i thought you made an excellent point that we are not simply stimulus response machines. however, i didn't see any evidence of random behaviour. i am opposed to treating the subject as if its floating in a bubble outside the greater system it is a part of. i think such a premise is responsible for your conclusion there's non-determinism in play.
You would think that incoherent and missing data inherent to natural processing would already account for enough variability to not necessitate some biological adaptation.
A nice start, Randy :) but (as you of course realize) simulated annealing requires only a sufficient-quality deterministic pseudorandom-number generator, not free will, so I'm awaiting to hear the morals of the story :)
Intuitively I happily agree that randomness and rationality go very nicely hand in hand, so I'm also eager to see your elaboration on that.
Hi naphra2, yeah, you only need enough randomness to "fool" whatever puzzle you are trying to solve, but the kicker is the more random your random number generator is, the more of these kinds of puzzles you can solve. So there still would be evolutionary pressure to achieve full randomness.
Yes, that's true. Demonstrating that the pressure is non-negligible could be tricky though, and I'm not sure if there'd be any real difference for example in solving the Traveling Salesman with a good random-number generator and an excellent one (and thus, if any problems where the difference would matter actually ever arise). Plus, you'd be still left with the problem of reconciling coin-tossing, however random, with free will, as opposed to being a slave to randomness.
"Plus, you'd be still left with the problem of reconciling coin-tossing, however random, with free will, as opposed to being a slave to randomness."
When you say "slave to randomness" you show you are not even trying to reconcile them, but merely being led by the old notion of free will to automatically treat free will and randomness as dissimilar.
That's most curious, I always thought treating free will as randomness _was_ the old notion :)
I'd rather associate determinism with free will. Your mileage may vary of course, but I can't quite see (and it's not from lack of trying, btw :) how to reconcile informed decision-making, a concept in a close relationship to free will, with randomness. Free, yes; will, no.
But then again, free will is also a matter of definition and there's always an issue of semantics involved, too. So, it depends.
Hi naphra2, try this one on for size: suppose an organism has evolved a pseudo-random number generator in its brain. In initial generations, its not so good, but its good enough to let it solve simple combinatorial optimization problems. Its descendents have pseudo-random number generators of varying strengths, but of course, the more random the generator is, the more complex the optimization problem they could solve. (cont)
(cont, to naphra2) if solving more complex optimization problems yields more food and hence more reproductive success, then there would be selective pressure in favor of ever more randomness in the random number generator, perhaps culminating in something like the neuron I described in my Hodgkin's-Huxley vids......
Yes, that's true, I can see that. But I think I can see some problems, too: good pseudorandom-number generators are always more and more complex, the proposed nondeterministic generator is simple. In order to get a good deterministic generator, you need more and more neurons; in order to get a nondeterministic generator, you need just one neuron. So evolving a better deterministic generator wouldn't necessarily aid, or even relate to, evolving a nondeterministic generator.
Rather, I'd look for perhaps some sort of a vestigial use for neurons that would have benefited from neurons that are closer and closer to neurons that satisfy the conditions for nondeterminism, perhaps under a selective process not even selecting for better randomness. But there's still the problem that the nondeterminism itself would, I think, then emerge abrubtly and not gradually, and so it could ruin the achieved selective advantage, and the achieved nondeterminism would likely not survive.
Randomness is useful to get out of local extremums, that's a good point.
However I do not see how this proves that randomness in the brain can be more than just randomness in the brain. In this situation, neither choose anything, both comportments are reducible to algorythm and are thereofre not free will.
Hi mak, what I'm trying to establish in these videos is that randomness is an essential component of rationality. You can't be fully rational unless you are a little bit random :-)
Excellent!
MikeSarno 4 years ago
randy i think you have convinced me!
smotviddy 4 years ago
:-) awesome smotviddy! Now that you know you have free will, please use your superpower for good, not evil! :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
actually i can't agree with you. i have a few major problems. perhaps ill make a vid.
smotviddy 4 years ago
So what did I convince you of?
