Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[5cats]

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 )

Exactly! The act is predetermined, the judgement is too, everything is, including what you had for breakfast. (without free will that is)

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

It's been done. The Judge replied: Then I have 'no choice' but to sentence you to death.

Causality and Determinism are not the same

Oy vey! Causality may not presuppose Determinism, but Determinism does require causality. Both imply pre-destination, which is to say both deny free will. Randomness is not a form of free will, it is a form of causality.
The whole point of causality is that all things are governed by cause and effect, yes? So if one knew all the causes, the effect would be seen to be predetermined (even if it were random, that is still a predicted outcome)

The point of the double slit & non-locality is this: information is being transfered between a photon & its environment, or between two photons, at a speed much faster than light. How a photon would send/recieve information is beyond our explaination, we can only explain how it reacts to it's environment (most of the time).

We have never observed effects without causes.

Possibly true, but consider this: With Double-slit & non-locality, we see the cause, we see the effect, but we have no idea (just vague, unsupported theories which have no consensus) HOW the two are connected.

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

I agree, MY point is that determinism makes everything pointless.

Feynman doesnt prove that they are particles in the sense that you mean.

Oooh, i c! So particles are not particles when it doesn't fit your theory...
Photons have mass you know, it's was measured & proven in the 90's...

It appears that I am now fighting a straw-man.

Sticks and stones Dusty? That's the best you can do? Soooo much easier than actually answering my question, namely:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Monkey
Just because it doesnt work in the 'classical' newtonian view of a particle, that doesnt mean it 'defies all understanding' - we understand it quite well -.

5Cats: So, you can explain how a photon interferes with itself? How it knows if the other slit is open or not? This I gotta see...

Since we "understand it quite well" you'll have no trouble explaining it.

Isnt that my arguement entirely? That we simply do not know?

Could be, but if it is, you're assuming both free will & no free will are equally desirable outcomes. It is my contention that they are not. To over-simplify the difference, IF free will exists, then we should act accordingly, IF it does not, then it doesn't matter how we act.
You get it yet? Determinism IS predestination. You can think otherwise all you like, doesn't change reality. You (meaning all you Determinism and Causality fans) have yet to demonstrate, in any way, how it is otherwise...

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.

Oooh, ic! There was no start, but it isn't infinite either! How obvious!

 

[Brighteye]

It's been done. The Judge replied: Then I have 'no choice' but to sentence you to death.

Oooh, ic! There was no start, but it isn't infinite either! How obvious!

That's certainly the answer the judge would give if it did happen.

It isn't obvious, which is why Dustymonkey had to point it out. There's no need for sarcasm. It makes sense, which is what matters. If time only comes with space and causality then there is no start, because a start implies that time existed before causality. At least, I hope I've understood aright.

 

[Pawel]

Photons don't have a rest mass... At least not the real ones. Virtual photons, behave as if they had a mass that depends on the momentum transfer. Tricky guys!

As for the double-slit experiment, one way of looking at the wave-particle dualism is that what you measure is what you see. Depending on how you perform your experiment you can see either particle or wave properties. The 'real' thing would then need to have a little of both.

 

[jar2574]

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.

Good food for thought. Thanks. Time is just a man-made idea. I don't feel so bad about being late all the time now.

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.

Time is definately a funky concept, as you said. But could we can think of infinite interactions, which would go back infinitly as long as time existed, and which would occur over and over back before time as we know it existed?

Without an infinite number of interactions, the start of the cause and effect chain remains outside the closed system of causality. That seems to be a contradiction.

Could we use the effectiveness of the theory of causality as evidence that there has been an infinite number of interactions?

 

[jar2574]

If time only comes with space and causality then there is no start, because a start implies that time existed before causality. At least, I hope I've understood aright.

The start of time and the start of the cause and effect chain seem to be separate ideas.

Our concept of time would have "started" when matter began to move. Or no? Our concept of causality could have "started" before time, or might not have a "start" at all.

There could still be a start to the chain of cause and effect, it just could go back before time as we know it. Or there may be an infinite chain of cause and effect going back beyond the existence of what we call "time."

This stuff makes my head spin.

 

[JerichoHill]

So if there's no free will, then is there good and evil?

Cause it doesnt seem to follow

 

[scooter]

Holy crap this thread was pretty cool... We're talking about the development of AI and all of the sudden we're talking about photons and free will and crap.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

The point of the double slit & non-locality is this: information is being transfered between a photon & its environment, or between two photons, at a speed much faster than light. How a photon would send/recieve information is beyond our explaination, we can only explain how it reacts to it's environment (most of the time).

No thats not the point of the double-slit experiment at all.

You have confused the double-slit experiment with the EPR paradox. The double-slit experiment only shows that particles are not classical. This is at least the 2nd time I haver corrected you on this. The double-slit experiment shows nothing at all about locality.

The replacement for ignorance is knowledge. Upgrade your mind.

Every time you make an arguement about the double-slit experiment that somehow links to locality, causality, or determinism... you are making a blunder. Its that simple.

I agree, MY point is that determinism makes everything pointless.

oooooh.. pointless!! Real scientific.

