Split from AI sentience

[Eise]

On 4/11/2019 at 6:26 AM, iNow said:

the off topic information available to us about how free will is just an illusion and decisions get made before any conscious parts of our brains even activate.

Of course, here I must chime in...

The definition of free will you use here implies that 'consciousness' must have the lead, if it is supposed to be genuine free will. But that is a definition that stems from (bad...) Christian theology. Most modern concepts of free will got rid of this inheritance, but obviously neurologists still haven't noticed.

'Free will' means that somebody recognises that he can act according his own reasons, and is not forced to go against them by somebody else. But 'according to' does not mean 'caused by'. You are (unconsciously?) using following argumentative strategy:

1. Use a single, and outdated, heavily metaphysically loaden concept of free will
2. Argue that this kind of free will does not exist
3. Conclude that 'free will' in any meaningful sense does not exist.

For the rest, I completely agree that we are 'wet robots'. But it nowhere follows that these 'wet robots' have no free will. The psychological trick with the word 'robot' is that we still imagine some kind of machine that might look like a motorised puppet. Reality is that our 'wet robotism' is many complexity levels above motorised puppets.

wtf gives a perfect example of this equating a robot with a (computerised) puppet.

On 4/11/2019 at 6:20 AM, wtf said:

Am I the only person here who has qualia? Isn't anyone aware of your subjective self? You all really think you're robots executing a crude, physically implemented Turing machine?

I am not a bot ... a bot ... a bot ...

A few remarks:

- Qualia are no things in themselves. They can be completely analysed in terms of (brain) processes

- No, I am not aware of my 'subjective self'. I am aware of things and processes around me, of feelings, thoughts, memories inside me, but I do not find a 'self'. Do you see your eyes (no, mirror or video do not count)

- No I do not think I am 'executing a crude, physically implemented Turing machine'. I am a highly sophisticated process implemented in my body. This 'crude' is just rhetoric. 

[Silvestru]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

Of course, here I must chime in...

 

3 hours ago, Eise said:

I am a highly sophisticated process implemented in my body.

Can you further detail this point? Where does conscience fit in with this kind of view?

[Eise]

53 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Can you further detail this point? Where does conscience fit in with this kind of view?

You really mean 'conscience' (~ feeling of good and evil), not 'consciousness'?

Just want to be sure, I do not want to write hundreds of lines, only to discover that you meant something else...

[iNow]

Thx for the reply, Eise. Agree that our definition/usage of the term free will differs in important ways. 

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thx for the reply, Eise. Agree that our definition/usage of the term free will differs in important ways. 

I'm not sure it matters. 

[MigL]

Before we go too far down the free will 'rabbit hole', we should consider differences between how our minds work and how a computer works.

When I was young, I hated lobster; it was a disgusting, bottom dwelling sea creature with a funny taste.
But, just like they say, it's an acquired taste, and over the years I came to enjoy it.
Some people I know never have.
I'd like to see someone write a program for this process.
the outcome can, of course, be simulated, but the actual process, of subjective preference change, cannot be.

Our minds are not following a 'program'. They are actively and continuously re-writing their programming. And sometimes for no apparent reason, or external stimuli or forcings, so there are no other variables to include in the program.
And I don't mean just humans, we are nothing special; lower animals do it as well.
So, unless we come up with a computational model which can modify its own coding, we cannot achieve true AI

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

Before we go too far down the free will 'rabbit hole', we should consider differences between how our minds work and how a computer works.

When I was young, I hated lobster; it was a disgusting, bottom dwelling sea creature with a funny taste.
But, just like they say, it's an acquired taste, and over the years I came to enjoy it.
Some people I know never have.
I'd like to see someone write a program for this process.
the outcome can, of course, be simulated, but the actual process, of subjective preference change, cannot be.

Our minds are not following a 'program'. They are actively and continuously re-writing their programming. And sometimes for no apparent reason, or external stimuli or forcings, so there are no other variables to include in the program.
And I don't mean just humans, we are nothing special; lower animals do it as well.
So, unless we come up with a computational model which can modify its own coding, we cannot achieve true AI

free will can be bought...

[MigL]

So it's not 'free' ?

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

it's an acquired taste

If it's an acquired taste it means you have to like it.