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
i thought you made an excellent point that we are not simply stimulus response machines. however, i didn't see any evidence of random behaviour. i am opposed to treating the subject as if its floating in a bubble outside the greater system it is a part of. i think such a premise is responsible for your conclusion there's non-determinism in play.
smotviddy 4 years ago
alice is hot. thats all i understand form your video. :P
x71isnwor 4 years ago
Hey x71, that's all you need to know ;-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
You would think that incoherent and missing data inherent to natural processing would already account for enough variability to not necessitate some biological adaptation.
blackcrow6667 4 years ago
A nice start, Randy :) but (as you of course realize) simulated annealing requires only a sufficient-quality deterministic pseudorandom-number generator, not free will, so I'm awaiting to hear the morals of the story :)
Intuitively I happily agree that randomness and rationality go very nicely hand in hand, so I'm also eager to see your elaboration on that.
naphra2 4 years ago
Hi naphra2, yeah, you only need enough randomness to "fool" whatever puzzle you are trying to solve, but the kicker is the more random your random number generator is, the more of these kinds of puzzles you can solve. So there still would be evolutionary pressure to achieve full randomness.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Yes, that's true. Demonstrating that the pressure is non-negligible could be tricky though, and I'm not sure if there'd be any real difference for example in solving the Traveling Salesman with a good random-number generator and an excellent one (and thus, if any problems where the difference would matter actually ever arise). Plus, you'd be still left with the problem of reconciling coin-tossing, however random, with free will, as opposed to being a slave to randomness.
naphra2 4 years ago
"Plus, you'd be still left with the problem of reconciling coin-tossing, however random, with free will, as opposed to being a slave to randomness."
When you say "slave to randomness" you show you are not even trying to reconcile them, but merely being led by the old notion of free will to automatically treat free will and randomness as dissimilar.
What is free will if not randomness?
matowana 4 years ago
That's most curious, I always thought treating free will as randomness _was_ the old notion :)
I'd rather associate determinism with free will. Your mileage may vary of course, but I can't quite see (and it's not from lack of trying, btw :) how to reconcile informed decision-making, a concept in a close relationship to free will, with randomness. Free, yes; will, no.
But then again, free will is also a matter of definition and there's always an issue of semantics involved, too. So, it depends.
naphra2 4 years ago
I'm clearly in need of a cup of caffeinated liquid...
Meant to say that I do see how randomness relates to free will, but doesn't IMO qualify as free will. As free, yes; but as will, no.
That might make more sense. Apparently I type faster than I think.
naphra2 4 years ago
Hi naphra2, try this one on for size: suppose an organism has evolved a pseudo-random number generator in its brain. In initial generations, its not so good, but its good enough to let it solve simple combinatorial optimization problems. Its descendents have pseudo-random number generators of varying strengths, but of course, the more random the generator is, the more complex the optimization problem they could solve. (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to naphra2) if solving more complex optimization problems yields more food and hence more reproductive success, then there would be selective pressure in favor of ever more randomness in the random number generator, perhaps culminating in something like the neuron I described in my Hodgkin's-Huxley vids......
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Yes, that's true, I can see that. But I think I can see some problems, too: good pseudorandom-number generators are always more and more complex, the proposed nondeterministic generator is simple. In order to get a good deterministic generator, you need more and more neurons; in order to get a nondeterministic generator, you need just one neuron. So evolving a better deterministic generator wouldn't necessarily aid, or even relate to, evolving a nondeterministic generator.
naphra2 4 years ago
Rather, I'd look for perhaps some sort of a vestigial use for neurons that would have benefited from neurons that are closer and closer to neurons that satisfy the conditions for nondeterminism, perhaps under a selective process not even selecting for better randomness. But there's still the problem that the nondeterminism itself would, I think, then emerge abrubtly and not gradually, and so it could ruin the achieved selective advantage, and the achieved nondeterminism would likely not survive.
naphra2 4 years ago
Well naphra2, there's a good research project for you :-) why don't you investigate it and make a vid! :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I know I probably should, long time no video make. :)
naphra2 4 years ago
Very Cool. More please!
Danmill23 4 years ago
Randomness is useful to get out of local extremums, that's a good point.
However I do not see how this proves that randomness in the brain can be more than just randomness in the brain. In this situation, neither choose anything, both comportments are reducible to algorythm and are thereofre not free will.
maksiiiskam2 4 years ago
Hi mak, what I'm trying to establish in these videos is that randomness is an essential component of rationality. You can't be fully rational unless you are a little bit random :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago