Another Free will vs determinism comment

      Free will vs determinism comment

Was listening to Molyneux's audio book:
Universally Preferable Behavior


Molyneux argues that if you're not responsible arguing with you is like arguing with a television set.   But that does not follow,  A TV normally has no way to causally interact with complex language in a meaningful way.    A language interaction, like a physical interaction with a bunch of rocks, can change the configuration and the responses of more complex matter in a causal manner.    Causality, and meaningful interaction, cares not about personal responsibility.

All that is required for arguing to be effective, is that the entity being argued with has the capacity to understand the language and arguments being made and be causally affected by these.    When you set a clock, it matters not whether the clock has free will, it only matters that the knobs are able to causally influence it.  Likewise,  an argument received upon the sensory organs interact with the nervous tissue, and causally influences it.

There are several lines of attack against free will, a few examples follow.

1. Relativity of simultaneity seems to imply block time, or the existence of a 4 dimensional chunk of space time where both future and past are identical in quality and immutable.

2.Postdiction, there is evidence to suggest that conscious sensation occurs after an event has taken place, if you're conscious of past events, we all know the past is proven immutable.   Thus any idea that you're changing what you're conscious of, if it refers to the past, is nothing more than an illusion.

3.It is believed there are mechanisms producing action selection.  If a bunch of components following rules create a mechanism that chooses action, it is the components and the mechanism that explain your choice, and cause your choice, your sensation of choice is but an illusion.

That said if  there is any basis to have preferable behavior, or preferable long term goals, determinism would ensure the optimal outcome if one or more entities increased in capacity and knowledge without bound.   If there is anything that allows deviation, in an infinite universe with potentially vast numbers of entities with unbound growth in capacity, optimal outcome might not be guaranteed.

PS
More on free will

free will molyneux youtube series link

Our capacity to reason and compare, does not mean we somehow transcend the mechanisms that should be explainable in a reductionist manner.  Mechanisms that result from the interaction of our components.  We can posit a computer program with similar capacity, yet it can't transcend the limits of computation.

That said, it still may be preferable to behave as if people are responsible and there is morality.   Eventually we may be able to rewire brain circuitry to behave more in accordance with our "moral standards".  We will be able to tell whether a criminal will behave "morally" or "immorally" with high probability, and detain them indefinitely if they do not rewire to behave "morally" with high probability, if there's high probability of "immoral" serious criminal behavior if they're released.

if you could rapidly put something in the way of the falling bolder, or fire a projectile at the bolder it may change its course. Nervous tissue can react and change in response to an argument that falls upon the sensory organs. 

If the TV had true ai, you could argue with it. But your exchange of information with a tv, is usually more meaningful through the buttons or knobs, it may respond to basic voice commands but not complex language interaction. A clock if you want meaningful change, you turn the knobs. A human, you can change through exposure to arguments. 

I think we can potentially have determinism and preferable behavior by some standard. And things can change but in a determined manner. Emotions can be elicited in a determined manner, and as said change too. That said determinism changes the perspective on "Moral" wrongdoing from punishment and blame to rehabilitation and help. 

____________________________________________
Humans have language, perhaps some other kind of animal has some kind of language, but it is unreasonable to use language with entities that lack the capacity for language.   Humans also have general intelligence.  It is expected artificial machines may eventually have general intelligence and the ability to use language.

A rock can't change its mind but its path can be changed if a gust of wind, a projectile or something gets in its path.   The mind can be changed in the same way, the underlying mechanisms behind it, can take a different turn upon exposure to external information.

The question with regards to changing mind, is whether given a set of information the outcome is determined or not.  Say you were planning to invest on X company, and you got information X company is a scam, from a very reliable source, your decision to still invest or not, is it determined?  Or is there any way the outcome regards your decision is not determined? Regards determinists and changing minds, they simply believe whether they'll succeed in changing someone's mind or fail is already predetermined, not that they can't change minds but that the outcome of the attempt is already set in stone..

Potential problems of unlimited freedom, security and time

I believe both that workings towards the acquistion of freedom, security and time as well as the provision to others of these 3 things is a worthy pursuit.   But there are problems that emerge is with unlimited freedom, security and time.   True security is security not just from random small threats, but even from large threats, such that a majority, corporation or even a government cannot restrict freedom or time or well being of the individual or entity involved.  

But if the individual or entity cannot be harmed or restrained even by a government, corporation or majority, then if they also have unlimited freedom, what they do with this freedom cannot have a consequence brought upon them from an external third party.   This brings the possibility that arbitrary athrocities could take place within the property or domain of an entity or individual with unlimited freedom, time and security.   If a large population of agents gains unlimited freedom, security and time, then the results could be very objectionable from the current perspective of most humans.  Even a minority of deviants, will result in unmeasurable athrocities taking place within the domain.

The hope is that if increases in freedom, security and time can be accompanied by unlimited increases in intelligence and knowledge, that these last two could guide action and at least give purpose or reason to anything that takes place.   As beings approach the limit of intelligence, knowledge, and power as they attain the 3 things(security+time+freedom) sought, their nature may become more ideal as they approach the divine.   

The question is will unlimited intelligence and knowledge lead to benevolence from the perspective of most present day humans?  Or will it create Eldritch abominations committing all sorts of atrocities from our point of view, if these entities become empowered?

Comment on thread on running simulations

I don't believe you actually can create such feelings, you can only access the memories of events. Simulation is only the creation of memory states and transitions between them, even with more elaborate branching of subsections, it is not different in kind than the playing of an interactive dvd. What happened happened and there's no changing it.

Those rapes and tortures they exist atemporally forever as possibilities, they happened, happen and will always happen. There's no changing it, you can view what is, and view alternate histories. But there's no changing the death of Yoda or Harry Potter's parents, those are things that are part of one potential sequence of events. The sequences exist independent of time.

Even with godhood, you can't stop logical possibilities from existing and always being, you can only view such, experience such.

Even simple substraction or addition with branching offers universal computation, a very simple process. There is nothing wrong morally with substracting, or adding, nor with making a decision as to where to add or substract. When you draw a painting of an elephant, that elephant exists independent of the painting, the painting is not unethical. Similar reality as is appears to be an instance of the possibilities, and the elephant exists independent of its presence in any one planet.
So yes I would run simulations, but the consciousness while referent to the structures generated, exists, existed, and will exist independent of any particular instantiation.

You can't stop sequences of events from happening, you can access such, and even access alternate ones where divine intervention occurs, but all possibilities have already taken root, they simply are, forever so. -source link for thread on kurzweilai

Comment on Doctor Strange movie | also comment regards reality warp and viability

The movie was ACE very entertaining, particularly the vast showcase of powers and effects, it will be interesting to see if they can top this in infinity war movie.   I've been waiting a long time for more developed real world movie examples of vast modifications of the real world.   While it may go under differing names, the manipulation of physical law is of interest.

As I've said previously one of the things that I would like to check is the real world viability of or lack there of, is the possibility of a reality manipulation, physical law manipulation, a reality warping machine.  I think some call this akashic engineering, though there may be some differences in regards the term.    It need not be said that should a reality warp machine be possible, first mover would have an absolute advantage and they may at best be bound by logic, but neither the laws of man nor nature would have hold over such a being or group.

For now it seems that reality warp class powers can only be had within the virtual domains, in a layer atop the real physical world, within another world sitting atop this one.   But if as some suggest reality is a naturally occurring simulation, and as others suggest physical laws may vary across a hypothetical multiverse.  The possibility of modifying physical law, the real world to the extent that the virtual can be, stands as a possibility, however remote.

As I've said freedom, security and time.  Those are the 3 factors, that can fundamentally define the fate of one's self.

More comments on the finitude of the possible hypothesis and god state hypothesis of convergence

The number π is a mathematical constant, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, commonly approximated as 3.14159. It has been represented by the Greek letter "π" since the mid-18th century, though it is also sometimes spelled out as "pi" (/paɪ/).-wiki

 The Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula (BBP formula) is a spigot algorithm for computing the nth binary digit of pi (symbol: π) using base 16 math. The formula can directly calculate the value of any given digit of π without calculating the preceding digits. The BBP is a summation-style formula that was discovered in 1995 by Simon Plouffe and was named after the authors of the paper in which the formula was published, David H. Bailey, Peter Borwein, and Simon Plouffe.[1] Before that paper, it had been published by Plouffe on his own site-wiki

Some have hypothesized that the number pi might contain all possible information within its digit sequence, if I recall correctly, this hasn't been verified, but seems likely given its properties from what I hear.

The formula for generating pi, is an example of what I call an implicit pattern.  I call formulas or algorithms that define or describe spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal sequences of elements or digits as implicit patterns.   The produced sequences, the raw data I call the explicit pattern.  E.G say a particular clothing pattern, there may be an algorithm for producing it, which is a form, implicit, of the pattern, but there is also the raw visual pattern itself, which is more explicit.

