Free will, artificial minds, and a death-blow to determinism

[IIKruZerII]

You have completely misinterupted the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Appealing to the CI of QM is just appealing to ignorance.

[megamanium]

How do you make the connection from apparent randomness to uncaused effects? What is an example of newtonian physics showing uncaused effects? How does an uncaused effect prove free will? How does observation not count as a cause? (In the case of the double-slit experiment).

If you can answer even one of those questions, I will be extremely impressed.

[kurtilein3]

i already linked a video for you about uncaused events in newtonian physics, it probarbly got lost between all those comments.

watch?v=_sPhQjGZ8NY

if a cause is not required according to the models that accurately describe the laws of nature, and if a cause is nowhere to be seen, then why should i believe it? it would be like saying leprachauns did it, or like invoking GOD.

[kurtilein3]

"How does an uncaused effect prove free will?"

uncaused events do in no way prove free will. but uncaused events disprove determinism.

and when people try to disprove free will, they almost always rely on determinism. but how can anyone attempt to disprove free will arguing from determinism, if our universe clearly is non-deterministic, if determinism is disproven in quantum mechanics as well as newtonian physics?

[megamanium]

"Clearly non deterministic", no one has truly demonstrated HOW this can be the case, just why they think it is. If you cannot explain the HOW of the problem, then you cannot make claims as to whether or not it is deterministic. That would be incredibly foolish.

I know Chopra, Tolle and other "gurus" are misrepresenting quantum mechanics this way, but are there any quantum physicists that will make the claim that those experiments disprove determinism? So far I have found none that will.

[kurtilein3]

megamanium:

there is the hypothesis out there that the universe is deterministic, you are one of the people that believe in this hypothesis.

but this hypothesis can be disproven by giving one counter-example. i gave many counter-examples, so your hypothesis is dead. disproven by counter-example. all quantum physicists will tell you that apparently non-deterministic effects are part of our reality, they show up in experiments.

[megamanium]

It can't be disproved if the counter example doesn't explain the mechanics behind it. APPARENT non-deterministic effects. You are making the claim that there are non deterministic effects in our universe and the only thing you can say is that it APPEARS to be the case, without offering anything in the way of an explanation. I'm reacting to YOUR claim, so the burden of proof is on your.

[kurtilein3]

"It can't be disproved if the counter example doesn't explain the mechanics behind it."

you are wrong. and im getting tired of this debate. you do not fully understand the scientific method, and in this situation, this cripples your mind. no mechanics are required, and something so unspecific cannot be disproven. what cannot be disproven, according to karl poppers concept of falsifiability which is an important part of the modern scientific method, has NO VALUE IN SCIENCE. its esoteric.

[kurtilein3]

the problem:

if you make the CLAIM that there is a cause for those seemingly uncaused events, and if you are unable to back it up with experimental results, then, under the light of the scientific method, you are making a claim about something that you cannot know. as long as you cannot show that you can know that there is a cause, your hypothesis about the existence of a cause is unscientific and has to be rejected, just like the religious claim that god exists has no room in science.

[megamanium]

You are making a claim that apart from EVERY other experiment EVER done, these ones show results that MUST be uncaused. I am simply reacting to YOUR claim, which you haven't demonstrated.

[kurtilein3]

"You are making a claim that apart from EVERY other experiment EVER done, these ones show results that MUST be uncaused."

strawman. that would be like accusing an agnostic atheist that he claims to KNOW that god doesnt exist.

actually, its like this: there are real experiments in which events without any apparent cause can be observed. the only thing we know is that a cause is not necessary, there could be one, but the theories work without it. (i need another comment for this)

[megamanium]

How is it a strawman? Isn't it apparent that the equations are being built AROUND the fact that they don't yet know the cause? If a cause were known, it would be used obviously, why deny that?

[kurtilein3]

the equations that work best have a tendency to be stunningly and elegantly simple.

your ignorance prevents progress in this debate, so there is no point in continuing. i will send you a PM, and recommend some really good material to you that will fix it.

but you really need to learn about physics, there is no other way.

