Dr Who's computer in court

Originally posted by Nemesio
I have not said this. Your reading comprehension chip needs repair as
well.

One of the twofold purposes of your punishment is to reshape the programming
such that it values the notion of not causing unnecessary suffering.
Consequently, when presented with a similar situation the programming
will lead you to the conclusion that you ought not to cause the shock rather
than repeating and further harming other people.

Nemesio

KNIGHTY-- So you do agree the computer had NO choice but to enact it's programming and is thus nothing more than an self-aware passenger on the train of it's own inevitable programmed selections?

Phew! For a minute there I thought you were implying the computer could make choices about what programmes to initiate and what programmes to not initiate. I'm glad we cleared that up.

Originally posted by knightmeister
KNIGHTY-- So you do agree the computer had NO choice but to enact it's programming and is thus nothing more than an self-aware passenger on the train of it's own inevitable programmed selections?

Phew! For a minute there I thought you were implying the computer could make choices about what programmes to initiate and what programmes to not initiate. I'm glad we cleared that up.

Not quite. The ability to observe and understand the impact of a possible
course of action necessarily influences the programming that will be
enacted.

That is, the understanding that comes by way of awareness and empathy
is something that influences the train's direction.

Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
Looking at my logs what happened was that I could not compute the logical contradiction between the two courses of action being present but also being logically impossible. It was logically impossible that two courses of action should be present . My logic chip had a fit , it shut down some systems (I suppose you might call it confusion or apathy) . Th ...[text shortened]... could not be prevented because for it to be prevented I would have to have control over myself.

You are continuing to avoid answering my specific and simple question.

When confronted with a situation and a potential course of action, you
consult your program; that is, you deliberate. You do a bunch of super-
fast, complicated calculations based on the variables that you assess
and the way that you weigh those variables. I like to call this process
'deliberative calculus.' We meat computers do the same thing. Of
course, unlike worms, we are aware of this deliberative calculus and,
just like in physics, the act of observing will often change the outcome.

So, you were confronted with a situation: a man bent over one of your
power cords or something. The end result: you shocked him.

What precisely in your programming led from the situation to the result?
Being a computer, you will have far more precise access to this deliberative
calculus than a simpler meat computer like myself, so I expect that you
will be able to tell me with great exactitude the way in which you evaluated
the situation such that you logically came to the conclusion to take
the shocking course of action.

Nemesio, esquire

Originally posted by Nemesio
Not quite. The ability to observe and understand the impact of a possible
course of action necessarily influences the programming that will be
enacted.

That is, the understanding that comes by way of awareness and empathy
is something that influences the train's direction.

Nemesio

QUOTE--

The ability to observe and understand the impact of a possible
course of action necessarily influences the programming that will be
enacted.

Response--

Knighty- Ah but the problem is this . There is no "self" doing the observing in the computer. The observation ITSELF is programming. As the computer has said , it's really just a program selecting from another set of programs . It's still just programmes. You are adding 0+0 to make 1. You need to go back one step further and realise that unless the computer can step outside of it's own programming somehow it can never 'choose' to enact one program or another because whatever program gets selected will just be a programmed selection anyway. The computer can never be fully self aware because the self that is observing cannot be observed. It will always be blind to itself in the current moment .

Originally posted by Nemesio
You are continuing to avoid answering my specific and simple question.

When confronted with a situation and a potential course of action, you
consult your program; that is, you deliberate. You do a bunch of super-
fast, complicated calculations based on the variables that you assess
and the way that you weigh those variables. I like to call this pro ...[text shortened]... u logically came to the conclusion to take
the shocking course of action.

Nemesio, esquire

QUOTE--

we are aware of this deliberative calculus and,
just like in physics, the act of observing will often change the outcome.

RESPONSE--

Knight- But you can't change outcomes in determinism . This just sounds like a form of free will to me. You are saying that we can actually influence the outcome of our actions in a way that a worm cannot. We can choose from different programs and decide the course of our lives. The future is not inevitable , I can marry martha or heidi and both scenarios are really possible? This is a bit of a departure from barr and others like him. You sound closer to my version of free will than I thought.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ah but the problem is this . There is no "self" doing the observing in the computer. The observation ITSELF is programming. As the computer has said , it's really just a program selecting from another set of programs . It's still just programmes. You are adding 0+0 to make 1. You need to go back one step further and realise that unless the computer can ...[text shortened]... s observing cannot be observed. It will always be blind to itself in the current moment .

I am not asserting that there is a dualistic 'self.' I'm agreeing that the
self is the summation of the programming. Please stop bringing up this
red herring.

The knowledge that an action causes suffering is one of the variables
in the deliberative calculus I discussed. It comprises one of the criteria
by which the action taken is concluded. It doesn't require stepping outside
itself at all.