 The finitude of the possible suggests, that there likely exists a class of implicit patterns that can describe all possible information.  Suggestions for these have already likely been made, as the algorithms that are believed capable of generating all computable universes can likely qualify.  But there is also the possibility, hinted at, that there is also not just an implicit pattern but an explicit finite pattern that might bind all that is possible, and larger patterns might not offer truly meaningfully more, meaning might peak at a certain finite level, though as said this is hypothetically speaking, it may or may not be the case.   If it turned out to be true it would in essence allow for a finite amount of data to in essence allow access to all possible information, probably in some form of procedural generation kind of way.

Regards the hypothesized god state.  As I've hypothesized previously, an accumulation of freedom, security and time, has the potential to at the limit grant virtual equivalence with what has been described as god, so I've termed it the god state.   Absolute security, Absolute Freedom, Absolute time, grants immortality, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

   If knowledge is absolute, the mind design is the optimal design, and intelligence is at the limit of the possible, and if determinism is true, it would seem that there should be convergence of behavior.   Though variations in mind design, as well as minute errors in knowledge before reaching this state could allow for divergence of behavior, as chaos like phenomena might cause minute differences to be magnified and result in unpredictable behavior.    There's also the possibility of multiple optimal mind designs that may lead to slightly or even vastly different behavior.  

More knowledge is needed regards mind design to know whether there would be convergence or divergence.   But my belief is that hypothetically speaking as a being nearrs perfection and becoming the greatest godlike being, there will be convergence.   This is why even if many beings attained the state, it is likely it would be like a hall of mirrors and the difference between such beings might not exist, as they'd be instances of the same exact pattern, they would all have all the properties intrinsic to the pattern.

Intrinsic to the pattern, or intrinsic information, refers to all that is implied or carried along with the pattern, properties that come along with an instance of the pattern.   For example a specific sequence of characters can be looked in different ways and means different things from different points of view, it may also have an infinite number of implications, all that is intrinsic and part of the pattern.  In terms of a spatiotemporal pattern related to a mind, if we assume determinism, there would be causal implications in certain environments and upon passage of time.

Comment on simulation hypothesis and godlike entities at kurzweilai

Thing is, universal computation emerges from systems implementing extremely simple rules. Equally simple starting state allows such a system to generate all possible programs and simulatable universes. Effectively everything can emerge from extremely simple initial state.

What's to say that general intelligence requires extremely complex end products of millions years of natural selection? It's pretty easy to conceive that general intelligence may emerge from extremely simple set of rules even on simple initial state. If so a godlike entity could easily emerge. This is also ignoring ideas like boltzmann brains which suggest that highly complex objects can actually emerge out of the vacuum fully formed given infinite time and space.

While on the subject of boltzmann brains, it is conceivable that a boltzmann simulation computer could pop out of the vacuum with countless virtual inhabitants or brains in vats if brains have special uncomputable properties.

That said, as a determinist, I believe there is no free will, and all that can be is simply to experience sensations including the sensation of will. Even a being in a godlike state may not actually be able to influence anything. Changing the computations you're performing, may be like changing dvds in a dvd player, you change the movie being played but the characters and events remain unchanged in each individual movie.

A pattern can exist in an infinite number of places, I just don't see how writing down a pattern in a piece of paper or in computer memory, how that changes in any way the pattern or sequence of patterns. Any instance of the pattern seems to be fundamentally changeless and atemporal, independent of any physical copies and changes made to said copies.

That;s the thing with simulations, at least digital simulation rest on patterns. The same exact simulation is probably running in an infinity of places, even if one copy shuts down, it doesn't affect the actual sequence of events. Like a dvd of say terminator 2 being burnt, that doesn't actually destroy the actual characters or story.

What happens if you take a simulation down an unlikely set of paths, say godlike interactions, well that always existed as a possibility. Like the concept of alternate timelines, where the time changes were always there, these interactions were always part of that particular path, and are probably occurring in an infinite number of places. It's like fanfiction of a particular work, it is a possible trajectory.

If digital physics is true, if we've also got determinism and patterns are essentially changeless and atemporal in nature. Then there can be no morality if such is the case, doing something in the real world would be no different from doing it in a virtual world, not only that but there would be no choice just the illusion of choice. And in the end, writing numbers or patterns down, simulating an experience in a computer, would be no different than an interactive movie, all that could be is was and will always be. No matter the actions taken within a digital simulation there would fundamentally not be anything wrong with them, as it'd be simply a transition between pre-existent atemporal patterns not the actual creation of patterns(branching and adding).- source thread