[megamanium]

I'm simply asking you how you can say that an apparent observation without a cause means that first there is no cause AND that it disproves determinism. I'm not going to go do a bunch of research because you can't back up your own claim.

[kurtilein3]

this discussion is over, please take a look at the personal message ive sent you.

[megamanium]

I'm doing your research for you, and fuck you for expecting me to. You cannot answer a simple fucking question so you direct me to some places that might. This is just sad.

[kurtilein3]

this is not exactly about doing research.

you just dont know enough about physics and the scientific method to understand why the line of reasoning that you are trying to force on me is just non-scientific bullshit. a lack of education prevents you from understanding. i answered your question numerous times, but you are unable to understand my answer because of your lack of education when it comes to the scientific method. i dont want to repeat myself.

[kurtilein3]

... continued

and we dont know anything about a possible cause. so why should i believe on faith that there is one, like you do? you dont know anything about the cause that you claim exists, and you can give no reason why such a cause is needed. and i just look at the hypothesis that there always is a cause, i compare the hypothesis to reality, and then i drop the hypothesis because it is not useful.

you remind me of a deist who claims that some kind of god must have caused the big bang.

[megamanium]

You should believe that there is a cause because the overwhelming data behind 99% of experiments show that there is a cause AND that the mechanics behind an uncaused event have never been explained in any capacity.

YOU are the one making the claim that no cause exists so I'm atheistic about it, asking legitimate questions that you take offense to and refuse to explain HOW an uncaused event can occur. There is NO model ANYWHERE that explains uncaused effects (that I know of).

[kurtilein3]

"YOU are the one making the claim that no cause exists so I'm atheistic about it, asking legitimate questions that you take offense to and refuse to explain HOW an uncaused event can occur. There is NO model ANYWHERE that explains uncaused effects (that I know of)."

bullshit. uncaused effects that dont require a cause are no problem. only if your ignorance about how science works makes it seem like one. take an undergraduate physics course, then come back, and you will understand.

[megamanium]

If it makes sense to you, then why can't you explain it? So far all you have done is insult my intelligence over and over.

A test might be able to keep on going without a cause, but it does nothing to explain why there is no cause. I've been asking you for any kind of explanation as to why that can be the case since it is YOU who have made the claim "some things are undeterministic" and go so far as to say "this disproves determinism". HOW can you say that, the WHY doesn't matter.

[kurtilein3]

i did explain it.

you cannot understand it unless you know more about physics and the scientific method.

i am trying to give you the opportunity to learn enough about physics so that you can understand pretty much everything that is going on in physics. you refuse, you WANT to stay uneducated so that you can keep your misconceptions. so i think ill now just block you. you are wasting my time.

[megamanium]

The quantum mechanics APPEAR to behave in probabilities. There is no working theory that supports randomness. These tests in quantum mechanics DO NOT prove randomness.

Every cause has only ONE very specific effect. If it is possible to account for every condition then the effect will ALWAYS be the same.

Determinism can EASILY account for everything you've argued for.

[kurtilein3]

"Every cause has only ONE very specific effect." you mean, like, rolling a dice?

"These tests in quantum mechanics DO NOT prove randomness. " what about the double-slit experiment, then? the results of this experiment seem to disprove your statement.

"The quantum mechanics APPEAR to behave in probabilities." things APPEAR to fall according to gravity.

[megamanium]

The angle, the force, the distance, the surface etc all play roles on the roll of the dice and if you were to reproduce all the conditions the same result would occur.

The double-slit experiment actually proves we have more conditions to test. That particular experiment isn't random either. Maybe you are thinking of the uncertainty principle?

Gravity is actually understood very little. On the simple matter of the force of gravity things are constantly observed to verify it, unlike randomness.

[kurtilein3]

"and if you were to reproduce all the conditions the same result would occur." okay, forget quantum mechanics, forget relativity. lets go back to good old newton.

your statement about the dice is wrong, even in newtonian physics. you can set the intial conditions in such a way that the outcome will be unpredictable, which means that it happens according to probabilities. here, a video explaining one example: watch?v=_sPhQjGZ8NY

[kurtilein3]

... second comment

the problem with the double slit experiment is that you wont be able to predict where an individual particle will end up. if you repeat the experiment thousands or millions of times you get the pattern. it is a pattern of probabilities, and that directly contradicts the point that you are trying to make. the double slit experiment has been repeated too often, its a well-established fact that everyone that wants to make statements about our universe needs to deal with.

