh505 wrote:

It is entirely possible that consciousness relies on certain laws of physics which by nature are non-representable by turing machines.

Yes, but with no evidence to support it, it is also extremely unlikely.

stuh505 wrote:

Yeah, that would be nice...but without understanding how consciousness operates any attempt to define it would be subjective.

And with no inkling as to how consciousness operates, or even what it is, we have no reason to suppose that it is incompatible with determinism, or with the laws of physics as we know them.

stuh505 wrote:

Ah, ok. Well, I am not suggesting that the laws of physics need to be suspended. I am suggesting that additional laws of physics currently unknown are probably required to explain them, and at the same time pointing out that the existing laws could still exist under the presence of additional laws which defy our wildest imaginations.

(my emphasis)

Could, but are unlikely to. Why do you think additional laws are required to facilitate consciousness? Your suggestion demands evidence or at least reasoning to back them up.

stuh505 wrote:

I can conceptualize it, I just think that the implications of this require a radical new perspective, in which choice is not as free as most people might like to think.

And when did the preferences of most people become matters of scientific fact? People once felt comfortable thinking the earth was flat, should they have been accommodated?

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
Modern day robots do this already. They extrapolate current movement a couple of seconds forwards, and change direction if the extrapolation results in a prediction of impact. It isn't even advanced code. The only hard part is image processing, if cameras are to be used to map three dimensional space, the rest I could write myself.

Sadly, I think you need a reality check on this subject. Our AI research is really quite unsophisticated, I find it quite embarrasing that so much progress has been made in other fields of technology while leaving the field of AI in the dulldrums.

I'm telling you I could write this code myself apart from the sensory interpretation. It is really not very advanced.

stuh505 wrote:

The concept of defining intelligence and or consciousness via functional outputs like the turing test is a mentallity that is best left for the early 19'th century...the definition of what we mean when we say consciousness does not even require the capacity to produce output or logical thought.

It's the closest we get to an objective definition isn't it? Still, feel free to propose an alternate definition applicable by third parties.

stuh505 wrote:

Haha, you'll need to do better than that...if there's something specific you're thinking of you'll need to cite that, because I'm not completely green to the field of AI! Most likely you're thinking of genetic algorithms and neural networks, but there are some real fundamental limitations there that don't even remotely approach a real brain's capability to act in new situations.

You didn't demand anything approaching a real brains capability, you asked for computers which could do something, anything, which they were not specifically programmed to do. That exists, even if all they do is follow the light bulb.

0 Replies

My opinion is that any thinking entity would have to be highly deterministic as no mind can ever be free from its own machinations. Determinism is requiered in order to facilitate reasoning, and a mind which does not process information in a predictable way is not so much a mind as a random number generator.

I should damn well hope that the output of my brain is determined by the input.

0 Replies

Quote:

Really? I tend to see it as realisation of fact, but if you think differently you are free to define the distinction. Oh, and make sure your definition can be applied by second and third parties.

I'm not sure what you want me to define. It seems that your theory (which I've heard before) is that our brains are the same as computers and that when computers get powerful enough they will start having consciousness. But this is silly, there is no difference between the number of transistors, or the speed of the clock cycle...it's still the same system underneath, and increasing the efficiency of that system isn't going to add new functionality, only increase the efficiency of things that are already possible.

Quote:

Well, what are you waiting for, present it.

The evidence that I cite is not factual...if it were, we might not be having this conversation, but in the absense of hard evidence soft evidence I think can still be persuasive.

Certain functions of the brain such as regulating breathing, etc, still work when the brain is unconscious. Thus, if consciousness is simply an emergent phenomena, then it seems likely that all aspects of what the brain controls should be accessible to the consciousness. Additionally, this indicates that there is a distinction between brain functioning and consciousness, and that they can be independent.

Quote:

Yes, but with no evidence to support it, it is also extremely unlikely.

It's not only highly likely, now that I think about it, it is simply a fact...because all of our current laws simply describe the cause effect relationships that
cause matter and energy to change state...and any combination of these laws will only describe a change in the state of matter, or a chance of the change of state of matter. It may be that when you the state of some matter/energy is in certain configurations, which can be reached through conventional laws of physics, that consciousness emerges...but that requires an additional law stating that consciousness emerges under those conditions!

Quote:

And when did the preferences of most people become matters of scientific fact? People once felt comfortable thinking the earth was flat, should they have been accommodated?

Forget it.

Quote:

I'm telling you I could write this code myself apart from the sensory interpretation. It is really not very advanced.

I don't know what code your envisioning, but if you can write it then we're not on the same page...because if you could write the code I'm envisioning, you'd be responsible for the biggest breakthrough in the field of AI since it's conception.

What I am talking about: given a set of goals, and a set of actions, the human mind is able to plan a sequence of actions to achieve almost any physically possible goal under any dynamically changing environment. A computer program can be specifically written to mimick algorithms determined by the human mind in order to create such a sequence of actions, but it must be re-programmed for different conditions of the environment with different algorithms. Let me present you with a simple test that your program should be able to accomplish.

