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..

Comment on specialness of intelligence

http://www.inc.com/allison-fass/stephen-wolfram-principle-of-computational-equivalence.html

Comment on universality of computation and the specialness of general intelligence.

Some like Wolfram have already commented on the universality of computation in nature, the principle of computational equivalence.   Those who're opposed to digital physics, often subscribe to dubious notions such as the existence of "TRUE RANDOMNESS" and the existence of physical objects and physical processes with "infinite precision" in their physical manifestation, the physical manifestation of real numbers through natural phenomena.   Something that would basically imply that "Super Tasks" are taking place in nature, something that is highly dubious.

Now while commenting on the universality of computation,  and the issue of general intelligence, Wolfram seemed to imply that there is nothing that made it fundamentally different and special and that might be brought about to technological fruition by some key insight into the nature of intelligence.

I will say that, while I can't entirely provide evidence to refute the claim of lack of specialness, I will point to another process that most can agree does show specialness amongst the phenomena found in nature.  Such that we can see that even if we said two processes are computationally equivalent in complexity and nature of computations, there can be notable difference making one process special, such that computational equivalence does not preclude the possibility of specialness. That is the evolutionary process, we can all see that although the nature of computation is universal and similar in kind across natural objects and phenomena, something like evolution does indeed look special.  

 Evolution can reshape the universe, neither the weather, nor physical erosion, nor the workings of inanimate objects have that property.    We can observe that the evolutionary ratchet creates myriad of solutions, most we can see are truly dead ends(fated to die by many an inevitable natural event), but amongst these there is a drive for increased complexity in a fraction of the paths, this increased complexity opens the path towards dominion of physical processes themselves and survival from most any possible eventuality.

In intelligence we see the Coup De Grace of evolution, it's greatest and final weapon to survive, the designs of the ultimate trait for a survival machine, the means towards the perfection of replication and sustenance of purposeful action.    Not only can intelligence increase survival probability against anything that can be survived, but it also has the potential to generate ever more diverse forms of expression, of art, of science.   Gathering all the solutions not just from other life forms that have existed or exist, but from all possible life forms past present or future, from the platonic realm of all possibilities itself.   As we go up in intelligence we can see the difference, in the nature of behavior and the complexity of output produced.   While say a pack of wolves might say have similar level of complexity and similar types of processes internally, externally their actions will not amount to much.   But look at humanity, it might have taken tens of thousands of years, but as knowledge has accumulated it has interacted with our innate intelligence, and produced and ever expanding growth to the accompanying body of knowledge, and the ability to manipulate nature with ever greater degrees of control. 

We've also seen the production of music, games, movies, books, papers, performances, all manner of works by man.  A rich and ever growing body of diverse works feeding of each other, the very evolution of information itself, replicating in a digital form ever more and changing wildly like a fire, ideas set free.

This is very different in kind from other things happening around, it may be similar in both the nature of the operations and the degree of complexity, but it is not just history that makes it special.   If humans or future humans appeared out of thin air with an advanced culture and art, it matters not that such would lack history, the information content is there, and the richness of the civilization would be there.