[kurtilein3]

... third comment

actually there is a beautiful example of an effect that does not have a cause. if you have a nucleus that is unstable, it will decompose according to probabilities. meaning that it could split any moment or never. if you are looking at a specific nucleus, lets say C14, the one used for carbon dating, if you look at a bunch of them, you can figure out the underlying probabilities and come up with a half life for that isotope.

each time one splits its an effect without cause.

[megamanium]

These examples are of unknown causes and not the absence of causes.

[kurtilein3]

"These examples are of unknown causes and not the absence of causes. "

why should i accept that if you cannot give a reason why a cause should be required? probabilities appear to do the job perfectly. you also need to understand that for different uncaused events and/or events of unknown cause, your mathematical model for that cause would also necessarily need to be different, depending on the kind of effect.

and those mathematical models would necessarily need to be provided by you.

[kurtilein3]

or maybe i should simply ask...

"These examples are of unknown causes and not the absence of causes. "

how do you know that? how do you defend your point if i tell you that i think i have reasons to doubt that you can know that?

[megamanium]

I'm confident in saying so because it makes no sense (to me) that something would be "a-causal". It seems as if the public's take on quantum mechanics is hasty and usually wrong 99% of the time.

If there is one thing I've learned about quantum mechanics, it's that nobody working in the field really understands their own observations.

[kurtilein3]

"If there is one thing I've learned about quantum mechanics, it's that nobody working in the field really understands their own observations."

thats not really fair. those theoretical physicists in quantum mechanics managed to predict the properties of undiscovered particles with a degree of precision that is unprecedented in the history of science. the predictions are way too precise, i think one of the predictions was the first 13 digits of the mass of an undiscovered particle.

[megamanium]

Quantum mechanics is in it's infantile stages and I'm not an expert by any means. I'm mostly looking for disagreement so as to make my theory stand out.

I personally cannot understand an uncaused event. Where does the energy this new effect have come from if not from a cause? It just doesn't make any sense to me so I've made my own interpretations of these experiments.

[kurtilein3]

"I personally cannot understand an uncaused event. "

i guess you dont understand quantum mechanics :) for other people its difficult to accept the theory of evolution or general relativity, but in the end you have to deal with the facts, and with the predictions theories make, and the experimental results. if it really works, if it really describes reality, then we can use it if not to understand, then at least to model and predict reality and to know whats possible and whats impossible.

[megamanium]

Random in a scientific sense is different than random in the common use of the word. Mutation in evolution is said to be random, but is not random in the way we perceive it.

I am simply doubting that your interpretation is valid, because I both don't think that's what quantum physicists are saying and it makes no sense to me.

I am open to the idea that my lack of understanding of certain things will bring me to invalid conclusions, but I will not accept TRUE randomness without and explanation.

[kurtilein3]

now you are at the point that you can step out of your blockade, just accept the fact that even in newtonian physics events can occur without a cause and without the need of any energy or force to cause it. and its even more true in quantum mechanics. now you see why people that successfully do quantum mechanics still admit that they dont understand it. but they know that it works. they can make use of the theories for our benefit, but like you they cannot understand uncaused events.

[megamanium]

What in newtonian physics shows an uncaused effect? The point of my argument is that the randomness you point to is both misunderstood (probably) and doesn't equal a-causality.

It is quite a leap to say that something apparently random is uncaused. Maybe my, yours or both accounts of this event is incorrect, observations are NOT enough to state that something is uncaused.

If you can't even think of something as uncaused, then why would you interpret it that way?

[kurtilein3]

"If you can't even think of something as uncaused, then why would you interpret it that way? "

because actual experiments show that this is the case in REALITY. no attempt to invoke some kind of cause has so far been successful, the scientific method doesnt allow it because as of today nothing can be known about such a cause, and it also is not required for the theory to work. so including such a cause in a research paper would be a violation of occams razor, not acceptable in science.

