AI, Souls, Free Will, Logic, Self-awareness

[Ayatollah So]

@ dbergan and cgannon, both:

They will do exactly as the laws dictate and nothing else.

That was part of dbergan's Premise 1 which I said was overblown. Let me explain, and I think it will shine some light on related areas.

Laws don't dictate. Events don't dictate. People dictate. Laws don't control things, that's an anthropomorphism. (And a paradoxical one if it leads you to the worry that people don't control things!)

There are at least two aspects of control: one, we can roughly call intelligence. The other is causation. The controlling agent thinks through the sequence of events, then manipulates events at the earlier end of the sequence to control the later outcomes.

My first point: events like the Big Bang, or your total environment since birth, are not intelligent. Therefore they cannot control you, or "dictate anything".

But wait, there's more.

People remember the past but not the future, and there are good 2nd Law of Thermodynamics reasons why this is so. As a result, we think of the past as "fixed" but the future as "open". And we use events in the present, together with our understanding of the laws of nature, to control the future. And what we did in the past, continues through a chain of events to affect the future. So we naturally think of control as going in one temporal direction: from past to present to future. But, notice, this temporal asymmetry in "control" all stems from the "intelligence" aspect. None of it stems from the "causation" aspect. There is no good reason to deny that causation is a temporally symmetric relationship. Of course, we CALL the earlier events "causes" and the later ones "effects", but this is an empty tautology. It says something interesting about human language and concepts. It says nothing about the metaphysics of time and causality.

In particular, it makes no sense to suppose that past events are somehow superior to present and future events. In even more particular, it makes no sense to suppose that the past is more powerful than the present. If the universe were correctly described by deterministic classical physics, it would be just as easy to deduce past events from present ones as vice-versa. Logically, the relationship is symmetric. If the universe is correctly described by the nondeterministic handshake interpretation of quantum mechanics, once again the relationship is symmetric.

Now for some comments specific to cgannon:

So, I was giving this some more thought. The only way responsibility can really be felt for one's actions is by a rather radical redefinition of 'self'. Rather than a 'will', it must be defined as the sum of whatever factors have lead to the creation of the particular human being to which my consciousness is attached.

[...] The person had no choice but to do what they did - no matter how you try to claim compatibility, you know you cannot claim that - and yet, they are going to suffer for it. The guilt is pure illusion, but the suffering is pure reality.

I do claim that people have a choice, regardless of determinism's truth or falsity. Choice is intelligent decisionmaking, rooted in (approximate) knowledge of oneself and one's circumstances, and causing effects in the future. Far from conflicting with causality, this REQUIRES (some degree, at least, of) causality.

Will is will, not negated by being causally related to the past. However you got your character, it's still yours. I think you are illegitimately presuming that the past matters more than the present, even to the point of negating the present.

Guilt isn't illusion. It's the intelligible result of knowingly and with malice aforethought choosing some privately valued end at the expense of acting in a publically defensible, moral way.

 

[dbergan]

Laws don't dictate. Events don't dictate. People dictate. Laws don't control things, that's an anthropomorphism. (And a paradoxical one if it leads you to the worry that people don't control things!)

By "laws" I was referring to laws of nature... like gravity and combustion, not laws that tell you on which side of the road to drive. I think you will find it awfully hard to rebel against gravity when you're on the bathroom scale.

 

[5cats]

Why believe in free will? Why act as if it exists?

Ok:
>Free Will is defined as an ability to make a choice. No choice? No free will. Cause & effect (causality) say that if the causes are all known, the effect is pre-determined (they use fancy euphimisms, but it's still true) therefor: no choice. A pre-determined choice is not a choice. A random choice is not a choice either.
>Either their is free will or their isn't (no room for compromise here. One act of free will = free will. Illusion of free will = isn't)
>IF there is free will: we should act on it. We should base our belief systems on the existance of free will. That doesn't mean there's nothing subject to cause & effect! We can (in this belief system) figure out what has free will & what doesn't.
>IF there's no free will: it doesn't matter HOW we act, it's all pre-determined (or random) ie: outside out ability to change the outcome. So who cares what beliefs you have, what theories you prove? It's written in stone (as it were) that it would happen!

