Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[Dusty Monkey]

2) How do tiny things (quantum particles or whatever) that don't seem to operate within the normal laws of cause and effect exist within this closed causal system? How the hell do non-causal things form the building blocks for a causal system? That's pretty mind-boggling, and it's likely that I misunderstand the basics here.

Your first proposition is not correct. The quantum world does seem to operate under the rules of cause and effect.

We have never observed effects without causes.

The quantum world may be strange, but it doesnt do what many people here are claiming. It doesn't show that the universe is nondeterministic nor does it show that causality is violated.

There are plenty of interpretations, both deterministic and nondeterministic, that fit with experiment.

Each of them must make an assumption of some kind.

Some assume that non-local variables exist, restoring determinism (at the expense of relativity)

Some assume that there are no hidden variables, destroying determinism.

Some even make Bells inequality irrelevant! For we do not need to assume that cause precedes effect .. there is always a frame of reference where cause will appear to precede effect and others where effect will appear to precede cause.

This has been the main area of study for several decades.

We still do not know. Be extremely skeptical of anyone who tells you otherwise. Examine their qualifications. Do they really sound like they got the scoop, or do they just seem to be making a declaration?

 

[kingjoshi]

If we don't have free will, then our justice system isn't very just, is it?

Hence, I think its just more useful to believe in free will.

Even if people don't have free will, if the fear of punishment and rehabilitation is good for society, then why wouldn't it be just?

 

[JerichoHill]

Very simply.

Whatever action they take they can't help but take. Nothing prevents that action. Any mechanism society puts in place to make that action less appealing is already predetermined. Those that still make the action still cannot help but make that action.

Therefore, a judicial system in a universe with no free will is not just.


It could be GOOD for non-free-will society to have a system with punishment and reprisal, but GOOD does not equal JUST.

EDIT: Our judicial system presupposes that individuals have free will. That's why the insanity plea can be effective, because even though the individual did the crime in question, because he couldn't help but do it (he is insane) he cannot be held accountable for his actions, and punishing him as if he could control his actions is not just.

 

[kingjoshi]

It could be GOOD for non-free-will society to have a system with punishment and reprisal, but GOOD does not equal JUST.

How do you define justice? To be, it's about morality and fairness. To create a system in which less crimes are committed, in which less people are taken advantage of, in which opportunites are given, that's fair and just.

Whatever action they take they can't help but take. Nothing prevents that action. Any mechanism society puts in place to make that action less appealing is already predetermined. Those that still make the action still cannot help but make that action.

The fact they cannot help their actions in no way means society must allow their actions. It's assumed the mentally ill who commit crimes didn't do so out of free will. Or those addicted to drugs or whatever. The desire is to rehabilitate them to fit in with society and to reduce their danger to others as well as allow them to live a happy life.

Therefore, a judicial system in a universe with no free will is not just.

Completely and absoultely disagree. To me, it should be irrelevant whether the person who commited the crime had free will. The desire of the Justice system should be the same regardless (prevention and rehabilitation).

 

[JerichoHill]

You're so wrong Joshi. So wrong.

The following is the LEGAL definition of justice
Fairness. A state of affairs in which conduct or action is both fair and right, given the circumstances. In law, it more specifically refers to the paramount obligation to ensure that all persons are treated fairly. Litigants "seek justice" by asking for compensation for wrongs committed against them; to right the inequity such that, with the compensation, a wrong has been righted and the balance of "good" or "virtue" over "wrong" or "evil" has been corrected.

The system will prescribe alternatives when an individual cannot be held accountable for his/her actions. Thus, an insane person cannot be executed for the crime of murder, if that person is considered insane by our legal system. A sane person would be executed for the crime of murder.

The logic there is simple. If a person is able to be held accountable for his/her actions, then they will be punished.

By logical extension, if we do not have free will, then we cannot be held accountable for our actions. The lack of free will is part of the insanity defense.

Joshi,you're stumbling all over the use of justice. Free will is VERY relevant to the concept of a judicial system, the fact that its been its foundation for THOUSANDS of years. I could pull up text from Greek philosophers about the necessity of a legal system because man has free will.

AND ON THE LEGAL PREMISE ON CRIMINAL LAW

The California Supreme Court (Drew, 1978) described the model this way: "The criminal law rests on a postulate of free will--that all persons of sound mind are presumed capable of conforming their behavior to legal requirements and that when any such person freely chooses to violate the law, he may justly be held responsible."