[megamanium]

If there were such a cause - and I believe there is - then occams razor would demand IT, to make it less complicated. I never said they couldn't get away without knowing the cause btw.

[kurtilein3]

"If there were such a cause - and I believe there is - then occams razor would demand IT, to make it less complicated"

no. not if "cause" simply turns out to be just a human concept, something we are obsessed with, but that doesnt really apply to the universe. like "purpose" or "love" or "god". occams razor demands it to be removed. you are mistaken when you say that occams razor would favor this unfalsifiable and unspecific hypothesis that would complicate the theoretical physics.

[tk050305cnx]

Cheers mate, great video!

When you say programs with unpredictable output, do you mean the decision problem (aka halting problem) or nondeterministic programs?

[kurtilein3]

im not an expert, especially when it comes to the exact definitions, ill try to explain it.

i dont mean nondeterministic programs, randomness is not necessary. its about programs that you actually need to run in order to see what the result will be, because there is no other way to predict the result. yes, i think decision problem/halting problem might be the term they use for it. i think consciousness is a program that has, among many other properties, this property.

[duel2edge]

Your argument reminds me of the little I've read about existentialism, the idea that our decisions may be deterministic but that doesn't mean we can't do anything we want or act differently to how people might expect. I think I agree with this viewpoint, our actions may be deterministic but we still feel like we are making decisions.

[duel2edge]

Ok I just realised you have a video response to this which clarifies some things, I apologize for not looking around properly to begin with. Although I still feel that you haven't really explained how you define free properly, for example what do you mean by "conscious decision"?

[kurtilein3]

duel2edge: no problem, i would have told you about the other video earlier if i would have remembered that i actually recorded a second one ;)

a conscious decision is a decision where you really look at all the different arguments for and against, let all your experience and memory play into it, maybe do additional research or consult experts before finally deciding. you should be able to come up with something structured and useful immediately if i ask you: why did you decide this way?

[kurtilein3]

... more continued

maybe i should also point out that i dont consider animals to have free will. and... im an evolutionist. free will is a property/ability that some, not all, humans have. it is the ability to be able to step out of a system/framework. theoretically everyone can write a book, or start a new life on a different continent, but its obvious that most people will never consider it even if it would be the most rational thing to do. not normal, doesnt fit the framework.

[kurtilein3]

... continued

maybe this is a good opportunity to explain it all a little bit more... for me, more of those conscious decisions is equal to more free will. if a person is less able to distinguish between good arguments and bad arguments, the person will be less able to make rational decisions that REALLY are in the persons self-interest, and will be less free. this leads me to the realisation that education and access to information are fundamentally liberating, essential for freedom.

[duel2edge]

From reading the earlier posts it appears that you are happy to accept the idea that our free will might just be the feeling of free will (the qualia of decision making if you will), and this is fine, in fact its a well established philisophical viewpoint. But your videos doesn't mention this, in fact all your video seems to argue is that just because things are deterministic doesn't mean we can always predict them (without running an exact copy).

[kurtilein3]

duel2edge:

the context for these videos is a discussion in which one side argues that free will does not exist because determinism disproves it, and the other side positively argued for the existence of free will.

if its not possible to disprove free will because this logic has a gap, then this discussion is pointless, and people should focus on the more interesting question: is the concept of free will, or the illusion, (still) useful? thats the motivation for my videos about it.

[duel2edge]

Also could you please descibe how you would define free will?

[duel2edge]

well that really depends on how you define free will, and to be honest I don't think your video really tackles that problem at all.

I think I understand now that you are simply trying to show that determinism is not something we really need to worry about in the debate over free will (compatibilism), but your video is rather mis-leading if this is the case ("death-blow to determinism" for example)

[duel2edge]

so unpredictability is not enough then? What other properties are necessary? Must it be both conscious and unpredictable?

Anyway your angument is that Universal Turning Machines can run unpredictable programs, our brains are Universal Turning Machines therefore we have free will. Computers are also Universal Turning Machines so there for they must also have free will.