Which is more logical? To chose to believe in A) a system that allows you choice? Or B) one that doesn't? Obviously the first one, since chosing to believe you have no choice is self-contadiction!

So go ahead! Believe in determinism! Act like we have no choice! Whatever dude!
If there's no such thing as free will, nothing matters.

 

[Sidhe]

There's a thread called Free will vs determinism, read that it's quite interesting, not everyone on the forum believes free will is an illusion. I had an idea that true chaos in the thought process creates free will, it was an idea I came up with years ago; untill now though there was no evidence that the Chaos(not random, truly inefible chaos) I was talking about affected the consciousness. There are several books on the subject written by those of a more philosophically adept nature than I though. It's an interesting idea, and it certainly pisses the anti free will group off. At the end of the day though it's an unanswerable question with current understanding, so anyone who advocates one over the other with certainty has not understood the question or the philosophy; most people aren't that certain though and it's hardly surprising, we know little of free will in terms of consciousness.

 

[El_Machinae]

5cats - I think I was forced to choose A - but I'm not really sure it's not just an illusion of choice!

 

[Ayatollah So]

By "laws" I was referring to laws of nature...

Me too. Like I said, laws don't dictate. Nary a dictator among them.

 

[cgannon64]

While we can debate the concept of "self" til eternity, that person, their body and whatever makes them up, committed a crime. "They" are guilty of the crime. And the suffering they caused is real. And unleashed again, the suffering they would cause is real as well.

Obviously it makes sense to imprison people who endanger society; but isn't it just wantonly cruel to cause them suffering in any way? People complain that prisoners have cable TV and air conditioning - why don't we give them more, if free will doesn't exist?

We don't kill them because we still value life (ours and theirs), even without free will. We still value the joys we can gain and the love we can feel. Knowing about an optical illusion does not remove the illusion from occuring. Knowing we lack free will, knowing that I can't help but love this person and she love me does not diminish the feeling or our happiness together.

Our goal should be to rehabilitate as well as provide deterrence. If we had drugs that could "make them see the truth and path of righteousness" should we force it? I say no because that gives too much power to the state that's open to abuse. If we can't change them, then we incarcerate them until they're no longer a threat to the public. At the same time, we make sure the degree of punishment is warranted by the crime.

These questions may be too far-reaching for this thread, but: Why value life? Why value rehabilitation? Why should crimes warrant punishment?

How can anything be evil if there is no choice? Jean-Jacques Rousseau: "to remove all liberty from his will is to remove all morality from his acts."

Evil was an exaggerated term, obviously; how's illogical? (And, ironically, isn't Rousseau making my exact point?)

You are suggesting that we should choose your criminal system because it recognizes the reality that we have no choice... Absurdity upon absurdity...

Basing our criminal system on reality seems awfully sensible to me.

Here's a question: why does anyone suffer? Answer: because the pain receptors tell the brain whether or not a certain behavior is injuring the organism. Yet, isn't it true that humans can intentionally endure pain? If we didn't have free will, our body should automatically respond to a situation so to relieve any pain... but there is something else that allows us to override these commands, such that in a torture situation we can choose pain, or choose to give in.

The pain receptors do not have overarching control of our brain.

I'm curious, what scientific evidence are you referring to?

Specifically, that study that found people make decisions before they are aware of them; generally, the scientific dichotomy in which all natural things appear to be either deterministic or random.

The argument is that observations show that many parts of every human society are based on the idea of human free will. Some of these parts are very complicated (ie income tax laws in the US)... which indicates that we know the subject of free will quite well and the government tries to guide its citizens toward certain choices (ie giving to charity, depreciating a new building, having low income) with incentives.