Feynman doesnt prove that they are particles in the sense that you mean.

Oooh, i c! So particles are not particles when it doesn't fit your theory...

Particles are what they are. You repeatedly confuse the classical picture of particles with reality. The classical picture has been disproven. Period. They simply are not what you argue them to be.

Photons have mass you know, it's was measured & proven in the 90's...

What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Are you trying to wow me with your "knowledge" ?

(as someone else has pointed out: They do not have a rest mass - as predicted by theory)

"fact" rejected as being pointless to the discussion.

Sticks and stones Dusty? That's the best you can do? Soooo much easier than actually answering my question

You've ignored dozens of mine. We have a model which predicts everything observable about photons. You claim that that is not understanding! What *IS* understanding then?

Isnt that my arguement entirely? That we simply do not know?

Could be, but if it is, you're assuming both free will & no free will are equally desirable outcomes.

I made no such presumption.

I only presume that you have no evidence that free will exists, inspite of you declaring otherwise. Such scientific evidence as "all societies have a justice system!" is rejected out of being a really really stupid arguement that need not be given any attention at all.

It is my contention that they are not. To over-simplify the difference, IF free will exists, then we should act accordingly, IF it does not, then it doesn't matter how we act.

I don't follow - how did you make the leap from a lack of free will to "nothing matters" ?

Humor me. Show your logic.

You get it yet? Determinism IS predestination. You can think otherwise all you like, doesn't change reality.

Predestination does not require determinism. Don't get that yet? All roads can lead to rome. Predistination even supports free will. Pick a road. You are free to choose. It still goes to rome, regardless of how free your will is.

You are confusing the destination with the path. Determinism deals with the path taken. Predistation deals with, DUH, just the destination.

You (meaning all you Determinism and Causality fans) have yet to demonstrate, in any way, how it is otherwise...

I'm not a fan of determinism. Dumbass.

I'm a fan of logic and science. I am a fan of the accurate reporting of knowledge. You continualy fail. If you would be so kind as to stop declaring facts known to be false, we might actualy get along.

Oooh, ic! There was no start, but it isn't infinite either! How obvious!

Ever heard of a mobius strip? I guess not.

 

[Pawel]

Well, photons are kind of funny. Saying that real photons don't have a rest mass can be a little misleading, since they are never at rest! Usually one thinks of the mass as the time component of the momentum four-vector, p = (E, p), where in the case of the photon E = |p|, which never is zero. And even if you don't think of it this way, this is the mass you experience.

 

[Brighteye]

I don't follow - how did you make the leap from a lack of free will to "nothing matters" ?

Humor me. Show your logic.

So if there's no free will, then is there good and evil?

Cause it doesnt seem to follow

I'm guessing that 5cats' and JH's point is this:
Without free will there is no moral judgement
If actions have no moral value then all are equally good (not good or bad at all)
If all are equally good then there is no reason for choosing one over another
If no course of action is better than another then we cannot achieve anything good through our actions.
Therefore our actions are pointless.

It's a reasonable definition of pointless that fits this description, but you might well say that actions can still have purpose even without moral value. It depends on your purpose in life; if it is to be a moral agent then without free will it is impossible, because morality depends on responsibility (which is usually said to depend on free will).

As for Jericho Hill's question, responsibility (which is all that is necessary for morality) is sometimes said not to require free will. This is a valid philosophical opinion about which all my information comes from reading the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy, to which someone posted a link earlier. He has misphrased the point, which was that it is still possible to believe in good and evil in the absence of free will. The most popular answer to his question is, it appears, 'no'.

 

[5cats]

I'm guessing that 5cats' and JH's point is this:
Without free will there is no moral judgement
If actions have no moral value then all are equally good (not good or bad at all)
If all are equally good then there is no reason for choosing one over another
If no course of action is better than another then we cannot achieve anything good through our actions.
Therefore our actions are pointless.

Why Brighteye@! I... I agree with your evaluation!
Stranger things have happened, lol!
Persoanlly, I'd change it just a bit:

Without free will there is no true choice
Without choice there is a predetermined course
In a predetermined course, all actions are pre-ordained, fated, unavoidable
Therefore our actions are pointless.

As for Jericho Hill's question, responsibility (which is all that is necessary for morality) is sometimes said not to require free will.

Well yes, this is true too. If one gets really drunk, one is no longer 'free' to make choices (so some say) however you're still responsible for your actions, IMO (except here in Canada, oy!) Overall, responsibility is usually connected to free will. Under determinism responsibility is irrelivant since the choices and outcomes are already known.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

In the very start of the chapter the authors say the following:

"The assertion that machines could possibly act intelligently (or, perhaps better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the weak AI hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that machines that do so are actually thinking (as opposed to simulating thinking) is called the strong AI hypothesis.

Most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for granted and don't care about the strong AI hypothesis - as long as their program works, they don't care whether you call it a simulation of intelligence or real intelligence."

This text is a strictly scientific book, that uses logic in a very structured way. Of course, they wouldn't fall into the pitfall of trying to prove the unprovable - that means, they stay out of the "monist - dualist" debate and just present the arguments of each side. Their view, IMO, is that they don't care about proving the strong AI hypothesis (for good reason, I could add).

I totally agree. From a practical point of view, all the things we're debating here (specially the "soul" part) don't really matter. I personnally have no doubt that, in time, we'll be able to build machines/AI as or more intelligent than humans, and even that will perfectly simulate sentience.
However, the debate took a different turn when somebody (I think warpus) said "if they act exactly as if they are sentient, then they are sentient". This is a religious/metaphysical affirmation, with which I disagree. The same type of claim has been made by Brighteye in his now (in)famous thoughtexperiment, but much has already been said about it (mostly by jar).

 

[NapoléonPremier]

I don't know why Napoleon thinks that loving animals has anything to do with solipsism.

I was just being absurd... But that's good somebody noticed !
Actually solipsism was invented by one of my countrymen (Descartes).

 

[NapoléonPremier]

um, i thought this thread was about making a better AI?

You're new around here, aren't you ?

 

[NapoléonPremier]

At least he can present this thread as evidence for his insanity plea

Well if he does, the judge's probably going to lock us all up...

 

[5cats]

oooooh.. pointless!! Real scientific.

Oooo philosophy! Uses words.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Are you trying to wow me with your "knowledge" ?
(as someone else has pointed out: They do not have a rest mass - as predicted by theory).

As someone pointed out, they are never at rest.
Since I made my statement in response to your challenge of my view of particles, the fact that photons have mass is what's called 'evidence' which supports my theory. You know? All those times you asked to see some supporting evidence? Well there it is and you have NO CLUE at all do you?

"fact" rejected as being pointless to the discussion..

i c. My evidence is pointless. No wonder you think I'm wrong, you simply reject ALL my evidence as... 'pointless' ( a VERY scientific word there Dusty ooo-la-la!)

I only presume that you have no evidence that free will exists, inspite of you declaring otherwise. Such scientific evidence as "all societies have a justice system!" is rejected out of being a really really stupid arguement that need not be given any attention at all..

I have never said I can "prove" free will. I simply maintain (see post above) that without it, there is no meaning to anything. It was another poster(s) who brought up the 'justice system' not me. Don't we have enough to disagree about, without you attributing the words of others to me?

Predestination does not require determinism. Don't get that yet? All roads can lead to rome. Predistination even supports free will. Pick a road. You are free to choose. It still goes to rome, regardless of how free your will is..

Splitting hairs & picking nits seems to be your best skill there Dusty. If all roads lead to Rome, then it is predestined (determined in advance or "pre-determined") that I am going to Rome! YEs I know it's just a saying, but I'm not dealing in generalizations... (hint hint)

You are confusing the destination with the path. Determinism deals with the path taken. Predistation deals with, DUH, just the destination..

O Lord! Have pity on the boy! Doesn't the "path taken" (ie choice) determine the destination (ie result)? Not in your world I guess. Also, lookit the sig, I don't confuse the map with the terrain, eh? Ever hear the idea that "the journey (path) IS the destination" or perhaps "the journey and the destination are the same" ??? How about "wherever you go, there you are"

I'm not a fan of determinism. Dumbass..

Yet you defend it so vigorously! Why is that?
And such scientific language! What a fine example you set Dusty... so logical!

I'm a fan of logic and science. I am a fan of the accurate reporting of knowledge. You continualy fail. If you would be so kind as to stop declaring facts known to be false, we might actualy get along.

You'll notice how he doesn't answer my question? Ever? To wit:

5Cats: So, you can explain how a photon interferes with itself? How it knows if the other slit is open or not? This I gotta see...

HE may be a "fan" of science and logic, but prefers to stay in his own little shell and ignore that which he doesn't understand. Typical.

Ever heard of a mobius strip? I guess not.

Ever heard of a 'closed loop' dumbass? It repeats itself endlessly, how can there be free will (ie anything other than predestination) in a closed, repeating loop?
If we cut the universe along it's length, will we form a daisy chain? You'd need some big-assed scissors!

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Brighteye says that causality is a closed system. This raises two questions:
1) How did it start? If every cause has an effect, then the system would seem to have to go back to infinity.

As far as we know, the first event is the big bang. This can have no "anterior" event per se, given that time started with the big bang. Of course, "God starting the big bang" is a classical non physical cause. You also got various models, such as a succession of "big bangs" and "big crushes" going on indefinitely.

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.

It's undeterministic for one single particle, but at a larger level it's probabilistic and pretty well determined. So when you get to the macroscopic level, then it's deterministic.

 

[5cats]

Well if he does, the judge's probably going to lock us all up...

Well, you and I are already IN the nuthouse...

 

[NapoléonPremier]

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.
Booyakasha

So when you say "Booyakasha", you know exactly what you're talking about ?

 

[NapoléonPremier]

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.

Of course this system would be possible. Any system is possible if a society decides it. But what would be the point ? It resembles very much the type of "justice" of primitive society, based mostly on the "an eye for an eye" principle. Don't you think it makes more sense that we punish more the premeditated killer than the accidental killer, even if to the victim the effect (death) is the same ? I fail to see your point about the virtues and benefits of such a system.