[kurtilein3]

duel2edge: "Anyway your angument is that Universal Turning Machines can run unpredictable programs, our brains are Universal Turning Machines therefore we have free will."

actually, no. im just saying that those that claim to be able to disprove free will by arguing from determinism will fail. my argument is that determinism and free will are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the non-existence of free will does not automatically follow from determinism.

[duel2edge]

so, in your opinion, does Langton's ant have free will? (if not why? After all I believe it is a prime example of a program which we cannot predict the outcome of, the only way to know is to run the program, there are no shortcuts).

[kurtilein3]

duel2edge: no, i dont think so.

langtons ant is not able to argue in defense of the position that it itself has free will ;)

langtons ant is not even self-aware... you will not get a useful response to the question "who are you?". not all programs that have this property of unpredictibility are conscious.

[perfectionbox]

Interesting premise, but one has to take into account that computers -- even universal computers -- deal with measured-origin information, whereas people also have information about subjective experiences (qualia) such as the redness of red. Computers do not have experiences of the things they observe; only reactions. My position is that experience, opinion, and choice are more fundamental than computation -- the latter is derived from the former, not the former from the latter.

[perfectionbox]

Sorry, got that last part backward -- computation derives from experience.

[kurtilein3]

perfectinbox:

"My position is that experience, opinion, and choice are more fundamental than computation" thats just not the case. our central nervous system consists entirely of neurons and synnapses, and we can simulate what they do. so what could they possibly do that cannot be simulated? experience, emotion, and choice are data in our brain just like anything else. if you dont believe this, then you need to believe that there is some magic going on in our heads, a soul or sth like that.

[kurtilein3]

perfectioninbox: well, we are more complex than the computers we can currently build. but that doesnt change anything about the fact that our brains are computers.

you are wrong when you think that we can do anything that a computer cannot do. of course simple stuff like experience, emotion, redness of red, can be simulated. and there is NO reason why computers shouldnt be self-aware.

you collosaly underestimate the power of an universal computer. you just claim that nay they cant do that.

[perfectionbox]

You need to think it through some more. Study the Incompleteness Theorem and come to appreciate the limits of math, language, and measurement.

Or to put it another way, if the universe is deterministic, it ceases to be morally interesting. If the universe could operate deterministically, why bother with consciousness at all?

[duel2edge]

your idea is based upon a completely false premise, that unpredictable = nondetermanistic. If this was the case then you would have to accept that Langton's ant has free will.

[kurtilein3]

duel2edge: actually, unpredictable should be enough in this case.

[kauffdiggity]

you are all thinking of time as linear. that is your first mistake.

[someguyyoudontcare]

how is time not linear?

[paindoll]

My idea of time, is that its a spiral!

Time is not linear, at all!

Where did the universe start?

And where does it end?

[mattfox06]

I've already seen source code in C++ that emulates individual neurones.

[courtneyguy]

Turings work had more do with Godels incompleteness, NOT nondeterminism. His work was simply a demonstration that even in a deterministic set of instructions you cant determine the truthfullness of a statement about them without fully running the set of instructions (thereby demonstrating godel's incompleteness). It actually does rely on a deterministic system (see "halting problem"). Not being able to predict a result (see conway's game or chaos) does not equate to non-deterministic behavior.

[courtneyguy]

second post. I read the other comments. I noticed you used chaos as an example of determinism breaking down. This demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of what chaos is. Chaos is nonlinear deterministic systems sensitive to initial conditions. By definition chaotic systems are deterministic. If the system is not deterministic (lets say there is some probabalistic influence) then its not a mathematically chaotic system.

[courtneyguy]

third post :). Finally, even if the world is 100% deterministic (including for discussion's sake, quantum probabilities) we still would not be able to predict behaviors of everything. Self analysis breaks down (see godel's incompleteness), and chaotic systems are impossible to predict without access to the initial conditions or absolute knowledge (which is, for most scenarios, mathematically impossible [there are exceptions where you can predict chaotic systems.. like simulations]).

[oooodaxteroooo]

This is plain stupid. conway's game of life is completely deterministic. it just turns out different according to the context it is run in. how can you say our brains are different? who tells you that what you do when making videos and what i do commenting is not predetermined!? I tell you what... it feels bad to think that way. but that doesn't make it false.

