tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7005280841237748748..comments2024-03-28T14:07:18.682-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Uplift, evolution, biotech... and Yuval Harari's worries.David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger129125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83050787179123169332019-04-03T08:23:45.446-07:002019-04-03T08:23:45.446-07:00And what's wrong with being a soul man?
As St...And what's wrong with being a soul man?<br /><br />As Steely Dan once wrote:<br /><br /><i>Hey, nineteen,<br />That's 'Retha Franklin.<br />She don't remember Queen of Soul.<br />It's hard times befallen soul survivors.<br />She thinks I'm crazy, but I'm just growing old...</i> :)A.F. Reyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08102355714883828348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24434085386797944742019-04-03T00:26:15.744-07:002019-04-03T00:26:15.744-07:00>> David Brin said...
\\Great discussion.
A...>> David Brin said...<br />\\Great discussion.<br /><br />And what's so great in it?<br /><br />People just don't know basic cybernetics and trying to invent something instead of it... in futile hope to leave "soul" on its place.progressbotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7480086055439107682019-04-02T16:14:12.149-07:002019-04-02T16:14:12.149-07:00Great discussion.
Only now it is time to move
o...Great discussion.<br /><br />Only now it is time to move <br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49995006440174847692019-04-02T15:22:39.540-07:002019-04-02T15:22:39.540-07:00First off, let me make clear I am not defending th...First off, let me make clear I am not defending the Ghost in the Machine idea. I find it rather ludicrous. I just thought it was amusing that the closest you could come to the ideal of the idea in computers would be an avatar--a soulless slave that would be consider to have free will because it had a "soul" (the user).<br /><br />I agree with you somewhat, jim, that thinking is not a deterministic process. I consider it more of a chaotic process, where there are deterministic processing going on, but non-linearly and with feedbacks, so that without the initial conditions and precise measurements of all the inputs in both time and intensity, there is no way to predict the precise outcome.<br /><br />But my impression of the Ghost in the Machine idea is that it does consider thinking as deterministic, and therefore precluded from having "free will."<br /><br />I think this answers your question, too, Larry. If the behavior is determined by inputs, regardless of how elaborate the process of deciding the behavior is, then it is not "free will," according to the GitM idea. It is "predetermined," whether we humans can predetermine it beforehand or not. It requires an outside entity--the soul--in order to supplant, or at least override, the internal processes of the brain to achieve true "free will."<br /><br />A machine can think, make seemingly arbitrary decisions, and consider different outcomes, but still will only be a machine without a "soul" to make the final choice.<br /><br />And then, yes, it is a variation of the "who created God" quandary. Ultimately, there has to be a final "soul" that does not rely on another "soul" to give it true volition. But then we are stuck with the same processes (or algorithms) that precluded the brain from having "free will." The GitM idea ultimately gets stuck in its own definition and simply proves there is no free will at all.A.F. Reyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08102355714883828348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76619536504953677272019-04-02T14:46:48.654-07:002019-04-02T14:46:48.654-07:00Instead of making semantic arguements, why not mak...<br />Instead of making semantic arguements, why not make predictions about what would be different if there were "souls" and "free will" vs they don't existing and then run the experiment? And if you can't come up with an experiment that predicts different results, then what difference does it make whether these things exist or not?<br /><br />Consider: female asian students score differently on math tests if they are primed before the test to think of themselves as asian vs think of themselves as female. If something like priming can result in statitically different math test results, what does that say (if anything) about the existance of free will to score high on a math test?David Smelserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596446730839038592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57353819536046340832019-04-02T13:40:44.757-07:002019-04-02T13:40:44.757-07:00A. F. Rey:
"Free will can only be had by an ...A. F. Rey:<br /><i><br />"Free will can only be had by an outside source" is nonsense, because it makes those who don't have intelligence except by an outside source the only ones with free will, and it begs the question (I admit that I may be using that wrong) of where the outside intelligence gets its free will if it doesn't have an outside intelligence itself.<br /></i><br /><br />I think I see. You're arguing something along the lines of "If everything must have a creator, then who created God?"<br /><br />I think that I'm failing to understand why free-will requires an <b>outside</b> source. In what I perceive as your construct, the soul doesn't give free will to the body--the soul is what <b>has</b> free will. It makes use of the body to execute that will. When you rhetorically ask what "gives" the soul its free will, I get lost.<br /><br />Here's where I think some confusion is coming from. You say the brain can't possibly have free will because its will is determined by its perceptions. The example I like to give is that if my brain knows that the temperature outside is -20 F, I don't want to strip naked, douse myself with water, and then go out for a jog. The way you seem to be looking at the situation is that I <b>am not free to</b> want to go outside wet and naked. The way I look at it is that I <b>am free not to</b> do that. <br /><br />If a <i>1984</i> type government was out to torture me, they could conceivably force me out there, but absent such coercion, I have the free will to choose to stay warm and dry indoors. I find it absurd to require the definition of free will to include the ability to do precisely what I freely wish to avoid.<br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88610822746746560592019-04-02T13:29:51.756-07:002019-04-02T13:29:51.756-07:00About the capitalization of I, the article (https:...About the capitalization of I, the article (https://www.dictionary.com/e/whycapitali/) has a good take on it. The short answer: we don't know. The slightly longer answer: The word 'i' was not capitalized when it was the word 'ic' and it seemed to get larger once it became a single letter. It looks like it was capitalized to make it more prominent.kvshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03289662941161551212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39033292428255081322019-04-02T13:29:13.843-07:002019-04-02T13:29:13.843-07:00Otherwise you are just a machine, with inputs and ...Otherwise you are just a machine, with inputs and calculations that produce an output--<br /><br />A F Rey - that statement is false. You seem to think that thinking is some kind of deterministic process, it is not.<br />You can give me a set of inputs but you will not be able to predict in a deterministic fashion what I will do.jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865068658069680309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81438134146834671852019-04-02T12:51:47.649-07:002019-04-02T12:51:47.649-07:00See, to me, if souls are a thing, then we are our ...<i>See, to me, if souls are a thing, then we are our souls. I agree then that the body is like an avatar in a game, but I see no sense in the assertion "we are just slaves to our souls." The body (the slave) is not "we". The soul is "we".</i><br /><br />I'll agree to that on semantic grounds. :) If your soul is your "you," the argument still applies to "you." How can "you" have free will if "you" don't have an outside intelligence giving you free will? Otherwise you are just a machine, with inputs and calculations that produce an output--just like if you were a brain in a body.<br /><br /><i>How is that different from, "A driver can't make its own decisions; that would be just like a car without a driver. So it [the driver] must have a driver too"? Which is nonsense.</i><br /><br />Actually, "it is nonsense" is the point I was trying to make.<br /><br />If the premise of an argument leads to obvious nonsense, then the premise is probably wrong. "Free will can only be had by an outside source" is nonsense, because it makes those who don't have intelligence except by an outside source the only ones with free will, and it begs the question (I admit that I may be using that wrong) of where the outside intelligence gets its free will if it doesn't have an outside intelligence itself.<br /><br />It's not that the car needs a driver. It's that the car needs a car. GinM says that intelligence needs a guiding intelligence to have free will. But if the guiding intelligence doesn't have a guiding intelligence, how can it have free will to provide to the original, unguided intelligence? ;)A.F. Reyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08102355714883828348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73115379109405228662019-04-02T12:37:20.836-07:002019-04-02T12:37:20.836-07:00Hard to be a God goes to one of the most fundament...Hard to be a God goes to one of the most fundamental fantasy tropes, seen in almost all cultures... rescuing the good prince so he can become a good king. But how to use that trope, when the Strugatskys worked in a Communist -dogmatic state that disapproved of monarchy?