These observations cause me trouble, but my thinking is opposite yours: The integral role free will serves in human institutions causes me to question human institutions, not free will - since free will (in its most expansive definition, and the only one meriting that name, I think) seems entirely disproved by science.

Observation is the cornerstone of science, and so with all observations pointing toward free will, the burden of proof now lies with the determinists. Observation also shows us that about the same proportion of people believe that five and five make ten. But I'm sure that's not compelling evidence for you either... showing that our banks, stores, carpenters, and engineers use this principle everyday (and even more elaborate complicated principles rooted in it) wouldn't be sufficient.

And hasn't the burden of proof been met?

Bang on again. Morality is based on free will: if you deny free will, you must also remove all moral judgement of people's actions.

Yes! And that's my point! A justice system makes no sense without free will!

Guilt is a moral judgement of one's own actions. With no free will we should not feel guilty.

Not really. Guilt could be conceived as a strange chemical process, but one which is very real nonetheless.

I do claim that people have a choice, regardless of determinism's truth or falsity. Choice is intelligent decisionmaking, rooted in (approximate) knowledge of oneself and one's circumstances, and causing effects in the future. Far from conflicting with causality, this REQUIRES (some degree, at least, of) causality.

Your definition is palatable, but only because it hinges on that one word - decisionmaking. The compatibilist definition you subscribe to is not decisionmaking in the sense that it commonly means, and in the only (or at least only easy) sense it can be conceived in daily life. It may be odd to accuse someone of antrhopomorphizing the human being, but that's just what this definition does: it firstly assumes that the human being is different from the rest of the universe, and then gives a process of this 'special' being a name (decisionmaking). How anthropocentric is that?

Will is will, not negated by being causally related to the past. However you got your character, it's still yours. I think you are illegitimately presuming that the past matters more than the present, even to the point of negating the present.

Again, isn't this more anthropomorphism?What is a will anyway? A human brain is or has a will, we all think; but, in that case, a 'will' is nothing but a collection of processes resulting in an effect. That's no different from anything else in the unvierse. So maybe a will is a collection of processes that is aware of its own workings - but does the human brain really meet that description? We are only dimly aware of our instincts or desires at any moment; and it has been proven scientifically that we act before we are aware. So how, then, could we be said to will anything - when this willing happens before we even know it! Willing has been reduced to an unconscious process, which we have only been given the privilege of observing - with a time delay!

Thus we are not capable of willing in any reasonable sense, but only consciousness, and nothing more. A fascinating process, and one that raises my questions; but one that also has no bearing on morality whatsoever.

Guilt isn't illusion. It's the intelligible result of knowingly and with malice aforethought choosing some privately valued end at the expense of acting in a publically defensible, moral way.

Again, as always in these debates - the language is deceptive. Why should we feel guilty for an action that could not be avoided? We already run across this in daily thought: Someone might feel guilty then they accidentally did something that caused another's death, but they know they shouldn't. But aren't all actions accidents in this sense?

 

[dbergan]

Our capacity for 'infinite programmings' isn't evidence because it's hypothetical. It might be true but it itself has no evidence or principle supporting it.
A capacity for infinite reprogrammings is not inconsistent with material objects; the material itself is not infinite, but the capacity of the system is. It could be an unusual physical property of our brains.

I think you're right about infinite capacity being different from infinite matter. And even so... our finite lifespan suggests there would only be a finite upper limit: 5 per second * number of seconds lived.

Anyway, let's also take a look at this from another perspective. Instead of looking at this from a standpoint of reprogramming iterations, let's consider a field of decisions. Deep Blue makes decisions about chess. For the first move it has 18 possibilities... it's decision is restricted to those 18.

David Bergan, on the first move of a chess game has a lot more in his decision field. In addition to the 18 legal moves in the game of chess, he can taunt his opponent, knock over the board, go to the kitchen and grab a Pepsi, break the other guy's arm, ride a bike, read a book, or sing the Marine's hymn... to name a few. There are some things he cannot do (count to infinity, grow a pair of wings, draw a round square, or eat the color red) but his decision field is substantially larger than Deep Blue's.