[kurtilein3]

there are programs in conways game of life that are completely unpredictable, unless you actually run those programs. the same is true for every other universal computer.

im not saying that our brains are different, im arguing that even if the underlying structure is deterministic, this does not rule out the possibility of free will.

[mattfox06]

i agree with that. but just because the universe is unpredictable doesn't mean that there are more than one way things can go. i believe that this could only have happened this way, but i do agree that it impossible to predict.

The only way to predict the behavior of the universe would be to create (hypothetical situation where one plays the parts of a creator) two identical universes and use the first one to predict the action of the second one. The laws of physics are the hardware.

[ManBearPiglet]

Quantum particles don't behave in a random way, it's just that their behaviour is determined by factors that are as of yet unknown to humanity.

It's likely the same with the brain.

Remember that the opposite of determinism is magic. :)

[kurtilein3]

our brain does not require randomness. why should there be random processes at work in our brain? neurons are too big for quantum mechanical effects. and we already know a lot about neurons, about how the data processing in our brain works. we do not yet fully understand the software-side of the system, but that doesnt mean that the hardware is behaving randomly in any way.

[ericmcbride]

Oh I see what happened. I was responding to steven about computer seeding...

[stevenfromSSR]

i may just be think headed. or maybe i dont fully agree wit determinism but when u run that program that you can we cant predict what it will end at. im not a scientist, so how the computer cant fingure it out, its doing it anywayz. but thats beside the point. this may sound like a "god did it" answer. but as soon as hit that button to start it. the final number was already choosen. and if it is fulyl random then thats no closer to free will. it didnt pic that number. it just didnt no it already

[ericmcbride]

If something doesn't appear to play out deterministically, it's still seeded somehow...

[kurtilein3]

i dont really see how your comment relates to my video, ill try my best to respond in a useful way...

okay, minds dont behave deterministically, so they are seeded. seeded by what? random/unknown events in their past that affected what they remembered and learned. getting to know as much as possible about the past of the mind would be a good idea if you want to predict it. if you know EVERYTHING about the past and the internal structure of a mind, you can predict it. (this = first comment)

[ericmcbride]

That is not what seeded means. A seed is a static number or state.

[manonymous333]

There is no such thing as randomness, and I'm sure you are aware of this. Subatomic particles may seem to behave randomly, but in fact they are not. We simply do not have the technology to measure the behavior.

[kurtilein3]

second comment...

but as soon as you know everything about the past experiences and the internal structure of a mind, you also have enough knowledge to create an exact copy of the mind. and i already talked about this point in my video: to predict it, you need to copy the whole thing. if you cannot copy the whole thing, you cannot predict it. and as long as you cannot predict it, you can consider it a source of seeding for other stuff that would otherwise behave deterministically.

[ericmcbride]

I have to review what you're saying further because it is rather unclear. You may want to clarify this by using a diagram... I think I know what type of argument this is but I'm not sure of there is a bend or turn you've taken somewhere.

[researcherrobert]

Your contention that "ability to predict" is the essential element of determinism is not what makes determinism. Even "unpredictable" programs can be run on another substrate to figure out the outcome. (For instance, this substrate could be a simulation of our entire universe.)

I would contend that determinism (in the traditional sense) is a *necessary* condition for free will. (If your mind isn't amenable to environmental variables then how would you "will" anything in the first place?).

[kurtilein3]

i dont think that determinism is necessary. if some aspects of our universe do not behave deterministically, then minds will never be able to predict those events, the highest level of kinowledge they can reach is when they are able to predict everything that is deterministic, and know that they cannot predict the rest. non-deterministic events limit the theoretical capabilities of minds, but the fact that we might never be able to completely figure out quantum mechanics doesnt kill us.

[laffer35]

I just cannot see how we can have free will.. if the laws of physics make the atoms in my skull behave in a certain way.. how could my "will" override that? I can't wrap my head around this.

[kurtilein3]

your brain is a quite powerful computer. not very fast, not very precise, but allows for highly sophisticated software.

maybe free will ist just a simulation. it feels like free will, but in fact we are just using much more information that we usually would when making a decision. when you need to make a decision and you write down the pros and contras for each option, you just know that it is your decision. while in fact its the pros and contras that decide. but it feels like free will.

[kurtilein3]

... continued:

those situations wherte you have two or more options, and you know that you are the one making the decision, then this just feels like free will. and it makes sense, because other people cannot predict our decision. to predict it, they would need to know EVERYTHING about you, which is impossible in our world.

my argument is: its just an hypothesis, we stil dont know much more, but the hypothesis appears to be waterproof at the moment, cannot be disproven at the moment.

[laffer35]

I agree that we have free will in so far as it's impossible to tell for others (and for ourselves much of the time) what we will end up doing.

And I don't think we'll ever have that ability, there are too many factors that play into this.

However, on a very fundamental level, I cannot understand how we can truly have free will as our brains are physical objects like anything else and in order to have free will, we would somehow have to override the laws of physics when it comes to our brains.

[laffer35]

Continued -

But I fully agree that we have free will in that it feels like we do and since what we will do is impossible to foretell, for all intents and purposes we do have free will. Even if it's just a very good illusion.

[kurtilein3]

yes, and maybe in this case the difference between the illusion and the real thing is so small that we can forget about it ;)

and maybe this very good illusion is even necessary as a motivation for our decisions or something like that. just a brain function, like emotions.

if you accept something like that as free will, then it is at the moment almost impossible to disprove it, and one day it might be possible to simulate the same function in artificial minds.

[miselaineeous]

I think you are mixing up the terms "determine" and "predict". Whether or not you can predict an outcome has nothing to do with whether it's deterministic or not - the weather, the stock market, the housing market, etc, are excellent examples of this.

[firesteel1]

You have completely misunderstood his point. He is saying that not only can the programmes not be predicted, they are completely undetermined.

[burnvictim77]

If they have a program, by definition, they are determined.

[firesteel1]

So you are doing as the religions do? Turning away from something that doesn't match your viewpoint?

[burnvictim77]

No. Not at all.

Here's an example. If I program your brain in a way that produces results I can't accurately predict, does this mean you have free will? If so, then how do you reconcile that with my programming you?

[burnvictim77]

Yet... there IS a program, yes? So, where is the 'free will?'

[firesteel1]

So don't you think that this programme destroys your idea that "the universe is knowable and understandable"?

You can't have it both ways genius

[firesteel1]

hmmm very interesting points. i too agree that determinism is far to simplistic.

[kurtilein3]

well, very often the assumption that something is deterministic often leads to successful predictions ;)

but determinism, even if it is useful in a variety of different fields, has its limitations. chaotic systems are one example, and i hope that i succeeded in constructing another example where determinism fails.

[Brillsama]

I am determined that determinism is right. You are "you" because of everything that has influenced you whether you think it is predictable or chaotic.

----Questions 4 Thought----

"Where does influence start or end?"

"Are we only influence?"

"Are we only will?

"Are we both?"

"Can we be both?"

Good questions

The law of free will or the free will to law?...?...?...????

[apopcollapse]

2) you have turned a metaphysical problem (what is the case?) into an epistemological problem (what can we know about what is the case?). If it could be proven that we could never *know* what a person would do next, it does not then follow that what that person *does* next is not determined.

[kurtilein3]

if you can prove that there is always only one person in the universe that knows what you will do next, and that are you, then maybe your mind can be deterministic and still have free will :)

[apopcollapse]

nice video, nice try, but:

1) it is not proven that the brain is equivalent to a Universal Turing Machine. If you are thinking of Chomsky, here, he did not show this, merely that a particular abstract characterization of natural language (it is an empirical question how close this approximates the data) can only be generated by a turing machine.

second point in next comment:

[kurtilein3]

using pen & paper, i can interpret programs that require an universal turing machine.

of course it is not really equivalent because an universal turing machine requires unlimited data storage, so there is no real universal turing machine on our planet. but apart from that... i can do everything a turing-machine can do.