Your program can control the action of a character in a 3d game world. You must write the program without any specific knowledge of what the program's goals will be. You cannot write functions designed to carry out predicted functions because you have no prior knowledge to what functions the goals might desire, but even if you did it wouldn't change the problem because the set of possible goals is infinite and you could only program in a finite set of functions. You can, of course, program in more general facilitory functions. You must assume finite and practical memory and computation limits.

Now, the program is put in control of the character and the following goals are given in the form of a heuristic function which is easily interpretable by the computer:

1) A set of virtual weapons are allocated to the player and to the computer, and executing certain combinations of available actions will manipulate the various functions of the virtual weapons, such as reloading, firing, etc. The heuristic function is good when the computer player defeats the player.

2) A virtual Go board is located in the 3d world, and various combinations of the agent's actions can be mapped to various legal and illegal moves in the Go game. The heuristic function is good when the agent beats a human competitor, and bad when it performs illegal moves.

3) I could go on but I don't need to, do I?

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

I'm not sure what you want me to define. It seems that your theory (which I've heard before) is that our brains are the same as computers and that when computers get powerful enough they will start having consciousness. But this is silly, there is no difference between the number of transistors, or the speed of the clock cycle...it's still the same system underneath, and increasing the efficiency of that system isn't going to add new functionality, only increase the efficiency of things that are already possible.

I'd be more inclined to point to the programming than computational power, but I am still not sure what "consciousness" amounts to in the physical sense. In the physical world things are defined by their properties, so if you could specify what "consciousness" consists of, or how it interacts with the physical world, that would help.

Here is an alternate formulation for you, I'll assert that all computers are at present conscious, and that the nature of their consciousness is such that they only compute what their programming specifies. Rocks and snowballs are conscious as well. If you can come up with some minimal necessary recognizable trait of consciousness that would allow you to prove me wrong on those accounts, then we will have made progress, If not, "consciousness" remains an undefined.

Oh, and by the way, my "theory" is that "consciousness" is about as aplicable to matters of physics as is "beauty". Until consciousness is described as a physical phenomenon it is useless to attempt to draw inference from it to apply to physics in general.

stuh505 wrote:

Certain functions of the brain such as regulating breathing, etc, still work when the brain is unconscious. Thus, if consciousness is simply an emergent phenomena, then it seems likely that all aspects of what the brain controls should be accessible to the consciousness. Additionally, this indicates that there is a distinction between brain functioning and consciousness, and that they can be independent.

Funny, to me it only suggests that the brain has other functions than this illusive "consciousness", and that "consciousness" may be disengaged for periods of time, like a program not running.

stuh505 wrote:

It's not only highly likely, now that I think about it, it is simply a fact...because all of our current laws simply describe the cause effect relationships that
cause matter and energy to change state...and any combination of these laws will only describe a change in the state of matter, or a chance of the change of state of matter. It may be that when you the state of some matter/energy is in certain configurations, which can be reached through conventional laws of physics, that consciousness emerges...but that requires an additional law stating that consciousness emerges under those conditions!

When modeling computers based on electrodynamics it is not customary to add laws specifying that under such and such conditions, windows is starting up, and when such and such coincides, logging in to a2k occurs. These are only events, not laws which impact on the physical manifestations of electrons moving trough circuits.

Why would "consciousness" be any different?

Also, stuh505 expunds on his universal program, which now has to do more than just avoid bumping into walls, and I concede that I could not write the program he describes. I do not see however that it would not be theoretically possible to write such a program, only that it is not economically feasible.

Still, I do not imagine stuh would assert that these skills are a prerequisite for "consciousness", so I'm not sure we have a working definition. If he were to assert that this functionality was dependent upon consciousness however, we might be getting somewhere, as he would then be arguing that said functionality could not arise under the present paradigm of physics.

Even then though, a simpler condition would do wonders.

0 Replies

I have written a long response addressing all your questions...but I deleted it because I would rather focus my response on the following single issue, so that it may be considered in closer detail.
-------

Quote:

When modeling computers based on electrodynamics it is not customary to add laws specifying that under such and such conditions, windows is starting up, and when such and such coincides, logging in to a2k occurs. These are only events, not laws which impact on the physical manifestations of electrons moving trough circuits.

Why would "consciousness" be any different?

We do not need to create new laws for this, because every step of the process is explainable by existing laws.

Electrons are transferred to the computer via alternating electromagnetic waves in the power cord, these currents of electrons are controlled via storage in capacitors and diodes, the energy is transferred to atoms in the monitor surface causing electrons to decrease in orbital levels and release energy in the form of electromagnetic waves which are visible as light to us.

Now...

Before Einstein discovered the general theory of relativity, we could not explain how energy could be converted to matter.

We could observe it, but it doesn't matter how you rearrange the existing laws...you could rearrange matter any way you wanted, it wasn't simply going to turn into energy. They knew that there was a relationship between matter and energy..but they didn't know what that relationship was.

Now, this is the same situation. We know that there is a relationship between energy and consciousness, but we don't know what it is. You can apply every rule in the book to put energy into different states, and perhaps some of those states will result in consciousness...but the equations won't tell you that. So, we need to figure out which energy states DO result in consciousness, find a general equation for it, and call that a law. Thus, we need a law for consciousness.