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

Our minds are not following a 'program'. They are actively and continuously re-writing their programming. And sometimes for no apparent reason, or external stimuli or forcings, so there are no other variables to include in the program.
And I don't mean just humans, we are nothing special; lower animals do it as well.
So, unless we come up with a computational model which can modify its own coding, we cannot achieve true AI

 

an emergent property is not engineered.

[dimreepr]

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

So it's not 'free' ?

it is if you don't buy.  

[Eise]

22 hours ago, iNow said:

Thx for the reply, Eise. Agree that our definition/usage of the term free will differs in important ways. 

Thanks to you. 

Still, I think you make it a bit too simple. I know you have a naturalist world view, just as I do. It would quite be possible, that if we would extendedly discuss our world views, we would come very close. We might agree on which capabilities humans (or human brains) have, but still... I would say we have free will, and you say we don't. So I think it is essential when you write such things as above that you add what you understand under free will. Just as a stupid example: say somebody says he believes in God. When you ask him, he explains that all the laws of nature he calls 'God' (So God for him is not the 'historical' Yahweh or Shiva, it is an abstract concept.) You can oppose him that he uses the word 'God' in this way, you might even say you do not believe in God (but then you must say you mean 'entities' like traditional gods), but that doesn't make you a disbeliever in laws of nature.

So in my opinion you should explicitly define the kind of free will is that you deny. I think you would discover that it is not the same concept as most people use in daily life, or in political discourse.

PS The first one who tries to stop the discussion with 'it is just semantics' gets a negative reputation point from me...

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

It would quite be possible, that if we would extendedly discuss our world views, we would come very close. 

Seconded. I also stipulate that you’re far better read on this topic than me and that my own language when discussing it is too often remedial and sloppy. 

1 hour ago, Eise said:

you should explicitly define the kind of free will is that you deny.

The kind that implies a type of ghost in the machine; some supraconscious self or soul beyond / untethered to the underlying neural substrate and activity.

More specifically, the kind that asserts control, accepts the illusion as the reality (conflates the map with the territory), and which presumes that the postdictive narrative we layer atop our experiences somehow comes first (as opposed to just being a result of an underlying chemistry itself subject to other forces like the gut microbiome, sleep quality, salt and hydration levels, and environment more broadly).

The kind that convinces itself that it’s the tip of the spear driving the decisions, as opposed to the kind that recognizes it is instead more like the caboose of the train being pulled along to those decisions and “choices” unfree.

While peripherally related to AI sentience, I do feel this fascinating and fun rabbit hole is itself off-topic here. 

[dimreepr]

On 4/13/2019 at 2:10 PM, iNow said:

The kind that implies a type of ghost in the machine; some supraconscious self or soul beyond / untethered to the underlying neural substrate and activity.

More specifically, the kind that asserts control, accepts the illusion as the reality (conflates the map with the territory), and which presumes that the postdictive narrative we layer atop our experiences somehow comes first (as opposed to just being a result of an underlying chemistry itself subject to other forces like the gut microbiome, sleep quality, salt and hydration levels, and environment more broadly).The kind that convinces itself that it’s the tip of the spear driving the decisions, as opposed to the kind that recognizes it is instead more like the caboose of the train being pulled along to those decisions and “choices” unfree.

2

we may not know how or why we make a decision, but I did freely make it, the illusion maybe we aren't being the guide.

Edited April 14, 2019 by dimreepr

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

we may not know how or why we make a decision, but I did freely make it

I’m perhaps splitting hairs regarding the definition of free, but I’m unconvinced. 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m perhaps splitting hairs regarding the definition of free, but I’m unconvinced. 

what is you?

[iNow]

A dynamic parade of ever changing and evolving organisms and cell populations; the universe temporarily expressing itself as a finite microbe and electrolyte filled bag of respirating water we call human. 

And while this remains an interesting (and now poetry filled) rabbit hole, we’re still only tenuously connected to the actual thread topic (if connected at all). 

[Eise]

On 4/13/2019 at 3:10 PM, iNow said:

The kind that implies a type of ghost in the machine; some supraconscious self or soul beyond / untethered to the underlying neural substrate and activity.

More specifically, the kind that asserts control, accepts the illusion as the reality (conflates the map with the territory), and which presumes that the postdictive narrative we layer atop our experiences somehow comes first (as opposed to just being a result of an underlying chemistry itself subject to other forces like the gut microbiome, sleep quality, salt and hydration levels, and environment more broadly).