<br /><br />Simple. Rescuing the prince is a way to help the natives rise above something worse than monarchy... feudal lords (boyars). By Marxist teleology, monarchy is a GOOD phase if it advances technology and trade and law above feudalism. Then monarchy is a beneficial stage in class development. This reasoning allowed the communists to co-opt Ivan and Peter the Great and Catherine and Alexander Nevsky as heroic figures and not brutal oppressors. <br /><br />Likewise, when monarchy had achieved its purpose, allowing a bourgeoisie to develop industry and commerce, bourgeoise revolution was a good and necessary -- if temporary -- phase. Though this caused Lenin some discomfort, since his need for absolute power conflicted with the obvious fact that Russia needed capitalists.<br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35701955856961595992019-04-02T10:33:16.638-07:002019-04-02T10:33:16.638-07:00\\I'm afraid I still don't understand how ...\\I'm afraid I still don't understand how you get there<br /><br />Question is... do you WANT to understand?<br /><br />For believers "to understand" means "to lost their faith". And I'm not that cruel, to try to do it deliberately.<br /><br />So, do I need to answer your questions? Try to make you understand?progressbotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86472455818565944632019-04-02T10:21:54.929-07:002019-04-02T10:21:54.929-07:00@A.F. Rey:
Does this make it any clearer?
Sort ...@A.F. Rey:<br /><i><br />Does this make it any clearer?<br /></i><br /><br />Sort of. I see where you're coming from, but not sure I agree on the particulars. As so often happens here, my disagreement may be a semantic one.<br /><br /><i><br />So if the only reason we have free will is because we have a soul that makes our decisions, then we are just slaves to our souls. The Self we see in the mirror is no more our "real" selves than an avatar we see in a game.<br /></i><br /><br />See, to me, if souls are a thing, then we <b>are</b> our souls. I agree then that the body is like an avatar in a game, but I see no sense in the assertion "we are just slaves to our souls." The body (the slave) is not "we". The soul is "we".<br /><br /><i><br />But then, what gives their souls free will? It can't just make its own decisions; that would be just like a brain without a soul. So it must have a soul, too.<br /></i><br /><br />I'm afraid I still don't understand how you get there, and "there" is kinda the crux of your entire argument.<br /><br />How is that different from, "A driver can't make its own decisions; that would be just like a car without a driver. So it [the driver] must have a driver too"? Which is nonsense.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27518416926839037112019-04-02T10:15:19.188-07:002019-04-02T10:15:19.188-07:00\\If it is only our brains that make choices, then...\\If it is only our brains that make choices, then they are subject to computational inputs/outputs; <br /><br />There is two types of cybernetic devices (and humans by no means *are* cybernetic dev... entities):<br />simple schema -- which output depends from input, and only from input (well, there could be some glithes),<br />and schema with memory.<br /><br />That's it.<br />Cybernetics its science which exist almost 100 years by now...progressbotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33354933878788584972019-04-02T10:02:25.804-07:002019-04-02T10:02:25.804-07:00I don't understand the analogy that says the s...<i>I don't understand the analogy that says the slave has free will, but the master doesn't because the master isn't a slave.</i><br /><br />From what I understand of the "ghost in the machine" concept, our free wills do not come from our physical brains but from some "soul" that interacts with our brains and allows us to choose freely. If it is only our brains that make choices, then they are subject to computational inputs/outputs; in other words, our choices are predetermined depending on the inputs, and thus negates our ability to choose freely. GitM means we needs something exterior to the brain in order to take the inputs and "freely" choose our course--"free will."<br /><br />So the closest computer analogy would be an avatar, which has a "soul" (the user) to make the decisions that are not predetermined computations. Thus we could say that avatars have "free will."<br /><br />But, of course, as you say, they are just slaves to the "soul" (the user), and have NO free will at all.