After listing my possibilities, I'm now thinking if I can go back to Deep Blue's and add things like: crash the chess program, refuse to accept input from the keyboard, and other glitches... except that Deep Blue doesn't choose those glitches any more than I choose to have a headache. Sometimes my choices lead to a headache (too much Civ 4 with too dim lighting), and sometimes I just wake up and have a headache.

Anyway, point being that humans always have a broader decision field than computers. Intellectually, I'm inclined to say that humans have a boundless decision field... I'm not aware of any limits to imagination. I can think of purple midget turkeys in the middle of chess game, while Deep Blue can only think about Qxd7, Bc4, etc.

On the other hand, because of my puny brain, I am not free to see most chess positions 10-12 moves deep... where Deep Blue obstensibly can.

But not only do humans have a bigger decision field, they also have sovereignty over their decision-making. If a computer makes a ridiculous chess move, the programmer is blamed. If a robot kills a person, the mad scientist behind it goes to jail. The killer artificial intelligence is just as much immune to accountability as a killer bullet. We don't put the bullet on trial.

The important difference seems to be that humans have complete control over their thinking. We can make movies like the Manchurian Candidate and a Clockwork Orange about brainwashing... and nobody says that humans aren't in part deterministic (affected by alcohol, etc.)... but we always hold the individual responsible because he is in complete control of his own mind.

Unless they are insane... in which case the person is usually let off with little or no punishment, and instead proscribed treatment.

Could an AI ever be in complete control of its thinking?

 

[dbergan]

Obviously it makes sense to imprison people who endanger society; but isn't it just wantonly cruel to cause them suffering in any way? People complain that prisoners have cable TV and air conditioning - why don't we give them more, if free will doesn't exist?

Norway has the same idea, and people there are trying to break into prison...

 

[dbergan]

Me too. Like I said, laws don't dictate. Nary a dictator among them.

Then we must really misunderstand one another... Of the following natural laws, tell me which one you can break.

A) Every action has an equal and opposite reaction
B) Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed
C) In a closed system entropy always increases

If you have no choice but to follow someone's laws, then that person is a tyrant. We have no choice but to follow nature's laws, therefore nature is a tyrant.

 

[cgannon64]

Norway has the same idea, and people there are trying to break into prison...

You don't need to convince me that the beliefs I'm posting here have unpleasant effects on a society. You need to convince me they aren't true.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Bang on again. Morality is based on free will: if you deny free will, you must also remove all moral judgement of people's actions.

I think I disagree. With humans the fundamental piece of this puzzle is the need for order. Criminal justice systems, whether primative or complicated, arise because when groups of humans live together there is a tendency for individuals to disrupt the community organization. In order to maintain that order a community response is necessary. The justification for the response is then couched in terms like personal responsibility, fairness, victim compensation, rehabilitation etc. Free will is an attribute devised by people to account for "bad behavior" and justify community response.

If our cultural history was one based on determinism, we would still need to keep order and deal with bad behavior. We would do so and justify it differently. A simple example might be such: One's karma determines ones actions and how one lives in the world. So when a person kills another it is not their fault. The community could respond, you are correct, but your karma is now that you go to jail.

Free will and determinism are merely tools we use to organize how we deal with disorderly people. They are ways of assigning blame for behaviors that are perceived by the culture as out of place. And by assigning blame (reasons, responsibility etc.) we are able to standardize an effort to stop the behavior. Once the behavior becomes acceptable, the penalties go away.

 

[5cats]

Deep Blue can only think about Qxd7, Bc4, etc.

Actually, all Deep Blue thinks about is:
1010100010101010101111010010101101101010101010101010011010010101010101010101010101010110101010101011100011001010110101111101010011

We don't put the bullet on trial.

Except for the Warren Comission

We can make movies like the Manchurian Candidate and a Clockwork Orange about brainwashing...