The kind that convinces itself that it’s the tip of the spear driving the decisions, as opposed to the kind that recognizes it is instead more like the caboose of the train being pulled along to those decisions and “choices” unfree.

Fully agree. That kind of free will does not exist. One could say, this concept went already overboard when we departed from the idea that we have a soul. But does that imply e.g. that there is no distinction between coerced and free actions? Or between actions following from an addiction or followed by a conscious reasoned decision?

On 4/13/2019 at 8:06 AM, MigL said:

Sure Endy, if your goal is to SIMULATE intelligence, that can already be done.

How differs simulation of intelligence differ from intelligence?

14 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

There's neuronal noise but I suspect we're largely using something pseudorandom with the main randomization occuring at night.

What has randomisation to do with being free? Aren't you mixing up predictability and free will? 

[iNow]

59 minutes ago, Eise said:

One could say, this concept went already overboard when we departed from the idea that we have a soul.

You and I and an important few others have perhaps departed from that idea, but a sizable and noteworthy majority of our fellow citizens (it would seem) have not. 

1 hour ago, Eise said:

But does that imply e.g. that there is no distinction between coerced and free actions? Or between actions following from an addiction or followed by a conscious reasoned decision?

In the end, I see this as a distinction without a difference. The underlying chemistry is consistent, whether coerced, withdrawal driven, or reasoned. 

[Eise]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

In the end, I see this as a distinction without a difference. The underlying chemistry is consistent, whether coerced, withdrawal driven, or reasoned.

Really? If you think about your life, you do not see any difference between coerced actions ('Your money or your life') and a free action (Spending money to Oxfam)?

Let's take an absurd example: 'there is no difference between objects at all, they all have mass'. Or: 'reading is the same as running' because the underlying chemistry is consistent'. If you abstract enough, everything is the same. The 'sameness relationship' is always under a certain abstraction, otherwise things are only the same with itself.

Sure, neurons work the way they do in all kind of actions: but that does not make all (kinds of) actions the same. So I would like you to flesh out how a coerced action differs from a free action. I am 100% sure you make this distinction in daily life.

I call the kind of abstraction you use here a 'symptom of the philosopher's disease'. Abstract ideas ('it's all chemistry') do not match ideas one uses in daily life, and so one defends the theoretical idea in (philosophical) discussions, but keeps on using concepts in daily life that show you do not live according those abstract ideas. I am sure you hate it to be forced (by somebody, by circumstances) to do something.

[Prometheus]

Is a freewill debate pertinent to a discussion on AI consciousness? Is it not reasonable to assume that whatever freewill is, mirage or oasis, it is a feature of consciousness?

I appreciate that many debates reduce to people thinking that humans possess some intangible quality that only humans can ever possess (surprisingly common even in secular circles), but i don't think anyone here is making that argument.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

Is a freewill debate pertinent to a discussion on AI consciousness? Is it not reasonable to assume that whatever freewill is, mirage or oasis, it is a feature of consciousness?

 

 

It is sentience.

the sentient AI will be asking the same questions

no free will no sentience.

Edited April 15, 2019 by dimreepr

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

Sure, neurons work the way they do in all kind of actions: but that does not make all (kinds of) actions the same.

It seems to me that you're conflating the outcome or details/characteristics of the actions with their catalyst or trigger. My comments are largely directed at the former.

Of course my "action" to drive my car instead of my action to ride my bicycle is functionally different, but my "action" of deciding which path to pursue is not. Those all come from the same unconscious "machinery" within us, what I above simplified by calling chemistry. These decisions are made well before we ever became consciously aware of them, even when the "choice" involves handing over my wallet versus taking a bullet.

Also, I agree with Prometheus. This should likely be split into a separate thread. I'll report the posts now requesting an assist from the mods.

Edited April 15, 2019 by iNow

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course my "action" to drive my car instead of my action to ride my bicycle is functionally different, but my "action" of deciding which path to pursue is not. Those all come from the same unconscious "machinery" within us, what I above simplified by calling chemistry. These decisions are made well before we ever became consciously aware of them.

1

but they must inform each other, otherwise who is  asking the  questions?

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

but they must inform each other, otherwise who is  asking the  questions?

Elaborate, please

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Elaborate, please

a closed loop system