That's all I'm going to say on the subject because as my signature says, when I say something, I know exactly what I am talking about.

And the LAW backs me up

Booyakasha

 

[kingjoshi]

Laws are guided by morality. I'm talking about what is just, first in a moral sense and second, how that should be prescribed to the legal sense.

You don't need to argue that people believe in Free Will and that people that designed laws took that into account. I never disagreed with that. I said that is unnecessary to take free will into account. Read that over again if you can't notice the distinction.

And as my sig says, "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. - Euripides"

 

[JerichoHill]

I did. And its flatly wrong. Free Will is a necessary prerequiste for a legal system. That's supported by our own legal system, the english legal system, and legal documents going back thousands of years.

Nice dodge. Belief in free will does not matter for a system of law. The system of free law rests on the assumption of free will. It cannot rest on the opposite assumption, no matter how much you think it can.

So who's right. KingJoshi, or thousands of years of historical documents and scholars?

But sure. Do what you need to do to feel like you're still right so that your worldview doesn't need changing. JH doesn't know what he's talking about at all, does he? It's not like he's a PART of the legal system or anything, or never went to a school for legal education, or anything, or ever published anything revolving around the nature of law.

sheesh. I should know better than to try to convince those with rigid mindsets.

 

[kingjoshi]

Yes a very reasonable defense. Because people have believed in something for so long, it must be right. Like every other thing that's always believed. And because so many legal systems relied on God or King to make the laws, we should institute that as well right?

So who's right. KingJoshi, or thousands of years of historical documents and scholars?

I don't care if you're God. If you don't attack the merits of my case, why should I change my opinion?

I don't care what your legal credentials are. Your debating of your view makes you look like an idiot.

Nice dodge. Belief in free will does not matter for a system of law. The system of free law rests on the assumption of free will. It cannot rest on the opposite assumption, no matter how much you think it can.

So you don't have anything relevant to say about my position and say I dodged the issue? It would be funnier if it wasn't so sad. The school system passes anybody these days. So sad.

 

[jar2574]

Free Will is a necessary prerequiste for a legal system.

I disagree. I am not advocating a change to the current USA system, much (but not all) of which is based on notions of free will and mens rea, but I do think that another system would be possible. You could create an entire legal system based upon the notion of strict liablity.

In a strict liability system the ideas of guilt and innocence would be replaced by a reparation system based solely on the principle of harm. Harms would be remedied in direct proportion to the harm caused, and a person's state of mind would not matter in this system. A person who accidentally killed someone would receive the same punishment as a person who planned and executed a murder.

Would this system be popular? No. But I think it could hypotheticall exist, especially since lots of civil law and a few areas of criminal law already operate under strict liability. Food for thought anyway.

 

[kingjoshi]

In a strict liability system the ideas of guilt and innocence would be replaced by a reparation system based solely on the principle of harm. Harms would be remedied in direct proportion to the harm caused, and a person's state of mind would not matter in this system. A person who accidentally killed someone would receive the same punishment as a person who planned and executed a murder.

If by same punishment you mean "Until they're not deemed a danger to society", fine. But one would not assume that it would take the same amount of time to rehabilitate one versus the other.

 

[jar2574]

@ Dusty Monkey

Thanks for your thoughts on causality. Are causality and determinism intrinsically linked then? It seems like you're saying that the consensus among people who know is that causality exists, and therefore the universe is (at least probably) deterministic. But I may be misunderstanding you.


On the other question, do you agree with Zombie in thinking that causality goes back infinitely? That would seem to be the answer to my other question. Otherwise I don't see how the whole cause and effect cycle could start.

 

[jar2574]

If by same punishment you mean "Until they're not deemed a danger to society", fine. But one would not assume that it would take the same amount of time to rehabilitate one versus the other.

Rehabilitation would not be a concern in this system, because we would not concern ourselves with asking who had intent, with who had 'bad thoughts' and a guilty mind. The current principles of the justice system (retribution, rehabilitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence, and protection / incapacitation) would be replaced in favor of a system that simply looked at harm caused and either enforced reparations to those who had been harmed, or enforced punishment to the harmer in proportion to the harm caused.

Society could choose for the murderer and the hunter to both pay a huge sum of money to the people harmed by their crime (probably surviving family). Or we could choose that the murder and hunter both pay the proportional penalty of death / life imprisonment.

I'm not saying this is gonna happen anytime soon. But considering that some of our law already uses strict liability, such a system could hypothetically exist.

 

[kingjoshi]

Okay. I see what you're saying. I don't think that's best for society but that's irrelevant to this.

And I still maintain free will is unnecessary even with system around deterrence, rehabilitation and protection.

 

[jar2574]

And I still maintain free will is unnecessary even with system around deterrence, rehabilitation and protection.

I agree that you could base one on protection even if free will did not exist.

 

[schekker]

Hm, if free will does not exist, there is no right or wrong, every action is predetermined. So there is no base to determine whether an action is right or wrong.
That does not exclude the existence of a system of law. They do exist, so there existence must also be predetermined in that case. But their judgement is not based on 'justice', it is predetermined (and coming to think of it, that might very well be true )

Besides, jails also help against war wariness (to keep this threat on the CivIV topic )

 

[kingjoshi]

Hm, if free will does not exist, there is no right or wrong, every action is predetermined. So there is no base to determine whether an action is right or wrong.
That does not exclude the existence of a system of law. They do exist, so there existence must also be predetermined in that case. But their judgement is not based on 'justice', it is predetermined (and coming to think of it, that might very well be true )

But predetermination does not preclude justice. There is no reason to say that humans can't create a legal system based upon fairness (or least the concept of fairness based upon morality). A just legal system could be the logical output of a rational human society (regardless of free will). One would assume, not only "could" but both "should" and "would" be the consequence.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

@ Dusty Monkey

Thanks for your thoughts on causality. Are causality and determinism intrinsically linked then? It seems like you're saying that the consensus among people who know is that causality exists, and therefore the universe is (at least probably) deterministic. But I may be misunderstanding you.

Causality and Determinism are not the same.

One can imagine a process which is completely and truely random, which has a cause and which triggers an effect. Such a system would be nondeterministic but still causal in nature.

However its one thing to imagine a process which is completely random, its another thing to imagine how such a process would actualy be possible.

Be sure to note that there is a difference between completely random and mearly unpredictable. This confusion has foiled some of the arguements presented in this thread. Unpredictability doesnt prove randomness.

On the other question, do you agree with Zombie in thinking that causality goes back infinitely? That would seem to be the answer to my other question. Otherwise I don't see how the whole cause and effect cycle could start.

What do I think? I do not assume that there needs to be a start. I also do not assume that one has to "go back to infinity" to avoid having a start.

"Time" is a rather funky concept.

After all, we measure "time" via the interactions of matter. We cannot seperate matter from "time" in an experimental sense. There is no evidence to suggest that "time" in the classical sense exists at all.

Under this view.. to theorize that there was an infinite amount of "time" before "now" implies that there have been an infinite number of interactions.

There is no evidence for or against the notion so I choose not to pick a side. There could easily be more than two sides to this issue so both sides may be wrong.

Some might argue that the evidence that supports the Inflationary Model (often called "Big Bang") is a sort of evidence that "time" has a beginning. The Inflationary Model however isnt the only theory on the block that satisfies the evidence. An attempt is being made to unify the evidence with string theory in this regard. For a nice primer on that specifically, read about the Ekpyrotic Model

 

[Brighteye]

I did. And its flatly wrong. Free Will is a necessary prerequiste for a legal system. That's supported by our own legal system, the english legal system, and legal documents going back thousands of years.

Nice dodge. Belief in free will does not matter for a system of law. The system of free law rests on the assumption of free will. It cannot rest on the opposite assumption, no matter how much you think it can.

Not it's not. A legal system is a system of laws. We can have a system of laws even if we're predetermined to choose those laws and even if if people's actions, taking into account those laws, are predetermined.
A justice system is different. Justice is 'assigning to each his due; an action that conforms to moral right; an action that treats others equitably' or similar.
Many people base the concept of moral responsibility on free will. Without moral responsibility our actions have are morally neutral, and we cannot use labels such as just or unjust, that assign a moral value to them. In this sense a system based on justice is based on free will, and to say that you cannot have one without the other is close to tautology.
However, philosophers still debate over whether free will is actually necessary for responsibility, and so while the link is questioned we cannot say with certainty that justice and free will are inseparable.

Therefore KingJoshi and Jar are right to disagree.

 

[JerichoHill]

I'll tell you what. Next time someone commits a murder, I hope their defense is that free will doesn't exist.

 

[jar2574]

I'll tell you what. Next time someone commits a murder, I hope their defense is that free will doesn't exist.

Well the defendant could certainly claim inadequate assistance of counsel if that was the defense offered under the current system of laws.

But that has nothing to do with whether every system must necessarily incorporate free will.