<br /><br />So if the only reason we have free will is because we have a soul that makes our decisions, then we are just slaves to our souls. The Self we see in the mirror is no more our "real" selves than an avatar we see in a game.<br /><br />But then that brings up the question of how the "soul," which we need to have free will, makes its decisions. Doesn't that soul need something similar? If not, wouldn't it also just take in inputs and use some algorithm to come to a conclusion, just like we supposed our brains to do when we said it had no free will? Which means our souls have no free will, unless they have souls to make <i>their</i> decisions. Which only pushes the question to the next soul...<br /><br />So if you take the "ghost in the machine" argument at it's face value, the only people with free will are those who have a soul to make their decisions. But by analogy, that means the only computer "characters" who have free will are those who have people running them--avatars. <br /><br />But of course, avatars don't have free will; they are just puppets of the people who control them. Therefore, people who have souls that give them free will don't have free will, only the souls that control them have free will.<br /><br />But then, what gives their souls free will? It can't just make its own decisions; that would be just like a brain without a soul. So it must have a soul, too. But then how does the soul's soul make its decisions...? If you keep following the logic, you get an infinite recursion. Turtles all the way down.<br /><br />Does this make it any clearer?A.F. Reyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08102355714883828348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88881056656513623562019-04-02T05:30:34.556-07:002019-04-02T05:30:34.556-07:00A.F. Rey:
So by the "ghost in the machine&qu...A.F. Rey:<br /><i><br />So by the "ghost in the machine" reasoning, only avatars have "free will" since they have a soul, and we don't since we don't have souls.<br /></i><br /><br />You've totally confused me.<br /><br />In your analogy, aren't <b>we</b> the souls that the avatars "have"? If you think of the soul as separate from the avatar, then it is our free will that the avatar acts upon, not its own. If you think if "body and soul" as the same entity, then the avatar and the human controller have the <b>same</b> free will.<br /><br />I don't understand the analogy that says the slave has free will, but the master doesn't because the master isn't a slave.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91531886697826877182019-04-02T00:11:26.425-07:002019-04-02T00:11:26.425-07:00TiBi, I didn't said "it non-existent"...TiBi, I didn't said "it non-existent". But "as good as non-existent". So your contre-argument is moot.<br /><br />\\like reducing human minds or all of reality to computer code.<br /><br />and reducing us to be mere slaves of some non-existent, non-effecting thing... is not crazy? How??? :)<br /><br />\\they transmit experiences.<br /><br />And how do they do it? Can you describe it? In words. :P<br /><br />\\Mysticism is interesting because it reminds people that reality is bigger than their language, models, math, measurements or scriptures.<br /><br />thou forth the people who have eyes, but be blind... thou forth the people who have ears, but be deaf...<br /><br />language *is* bigger than language, models *are* bigger than models, math *is* bigger than math...<br /><br /><br />\\mystics don't rely on texts<br /><br />Yep. Cabbalists for example do not search for "name of god"... or they not mystics, not real mystics... because All Knowing TiBi says so. :)))<br /><br />Not knowing Sci well, you trying to hide your ignorance trying to blubber about "mystic stuff",<br />but only show your zero knowledge and there too. :)))<br /><br /><br />>> David Brin said...<br />\\Space Mowgli was interesting. Notice the common theme that aliens cannot be understood... unless they are humanoid.<br /><br />I presume it was coined by Lem. In his Solaris.<br />Good observation, I don't know myself, why in soviet scifi was so big problem with aliens.<br />Was it because some dogmas. Or it is just not true (Strugatsky's have some non-human aliens, like Golovans or reptile-like Leonidan, etc)<br /><br />Well, when I think about it... you could be quite close to them. In ideals.<br />Take your Postman... but place there instead of your main hero, some alien, wise and benevolent, and trying to help people. Or some time traveler, sent hundred, two hundred or more years ago.<br />Wouldn't it be quite the same as in "Its hard to be a God"???<br /><br /><br />>> Duncan Cairncross said...<br /><br />Bulls eye!progressbotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27835647714989106202019-04-01T20:55:01.991-07:002019-04-01T20:55:01.991-07:00If something cannot be described in language, even...