Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[member66170]

how do you know that it is completely impossible to predict something. Unless you know exactly everything in the universe you can not say that nothing affects it. Maybe the spin of an electron on Earth is affected by a paritcular atom on Alpha Centuari. It is simply impossible to say that that atom does not affect that electron.

 

[5cats]

**nod nod**
Yes I've seen that text, or something like it, before.
I did mention a few times that many things are subjective
Which 'effect' are you talking about? The "God's not perfect" part? It's irrelivant if you allow for the idea that God can choose to be imperfect. Or if being imperfect is part of His Perfect Plan. Or that he's imperfect in a perfect way. Or the painfully obvious: that God only seems to be imperfect from our tiny human perspective, but is in fact Perfect.
And yes, 'logic' is highly overrated in discussions about God, lol!

warpus, there are some 'explainations' for the double-slit experiment that are deterministic. But they involve alternate realities, time travel and other messy ideas, Lmao! Anyhow, the point is that there are things we don't understand yet, and that in no way does it invalidate the determinism we observe in the rest of the "natural" universe.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

It's not that we don't know when it's going to happen, we've figured out that it's IMPOSSIBLE to determine when the atom is going to decay because it is not dependant on anything in this universe - it does not obey the "laws" of cause and effect.

I repeat, the universe is not deterministic.

Poor logic.

Since when does human (or any other physical life-forms) inability to determine something (be it impossible or unreachable) make it non-deterministic??

One does not lead to the other.

I hope you guys don't make me break out my big book of logical fallacies.

 

[·Imhotep·]

@Breunor:

And you thought our little conversation on chess and Civ IV would hijack this thread...

 

[Dusty Monkey]

Again I reiterate: (is that redundant?)
If there's no free will then nothing matters. So if you don't believe in free will, why should you care? Oh, you were pre-determined to care...

I care because it is the path of least resistance.

I'm sorry you (and others) feel the need to have things "matter."

 

[dbergan]

Firstly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thats logic 101. Maybe you should take a beginners class on that.

I was going to ignore you altogether, but I couldn't resist setting the record straight on this basic point: I have a philosophy degree... and a religion degree, and a math degree, and a computer science degree... and I graduated the highest in my class in each of those respective majors. I sailed through my critical thinking class with an A+.

Name any philosopher and I can tell you their theory and the critiques of it.

Feel free to critique my arguments, but please don't say stupid things like a guy should take a logic class when you have no idea of his background. Make arguments that engage and deal with the subject, not pathetic dismissals that the other person should go learn that his idea is wrong somewhere else. Show me I'm wrong here and now or else shut up.

Regarding the rest...

Oh come on! The act of declaring it doesnt make it a fact.

What does a courtroom, or a "justice system," know about science?

Science is evidence based on observation. I observe that I have free will. I observe that every unit of human society has a justice system, which means that they think that humans have free will and need to be held accountable for their actions. Therefore, by observation, we can say that human free will exists with as much certainty as our observations of fire show us the principles of combustion. And to deny free will and say it is merely an "illusion" is as much nonsense as to say that the laws of combustion are merely an "illusion."

What does self-awareness have to do with free will? Nothing. Thats what!

I never said it did. I said that one aspect of humans that points to the supernatural is their free will. A second, unrelated, aspect of humans that points to the supernatural is their self-awareness.

The common definition of "free will" is not in evidence as existing. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it does mean that there is a strong lack of evidence for the claim. Since you like analogies so much, its like saying that flying saucers must be visiting the earth because so many people claim that they've seen them.

"Common knowledge" does not make a fact.

Science is based on observation. If credible observations show evidence of UFOs, then science has to accept that UFOs exist. If credible observations show evidence of free will, then science has to accept that free will exists.

 

[dbergan]

WRONG. Have you ever studied quantum physics? It was believed for a very long time that the universe was entirely deterministic - this was the Newtonian view of the universe. But then people like Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein came along and threw that way of thinking out the window.

Not everything in this universe follows rules of cause and effect (ie. if X then Y). The universe is NOT deterministic. For example, a decaying particle lets off a certain amount of energy every once in a while. This is more commonly known as radioactive decay. The time that it "picks" to decay is not determined by anything at all in the universe - it is entirely random. It could decay right now, it could decay in 5 minutes, or it could decay 5 days from now. There is NO WAY to tell since the process is entirely random and not influenced by any single cause. It is not deterministic.

Are you aware of this principle? It is what the famous Shrodiger's Cat thoughtexperiment is based on. If you've never heard of any of this, I suggest that you pick up a book or two and get acquainted with it - it is quite interesting.

Your entire argument falls apart since the universe is NOT deterministic.

Are you familiar with the law of large numbers? Just because the decay of any particular radioactive particle cannot be determined, does not mean that we cannot calculate the half life of a 1 kilogram chunk of U-235. You can hit a baseball with a bat and sure some of the atoms will be moving toward home plate, but the vast majority are moving toward the outfield, so the ball moves that way.

If you read my previous post (#76) I said exactly what you did about Einstein and Bohr. I wish people here didn't assume that because someone disagrees with them they must be a moron.

 

[dbergan]

How do you know that it is not deterministic?
Maybe it is and we just haven't found the cause that links to the effect. Taking your example of radioactice decay. Sure right now we don't know when it is going to decay. But then the ancients did not know how to predict solar eclipses, but that doesn't mean that they were random. Maybe in the future we will fing out what causes a single particle to decay, and the same thing might happen with quantum theory. Therefor your argument dose not stand.

Very good point. And that is actually is true for all aspects of science... At any point, today's laws could be overturned by one repeated experiment that contradicts them. No one would have thought that Aristotle was wrong, but Galileo's experiments disproved him. No one would have thought that Newton was wrong until Einstein's theory of relativity disproved it.

 

[dbergan]

I care because it is the path of least resistance.

This "the universe only follows the path of least resistance" theory has some complications when you apply it to human history.

For example, I think it should be pretty clear that Abraham Lincoln's decision to start the Civil War over the issue of state's rights incurred a lot more resistance than the alternative: to let them be their own nation. Moreover, it could be argued that any war was a path of more resistance... I can't imagine any kind of dispute where arming troops, invading land, and killing other armed people was less resistance than simply parting ways.

A second example might be evident in our daily life. It takes far more energy to get out of bed any given day than it would to stay in bed and starve to death. It takes more energy to have sex than it does to just take a nap. Yet people do get out of bed and do procreate, and apparently even waste time discussing philosophical things on Civ 4 forums... when it would be easier to abstain from all of the above.

 

[dbergan]

I'm sorry you (and others) feel the need to have things "matter."

This statement itself shows that you think it at least matters to tell us that things really don't matter. Self-contradiction.

If nothing really matters, then there is no point to tell us. And the paradox concludes that something actually must matter: truth... If the truth were that nothing matters, that idea itself matters. In which case the premise is refuted by its own conclusion.

 

[5cats]

Name any philosopher and I can tell you their theory and the critiques of it.

Zeno! Of Elba that is. He's my hero and I am of the opinion that his Arrow Paradox is still valid.

I TOLD y'all to be nice to dbergan! Now he's slapping y'all with his degrrees. The horror! The horror!

I care because it is the path of least resistance.

Um, if there is no free will, there is no "path of least resistance" at all. There is only ONE path and we all follow it and it alone. So your arguement is for free will I take it?

Hi atreas!

 

[Dusty Monkey]

This statement itself shows that you think it at least matters to tell us that things really don't matter. Self-contradiction.

If nothing really matters, then there is no point to tell us. And the paradox concludes that something actually must matter: truth... If the truth were that nothing matters, that idea itself matters. In which case the premise is refuted by its own conclusion.

The only paradox is that you think that there must be a "point" before something happens. You created the paradox by declaring an arbitrary standard.

One does not mean the other.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

Name any philosopher and I can tell you their theory and the critiques of it.

Thats fine. What does this have to do with logic?

Feel free to critique my arguments, but please don't say stupid things like a guy should take a logic class when you have no idea of his background.

I did show you that you were wrong.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The idea that what has not been proved false must be true (or vise-versa.) is a logical fallacy.

You say you are schooled in critical thinking but that begs the question.. why have you made a beginners mistake?

Regarding the rest...

Science is evidence based on observation. I observe that I have free will.

Is that what you observe? Thats certainly something that you might *believe* that you are observing. Think about that for more than a few moments...

I observe that every unit of human society has a justice system, which means that they think that humans have free will and need to be held accountable for their actions.

Having a justice system does not mean that society believes in free will. Society as a whole does believe in the concept, but that is not what it means. Another logical fallacy of some sort here. One does not lead to the other.

For an alternative to your "conclusion" - Society has a justice system because the people who had the power to construct a justice system believed that society (or at least themselves) is/are better off with one.

That much is certain. You can't jump from that to free will.

Therefore, by observation

Therefore, by my observation, since you invoked poor logic all conclusions to come as a result are moot.

Science is based on observation. If credible observations show evidence of UFOs, then science has to accept that UFOs exist. If credible observations show evidence of free will, then science has to accept that free will exists.

Credible observations such as "people believe they have free will" ???

That is your "creadible observation" on the subject of free will.

People believe that they have been abducted by aliens too. A lot more than one person believes it. Is that observation also credible?

Its credible when it can be independently studied and confirmed. Do you have any experiments in mind to test the concept of free will? I will be glad to try to confirm your results.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

Um, if there is no free will, there is no "path of least resistance" at all. There is only ONE path and we all follow it and it alone. So your arguement is for free will I take it?

umm... huh?

Step by step, explain your thinking. Declaring something doesnt make it true. This seems to be a big problem in this thread.

People here declare that X leads to Y but do not show why that is the case.

I am fairly certain that you cannot show why X leads to Y in this case, just as the guy you admire cannot show why having a justice system leads to free will existing.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

This "the universe only follows the path of least resistance" theory has some complications when you apply it to human history.

For example, I think it should be pretty clear that Abraham Lincoln's decision to start the Civil War over the issue of state's rights incurred a lot more resistance than the alternative

You can selectively sum resistance all you want, but until you weight the resistance going on in his head, you are just kidding yourself if you think you are measuring the resistance he felt.

I am actualy shocked that you are attempting to measure it.

Moreover, it could be argued that any war was a path of more resistance... I can't imagine any kind of dispute where arming troops, invading land, and killing other armed people was less resistance than simply parting ways.

Your lack of imagination has no bearing on the subject.

A second example might be evident in our daily life. It takes far more energy to get out of bed any given day than it would to stay in bed and starve to death.

'cept we are wired with a survival instict (well, most of us anyways) - This wiring holds far more resistance than the energy needed to get out of bed and make sure food is consistently available.

It takes more energy to have sex than it does to just take a nap.

Do you equate energy with resistance? It seems that you do given your "examples." You would be wrong if thats what you believe.



A simple question for you...

Why is it that we can load someone up with certain chemicals and reliably make them anti-social or violent? Where is the "free will" in that?

 

[vinstafresh]

Would Deep Blue even play Civ4 if it had a free will?

 

[Lorkfudge]

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

random philosophy mumbo jumbo









-anyway...yes, they could have made the ai better, but they rushed it out of production/were too lazy/were bad programmers/didn't have ebough money or materials. Pick any combination you want.
A computer player can never be the same as a human player, but honestly I think that the ai could be improved. What else can be added to this post that's on topic?

 

[Brighteye]

God is perfect and includes everything (by definition). There is also devil, who isn't perfect (again by definition). Since God includes everything, he must also "contain" devil (obvious deduction). Since devil isn't perfect, there is a part of God that isn't perfect (again obvious deduction). Since a part of God isn't perfect, he isn't perfect so he isn't God.

So, I wish you good luck with your logical attempts.

This thread has become very interesting, and I was building a huge list of things to say, but DustyMonkey has just said most of it.
However, here's one that he hasn't bothered with. Atreas' logic is good, but his premiss is not. God is perfect, but who says he includes everything? That is a very specific interpretation of what God is, and he has shown it to be nonsense.
Most people do not equate God with 'the universe', but believe Him to be a separate entity, which therefore does not include everything. God does not include the devil. To believe God to be the universe is closer to being an atheist than believing a religion.

Dusty Monkey's defense of his path of least resistance has generalised the idea so much that it's now no longer useful. If resistance includes mental processes decided apon by the person then there is no predictive value in the theory, because we cannot predict a person's decisions without another mechanism for predicting these personal 'value judgements'. And so we regress; we can postulate another 'path of least resistance' for these value judgements, but once again we need to predict the judgements that alter the value judgements that govern the person's decisions..... and so on, ad infinitum.

However, the path of least resistance as a joke was good. Particularly the reference to wives (and girlfriends, I should add) disproving it.

We all live our lives as if we had free will, but this is not proof that we have it. Without a justice system people would commit crime. Having justice does not necessarily indicate free will; it is only if we base the justice on moral responsibility that it does. If we accept free will, then one must take responsibility for one's actions, and therefore require punishment.
If you do not accept free will, then the justice system is merely a factor for your predetermined 'judging system' to consider, and it will change the decisions made by the deterministic processes in your brain.

As for logic existing outside of our minds, that's impossible. There is no existential 'moral code', logic or awareness without someone being aware. Logic is created by our minds. The fact that its principles remain the same between people is part of its definition; it's what it is. Logic is a way of processing 'information'. If I redefine logic by saying that logic means that lizards stop me walking I'm no longer using logic; I have simply called my new way of processing information 'logic'.

Your argument, dbergan, was just playing with definitions. Given that you claim to be highly knowledgeable about these things I'm tempted to say that it's a rather low, cynical attempt to fool people who you do not believe will notice the error into agreeing with you. However, given that DustyMonkey has already pointed out some other errors, it is more likely that you are either not thinking hard about this, or a number of other options that it would be rude of me to list, but that you will no doubt guess.

 

[atreas]

Atreas' logic is good, but his premiss is not. God is perfect, but who says he includes everything? That is a very specific interpretation of what God is, and he has shown it to be nonsense.
Most people do not equate God with 'the universe', but believe Him to be a separate entity, which therefore does not include everything. God does not include the devil. To believe God to be the universe is closer to being an atheist than believing a religion.

Don't isolate parts of texts because this tends to distort the meaning. It was, I think, very clear that this text was meant as an example of "logical catches" that may result from the attempt to explore God with logic. To give you just one "logical" answer, this (very old) text had the meaning to make humen redefine their ideas about "perfection". Also, you say that "everything" is equal to "the universe" - I din't; for example, I could say "this universe and all others that are now, and all others that can be, plus the part that will never be revealed".

Or, to say it in another (more scientific, if you like) way, I was trying just to point what Goedel proved for maths and mathematical logic - there can be statements that are true but cannot be proved as true - and that's LOGIC.

 

[Breunor]

@Breunor:

And you thought our little conversation on chess and Civ IV would hijack this thread...

Breunor