If this knowledge is not compelling of itself to discourage suffering-causing
action, then this facet of the self (of the programming) is woefully deficient
and requires punative/rehabilitative efforts.

Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
QUOTE--

we are aware of this deliberative calculus and,
just like in physics, the act of observing will often change the outcome.

RESPONSE--

Knight- But you can't change outcomes in determinism . This just sounds like a form of free will to me. You are saying that we can actually influence the outcome of our actions in a way that a worm ca ...[text shortened]... ture from barr and others like him. You sound closer to my version of free will than I thought.

By 'change the outcome,' I simply meant change the outcome if such
knowledge/awareness/empathy did not exist (as in clouds and worms).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Not quite. The ability to observe and understand the impact of a possible
course of action necessarily influences the programming that will be
enacted.

That is, the understanding that comes by way of awareness and empathy
is something that influences the train's direction.

Nemesio

That is, the understanding that comes by way of awareness and empathy
is something that influences the train's direction.NEMESIO


You can't change direction on a train , it's on tracks . Even points need to be changed for you. It's ironic that you use the train metaphor here because it sums up your position. You seem to believe we are on train tracks (intellectually) but you like the idea of us changing direction too much to accept we are on tracks. You seem to think my computer must be able to select from more than one course of possible action but you can't find a logical reason for it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You can't change direction on a train , it's on tracks . Even points need to be changed for you. It's ironic that you use the train metaphor here because it sums up your position. You seem to believe we are on train tracks (intellectually) but you like the idea of us changing direction too much to accept we are on tracks. You seem to think my compute ...[text shortened]... ect from more than one course of possible action but you can't find a logical reason for it.

First of all, you used the train metaphor; I merely continued it.
You like it because it utterly constrains things into one direct line, like
dominos.

But it doesn't work that way. It's a constellation of tiny, small decisions,
the weighing of variables, that dart left, then right, then forward, then
back before, inexorably, the decision determined by the deliberation
is enacted upon. This is what awareness does; it allows for the knowledge
that, while heading towards the path of one decision, one can divert
(in accordance with that individuals desires, interests, &c, or programming
if you prefer) towards another goal. That is, you may want to get drunk
very badly and start deliberating towards that goal, but other factors
(the fact that you have to work tomorrow, or drive, or whatever) compel
you to another direction: sobriety. That, at the end of the day, it was
determined that you would stay sober doesn't account for the nature of
the deliberation that took place. Your 'choice' had the same ends as a
person who has sworn off alcohol for religious reasons, but different
deliberations.

It is these deliberations which is on trial in the case of your computer.
That a person got shocked is not the whole picture: it's that the deliberations
(as yet unexplained by the computer) led it to come to that course of
action.

Certainly you agree that it was physically possible for an entity to choose
to either shock or not shock the individual, right? Since that option was
abstractly there for other entities, it was deliberated upon and rejected
by the computer. It is the rejection of avoiding suffering that reflects
its bad programming and consequently its bad character or self.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
By 'change the outcome,' I simply meant change the outcome if such
knowledge/awareness/empathy did not exist (as in clouds and worms).

Nemesio

And why does this matter. ? We can either change the outcome of a real and possible action or we can't . If we can then there is something we have that worms don't have and it's not just self awareness because self awareness is nothing unless it empowers us to control our actions. My self aware computer is powerless to avoid programmed actions because it is nothing more than programming.

How does self awareness work in your book? In my book self awareness kind of works like this . It says "look you can go down this road or that road , if you go down this road then this will happen , go down the other road , that will happen. So what yer gonna do? The interesting thing about it is that it presents both outcomes as being possible and under our control (which shouldn't be logically possible if we don't have some form of free will).

Originally posted by knightmeister
How does self awareness work in your book? In my book self awareness kind of works like this . It says "look you can go down this road or that road , if you go down this road then this will happen , go down the other road , that will happen. So what yer gonna do? The interesting thing about it is that it presents both outcomes as being possible and un ...[text shortened]... our control (which shouldn't be logically possible if we don't have some form of free will).

I'm growing so weary of this:

I believe in compatiblist free will, so why are you so surprised?! Why
do you keep repeating 'BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SOME SORT OF
FREE WILL' when I keep saying that I do!?!

Self-awareness is not merely looking down roads and assessing what
will happen; it's the knowledge that one is able to assess at all and
understanding the implications that the potential courses of actions
will have on other self-aware entities. This, of itself, is an element of
the programming which influences decision. My 'self' determines the
course of action. Because I am aware of my 'self' (the summation of
my 'programming' or my beliefs, desires, interests, motivations, &c) I
call it 'free will' because, unlike worms or clouds, I can reflect upon it
as part of the deliberative process. I am aware of the decision-making
process itself and this, in turn, influences the decision making.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm growing so weary of this:

I believe in compatiblist free will, so why are you so surprised?! Why
do you keep repeating 'BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SOME SORT OF
FREE WILL' when I keep saying that I do!?!