<i>If something cannot be described in language, even vaguely. It's as good as non-existent.</i><br /><br />Progressbot, I totally disagree with this. It's probably the #1 error of Western thought. It gives people crazy ideas, like reducing human minds or all of reality to computer code. Mysticism is interesting because it reminds people that reality is bigger than their language, models, math, measurements or scriptures. As for scriptures, mystics don't rely on texts; they transmit experiences.Treebeardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-16003870713256169672019-04-01T20:47:20.617-07:002019-04-01T20:47:20.617-07:00I am extremely skeptical of this supposed room tem...I am extremely skeptical of this supposed room temperature superconductor. If you Google the inventor's name, you'll see he also has filed patents for an "inertial mass reduction device" and a "gravitational wave generator".<br />The fact that he put "United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy" on the patent is a nice touch, but I doubt this guy has anything to do with the navy at all.<br />Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05177634783481281639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43252108510612375212019-04-01T18:57:01.507-07:002019-04-01T18:57:01.507-07:00@Mike Will,
Heh. But it would be capitalized in ...@Mike Will,<br /><br />Heh. But it would be capitalized in a title, regardless. Or at the start of a sentence.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46444499170735772892019-04-01T17:14:24.531-07:002019-04-01T17:14:24.531-07:00I just can't picture "i, Robot"I just can't picture "i, Robot"Mike Willhttp://scidata.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68228452084173596602019-04-01T17:06:47.777-07:002019-04-01T17:06:47.777-07:00I suspect that we capitalise "I" simply ...I suspect that we capitalise "I" simply because the lower case "i" is so small it could be easily lostduncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46653033358527727862019-04-01T16:52:26.778-07:002019-04-01T16:52:26.778-07:00Alfred Differ:
Ever since I twist myself around t...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />Ever since I twist myself around to say 'About what is it that you care?' instead of 'What is it that you care about?'<br /></i><br /><br />The comedic solution is "What is it you care about, bitch?"<br /><br />I wouldn't suggest using that one on your mother, though.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14874258231544464562019-04-01T16:49:54.952-07:002019-04-01T16:49:54.952-07:00Alfred Differ:
It's flawed, though, because I...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />It's flawed, though, because I don't capitalize 'me' as the object of a sentence, right? Ah well... Another childhood theory shot down. 8)<br /></i><br /><br />That was exactly my point. If we capitalize "I" because we're created in God's image, then why not "me", "he", or "him", not to mention "we", "us", "you". Even if girls don't count (a theory I don't subscribe to), that's still a lot of masculine pronouns that make as much sense to capitalize as "I".<br /><br />To me, it <b>feels</b> like there was a good reason for it, but I certainly can't justify that feeling objectively.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3755392538026946382019-04-01T16:08:40.930-07:002019-04-01T16:08:40.930-07:00... up with which I shall not put...... up with which I shall not put...David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24807549378424253452019-04-01T15:40:22.485-07:002019-04-01T15:40:22.485-07:00Larry,
I don't see that Genesis 1:27 clarifie...Larry,<br /><br /><i>I don't see that Genesis 1:27 clarifies anything in that sense.</i><br /><br />Well... it was the explanation I came up with as a kid. If we capitalize God and we are made in his image, we capitalize the first person, self-referencing pronoun. It's flawed, though, because I don't capitalize 'me' as the object of a sentence, right? Ah well... Another childhood theory shot down. 8)<br /><br /><i> I wonder if it's as simple as "The lowercase letter i as a word all by itself looks stupid." </i><br /><br />I don't see it. Spanish speakers seem to have no issue with 'y' as a word. Using 'i' as a word does look stupid, but that's just how most of us deal with syntax. My mother was explicit about it. She couldn't tell me why it was wrong to put a preposition at the end of a sentence, but she knew it was because it felt weird and she fully intended to teach me that same intuitive feel for it. Ever since I twist myself around to say 'About what is it that you care?' instead of 'What is it that you care about?'Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.com