It's funny how both those movies "brainwash" someone in just a few days. In reality it takes a very long time and is far from 100%. Oh you can force a conditioned response in short order, but that's not even close to brainwashing.

 

[punkbass2000]

Actually, all Deep Blue thinks about is:
1010100010101010101111010010101101101010101010101010011010010101010101010101010101010110101010101011100011001010110101111101010011

True. And all people think is: neuron fired / neuron not-fired.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Then we must really misunderstand one another... Of the following natural laws, tell me which one you can break. [...]
If you have no choice but to follow someone's laws, then that person is a tyrant. We have no choice but to follow nature's laws, therefore nature is a tyrant.

The premise "If you have no choice but to follow someone's laws, then that person is a tyrant" only makes sense for society's laws. Natural laws are different. Natural laws don't prescribe, they describe. They are fundamental descriptions of the way things work. The conclusion "nature is a tyrant" gives the game away, confusing Nature with a person (a goddess?).

I have no interest in breaking the laws of nature. If it weren't for the laws of nature being almost exactly what they are, I wouldn't even exist! Many of my valued characteristics have meaning only because the world operates according to natural laws. For example, strength: without the laws of biochemistry, muscle would no longer mean what it does. For exampe, eyesight: if the laws of optics were radically different, my eyes would be useless. So in addition to the very concept of "breaking the laws of nature" resting on a dubious analogy to laws of society - breaking the laws of nature is not an "option" I would want.

 

[kingjoshi]

Why is discussion of breaking Nature's laws necessary? We define our understanding of Nature's laws by anything that can be done. If it can be done, it must fit within Nature's Laws or our understanding of Nature's laws is flawed.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Again, as always in these debates - the language is deceptive. Why should we feel guilty for an action that could not be avoided? We already run across this in daily thought: Someone might feel guilty then they accidentally did something that caused another's death, but they know they shouldn't. But aren't all actions accidents in this sense?

Let me take this out of order and address the rest later.

Evolution has been enabling organisms to avoid things at least since the dawn of the nervous system. Human beings are superb at avoiding. Many actions are avoided by people every day, and therefore are avoidable. Even many accidents, though unintentional, were avoidable. That's why we have safety codes.

Guilt is often (not always, of course) an appropriate emotion. Why feel guilty? Because you made the wrong choice, and guilt will help you do better next time, as well as helping motivate reparations.

 

[kingjoshi]

If you believe in evolution, you have to realize that it has consequences in terms of psychology as well. Both in terms of mental and emotional capabilies of people.

Guilt is a product of evolution. People that help the community are more likely to survive then humans that don't. Having a sense of right and wrong and guilt when breaking rules (loyalty, social rules, etc) was more advantageous for survivers. But as with almost all traits, we vary in degree and we're adaptable to given environments.

 

[Brighteye]

Laws don't dictate. Events don't dictate. People dictate. Laws don't control things, that's an anthropomorphism. (And a paradoxical one if it leads you to the worry that people don't control things!)

Depends how you use the word dictate. Laws say it will be so. Natural laws dictate more accurately than human ones for this definition. Our law is meant to control in the same way that natural ones do.

I do claim that people have a choice, regardless of determinism's truth or falsity. Choice is intelligent decisionmaking, rooted in (approximate) knowledge of oneself and one's circumstances, and causing effects in the future. Far from conflicting with causality, this REQUIRES (some degree, at least, of) causality.

People have choice, in that we have decision making ability. This is not free will. Computers are programmed to evaluate situations and choose options, but there is no will there. Free will is not about making decisions, but about whether you are the sole cause of that decision, or alternatively whether you could have made a different decision. Imagine that you seem to have two options. Can you take either? Or are your brain processes set so that you will always choose one of them? The illusion of choice (two options) is not actually your choice, but is already decided by the events that cause the effects in your brain.

Your verbeage about how cause and effect are the same is not really relevant. Whether everything is linked ('causally')and we do not change things with our decisions is an entirely different question from whether causally really is causally or just a necessary linkage of events with each other in either direction.