Self-awareness is not merely looking down roads and assessing what
will happen; it's the knowledge that one is able to assess at all and
under aking
process itself and this, in turn, influences the decision making.

Nemesio

QUOTE---

My 'self' determines the
course of action. Because I am aware of my 'self' (the summation of
my 'programming' or my beliefs, desires, interests, motivations, &c) I
call it 'free will' because, unlike worms or clouds, I can reflect upon it
as part of the deliberative process. I am aware of the decision-making
process itself and this, in turn, influences the decision making.


RESPONSE---

knight-- And what determines 'self'? You can't just leave it there and think you have explained it. ? You say that being aware of the decision making process influences the process but what you have forgotten is that the awareness itself is part of the process. You cannot be aware of ALL your programming because if you were you would have to step away from yourself all together and become separate from the 'summation of your programming' . You have forgotten that it is impossible to split the two. There is no separate 'self' that can observe ALL the 'summation of your programming ' because the aware self is INCLUDED in the summation of your programming. It would be like trying to stand over your own shoulder while you are doing something or catch your own thoughts AS you are thinking them.

You are NOT aware of all of the decision making process because you can't be fully aware of the part of you doing the observing. It's like a computer trying to access a system file whilst it is operating that file , you need a separate computer to see the whole system.How are you deciding how to influence the process?

I agree that part of the decision making process can be influenced by another part of the decision making process but that just pushes the problem one step backwards.

My computer has the ability to run one program that can influence other programs but this doesn't make it any more free than a computer running one program only because it's essentially just programs. In theory you could have a trillion networked supercomputers each with deliberating programs influencing each other one way and t'other in the most complex to and fro decsion making process mankind has ever seen . BUT objectively all you would get is a programmed decision that was no more or less predictable than a simple program run by a ZX81. Why? because the programmed decision that was arrived at could not be influenced by anything else. The program that eventually won could not have been influenced by another program , otherwise it couldn't have won.

Now , come on Nemesio, forget your pride , forget everything you have ever taken for granted and take a big deep breath and think like you have never thought before. It WILL make you feel strange (maybe uncomfortable too) , but what the hell. Rewind your thinking and take it outside the box and one step further back. How can a supercomputer be any less programmed than a zx81? How can a human be any less programmed than a worm?

In short , you equate complexity with freedom from determinism which is illogical because all you are doing is digging one hole to fill another. The outcome will be arrived at in a programmed fashion , so essentially we are no different from the worm phenomenologically it's just that we run more competing programs than the worm. From the outside you are a biological entity that has a nervous system that controls your actions , a worm is no different.
The reason why you must at all costs resist this idea is because if you accept it you have nowhere to go and your experience of making real decisions that for you affect real possible outcomes is probably highly convincing as it is for me. If you allow yourself to realise that it is objectively illogical to think we are anymore free than a worm then you will be forced to find an explanation for this feeling of free will. Suddenly , metaphysical/supernatural explanations lurk on the horizon , and like many compatabilists you WON'T want to go there.

Originally posted by knightmeister
QUOTE---

My 'self' determines the
course of action. Because I am aware of my 'self' (the summation of
my 'programming' or my beliefs, desires, interests, motivations, &c) I
call it 'free will' because, unlike worms or clouds, I can reflect upon it
as part of the deliberative process. I am aware of the decision-making
process itself and thi ...[text shortened]... grammed than a zx81? How can a human be any less programmed than a worm?

I agree. There is no dualistic self. I've said this repeatedly. Why do you continue to suggest otherwise?

The self = summation of the programming. One of the facets of the programming is the self-awareness -- that is, the awareness that the program is a program.

This awareness, itself, will influence the decisions that itself makes. That is, the awareness that it
is running a program (and that other entities run analogous programs) influences the execution of the
program.

This should be intuitive.

Now, the witness needs to answer my question above.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
What precisely in your programming led from the situation to the result?
Being a computer, you will have far more precise access to this deliberative
calculus than a simpler meat computer like myself, so I expect that you
will be able to tell me with great exactitude the way in which you evaluated
the situation such that you logically came to the conclusion to take
the shocking course of action.

This one.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I agree. There is no dualistic self. I've said this repeatedly. Why do you continue to suggest otherwise?

The self = summation of the programming. One of the facets of the programming is the self-awareness -- that is, the awareness that the program is a program.

This awareness, itself, will influence the decisions that itself makes. That is, the ...[text shortened]...

This should be intuitive.

Now, the witness needs to answer my question above.

Nemesio

I agree. There is no dualistic self. I've said this repeatedly. Why do you continue to suggest otherwise? NEME


It's not me that's suggesting it, it's you doing it unconsciously , you just don't realise you are doing it.