0 Replies

To all.

Here's a reference from Chalmers who chairs a multidisciplinary team investigating consciousness. Note his general nonreductionist conclusions even though he assigns the problem of"control of behaviour" to a potentially "simple question" category.

http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html

0 Replies

fresco wrote-

Quote:

Here's a reference from Chalmers who chairs a multidisciplinary team investigating consciousness.

That sounds like an ongoing,comfortable,open-ended empire of limitless proportions built upon the efforts of the workers and relying on the magic of long words to mesmerise the controllers of the budget and the serried ranks of nubile research co-ordinators (38-24-38).
In the unlikely event of any serious conclusions it is a fair bet they will be used to further mesmerise the same workers.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

I have written a long response addressing all your questions...but I deleted it because I would rather focus my response on the following single issue, so that it may be considered in closer detail.

So let it be written etc, but I still think a definition of "consciousness" would be helpfull.

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
When modeling computers based on electrodynamics it is not customary to add laws specifying that under such and such conditions, windows is starting up, and when such and such coincides, logging in to a2k occurs. These are only events, not laws which impact on the physical manifestations of electrons moving trough circuits.

Why would "consciousness" be any different?

We do not need to create new laws for this, because every step of the process is explainable by existing laws.

Electrons are transferred to the computer via alternating electromagnetic waves in the power cord, these currents of electrons are controlled via storage in capacitors and diodes, the energy is transferred to atoms in the monitor surface causing electrons to decrease in orbital levels and release energy in the form of electromagnetic waves which are visible as light to us.

Now...

stuh505 wrote:

Now, this is the same situation. We know that there is a relationship between energy and consciousness, but we don't know what it is. You can apply every rule in the book to put energy into different states, and perhaps some of those states will result in consciousness...but the equations won't tell you that. So, we need to figure out which energy states DO result in consciousness, find a general equation for it, and call that a law. Thus, we need a law for consciousness.

It is indeed the same situation, which leads me to think that you have missed my point. Couldn't "consciousness" be an event, an interpretation, superimposed on to the play of neurons and synapses just as "pac man" is superimposed on to the currents in the computers circuitry? Who's to say that "consciousness" can't be exhaustively modeled using known laws of physics?

You really should have a go at defining "consciousness".

0 Replies

Spendius,

Irrespective of academic empire building (and your particular beef with such) the guy is not a bad writer so why why not read it ! I have introduced it because the respondents here seem to be going over old familiar boggy ground from which Chalmers (et al)may have partially extricated themselves.

0 Replies

fresco-

I particularly liked "a century or two".I wondered if the author is conscious,when interviewing for fresh young talent,as he presumably does from time to time,that he is selecting pretty pretties who are impressed by his erudition rather than jaded,grizzled cynics such as myself.Or even,at a cruder level,those networked into his orbits having excorcised their artistic integrity.

I must admit though that my eyes glazed over after about 20 minutes which I can ill afford.

I also liked -"may have partially extricated themselves" which made me conscious that that is closer to "may not have" than "have extricated".He certainly has extricated himself from the gruelling business of supply side activities from which his salary cheques,and those of his acolytes,are unavoidably derived and which,in my humble opinion,could easily be directed to more useful ends such as reducing the price of beer.

0 Replies

Quote:

Couldn't "consciousness" be an event, an interpretation, superimposed on to the play of neurons and synapses just as "pac man" is superimposed on to the currents in the computers circuitry? Who's to say that "consciousness" can't be exhaustively modeled using known laws of physics?

Well, think of it this way...

All of the laws of physics could be written down as equations. It's only possible to solve for a variable if the variable is listed in the equation. The equations of science include things like energy, photons, etc. Since Pac-Man is simply a pattern of light on the screen, and the photons are in the equations, you can use the equations to explain for it.

But with consciousness, the output is not a pattern of light...rather it is simply "self-awareness" (that is the definition that you've been asking for by the way). Now, since self-awareness isn't one of the variables in the equations, we can't solve for it or explain it.

Think of anything that science CAN explain. It's a variable in the equations. Time, force, magnetism, everything that science can explain is linked to known variables.

So, what I'm trying to say is that there needs to be equations made that include self-awareness before we can hope to solve for it.

0 Replies

All the variables cannot be known or fixed into a time.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

But with consciousness, the output is not a pattern of light...rather it is simply "self-awareness" (that is the definition that you've been asking for by the way).

"Self awareness" doesn't cut it, as it is just as hard to recognise as "consciousness", all you have done is equate one undefined with another.

If I were to program my computer so that it could run simulations of itself, and downloaded the specs for it's construction, would it be self aware? How would you know? By what criteria would you accept/dismiss it's claim to "self awareness"?

stuh505 wrote:

Think of anything that science CAN explain. It's a variable in the equations. Time, force, magnetism, everything that science can explain is linked to known variables.

So, what I'm trying to say is that there needs to be equations made that include self-awareness before we can hope to solve for it.

Why would we need to solve for it? You are begging the question. I say "self awareness" is no more valid an output than "game over" for the purpouse of justifying additional laws of physics to explain them.

0 Replies

Is free will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know