 

[Brighteye]

Obviously it makes sense to imprison people who endanger society; but isn't it just wantonly cruel to cause them suffering in any way? People complain that prisoners have cable TV and air conditioning - why don't we give them more, if free will doesn't exist?

Because we don't have the will? Moral judgements depend on free will. Deciding not to cause suffering is a moral judgement on the value of your actions. If free will doesn't exist and they could not avoid committing their crime then nothing you do has any moral value either. There is no longer any reason to alleviate their suffering (on the basis of it being suffering, that is).

These questions may be too far-reaching for this thread, but: Why value life? Why value rehabilitation? Why should crimes warrant punishment?

Because it cannot be replaced, and is unique
Because it helps prevent further causes of suffering
As I explained in my post before, because it is just. See the post for definition of justice.

Evil was an exaggerated term, obviously; how's illogical? (And, ironically, isn't Rousseau making my exact point?)

Rousseau was making a point which you accept only for the criminal. If the criminal has no moral responsibility then neither does anyone else. Guilt, whatever you say, is a moral judgement of oneself. The aim not to cause suffering even to criminals is a moral aim. Without free will, as you have agreed, morality is non-existant.

Specifically, that study that found people make decisions before they are aware of them; generally, the scientific dichotomy in which all natural things appear to be either deterministic or random.

The study has been interpreted as showing this. It doesn't. People's movements can be predicted in the brain before they say that they know what they're going to do. You could also interpret it to say that we live the present not instantly but composed of the events surrounding an instant. If I expect one event to happen before another but it happens less than 200ms after, my brain can reorganise my memory to suit my expectations. We only say that we are sure of something (i.e a decision) 200ms after it has been made, and nothing can interfere with the processes. Not only this but one cannot also be sure that the measurements that the predictions are based on are not subject to some sort of 'veto' from higher brain areas.
Could it also be the case that you only say that you are about to do something when the signal has been sent, such that measurements can detect the signal and register it before you corroborate their findings. Would it not be more impressive if by measuring brain impulses we could determine when the action will occur, rather than always detecting the action a fraction of a second beforehand?

These observations cause me trouble, but my thinking is opposite yours: The integral role free will serves in human institutions causes me to question human institutions, not free will - since free will (in its most expansive definition, and the only one meriting that name, I think) seems entirely disproved by science.

And hasn't the burden of proof been met?

Yes! And that's my point! A justice system makes no sense without free will!

Not really. Guilt could be conceived as a strange chemical process, but one which is very real nonetheless.

If guilt is a strange chemical process, so are all emotions, they're all deterministic and only in place to control our behaviour so we should ignore what we feel if we can reason to ourselves that this control will not actually benefit us. This reasoning will also be determinstic and entirely predictable. Within the framework of free will, guilt is a moral judgement. Without free will it loses its moral implications, even though it might well still remain. If you cannot conceive of not having moral attitudes that does not affect the point that they would not exist.

We are only dimly aware of our instincts or desires at any moment; and it has been proven scientifically that we act before we are aware. So how, then, could we be said to will anything - when this willing happens before we even know it! Willing has been reduced to an unconscious process, which we have only been given the privilege of observing - with a time delay!

As I said, one pessimistic interpretation of the study.

Thus we are not capable of willing in any reasonable sense, but only consciousness, and nothing more. A fascinating process, and one that raises my questions; but one that also has no bearing on morality whatsoever.

Again, as always in these debates - the language is deceptive. Why should we feel guilty for an action that could not be avoided? We already run across this in daily thought: Someone might feel guilty then they accidentally did something that caused another's death, but they know they shouldn't. But aren't all actions accidents in this sense?

If we have only consciousness and no free will then it is the most widely held opinion that morality will not exist for us, because it is based on responsibility for one's actions. Guilt will therefore lose its sting and be understood solely as a flux of chemicals or impulses in the brain that we should ignore.