[kurtilein3]

... continued to nordicspirit:

ill give an analogy: all conscious brains we know have neurons. and some centuries ago, all flying things we knew were living. but the first working airplaine we built is dead, it could still fly. even without feathers. and the wings didnt even move.

i think with neurons and consciousness its the same, just like with feathers and flying. or flapping wings and flying.

[NordicSpirit]

Well then, ok, we seem to have different definitions in mind when we use the word "mind". For me, being self-conscious is not enough in order to claim a mind of its own.

I don't know about a binary mind that has invented itself a binary good, built binary churches or imagined to binarily kill another self-conscient binary mind...

However.

[NordicSpirit]

I just do not think you have an idea of what a computer would have to look like if it were to develop a human mind. Computers as we know them today are by far to low in their performance to emulate the 100 billion neurons we're carrying around in our heads. And I am convinced that having a close look at them is simply indispensable in order to someday understand what's really going on up there.

[kurtilein3]

if you want to understand how our HUMAN brain works, you of course need to simulate neurons and all that stuff.

but if you want an ARTIFICIAL mind that is conscious, and intelligent, then you dont need neurons for that. you dont even need to simulate neurons. you can do it in binary, using programming languages we already have.

[NordicSpirit]

8196 processors, 22 trillion flops/s. Computation produces 1TB of data EVERY SECOND and mind you - that's just the data won by looking at one single neocortical column. This gives you a rough idea of how much information the brain is processing every single second. People from this branch of neurocience are sure to abandon some of their current paradigms. I do not say that you are wrong because you think a machine may sooner or later come up with something like a mind.

[NordicSpirit]

Finally, a more concrete research example: in collaboration with IBM, EPFL's Brain Mind Institute is working on simulating neural activity in the human brain. In order to brake its complexity down into managablee parts, they're focussing on single neocortical colums which, without me going into any more detail, means roughly 10,000 neurons in concert and real time. For that purpose they use the 'Blue Gene' computer:

[NordicSpirit]

However, computational neuroscience is gradually beginning to move to a dentrocentric view on the matter, which basically means looking at the axons and dentrites and their inhibitory or excitatory potential, the places of neurophysiological interconnection etc. What you are dealing with then is ranges of potentials rather than binary "vocabulary" of any programming language to be found on a computer.

[NordicSpirit]

As recent research in the field of computational neuroscience has shown, information in the brain is not encoded in binary terms as it is in computation. There is no such thing as 0 and 1 in to be found if you digg deep into the brain. If you look at the emergence of intelligence in the neocortical neurocircuitry, it soon becomes clear that the opinion you hold is derivable only from a somatocentric view of the brain.

[NordicSpirit]

I strongly oppose your opinion that one needn't emulate neurons in order to have human mind running on a 'universal computer'. I deem this opinion wishful thinking of someone more into the computational science aspect of the story rather than as an informed guess. Unfortunately there are only 500 signs available for a comment so let me get to the point in another comment:

[Ethrock]

You make very good points though, a wonderful argument. I can't really say who is right, It's not my place. A wonderful argument and I always enjoy discussing these topics with people.

[kurtilein3]

im still a little bit uncertain on those topics, but i really think that a lot of new knowledge and understanding based on scientific evidence will be discovered in the next few years/decades. some of the big questions will go unanswered, just because they are inappropriate. why are we here? <--- this question doesnt make sense unless you prove that we were created with a purpose. but if you ask: ``where do we come from?´´, then there are some interesting answers.

[Ethrock]

I myself am not overly philosophical, but when we look at the things we see, we realize that we must assume something for science to function correctly. I must assume that the wall exists, before I can know it is solid. I cannot prove that the wall exists, it only exists because I am aware of it, through an assumption.

[kurtilein3]

the underlying assumption is that reality is real. and that assumption is so universal that we can conclude that reality is universal. you go to work, assuming that the place where you work does exist. nations drop bombs, assuming that the bombs are real for the people that need to deal with the consequences.

you cannot deny reality, or people will just stop discussing such topics with you ;)

[Ethrock]

Determinism states that we must make an assumption based on repeated results. When we test something and get the sames result each time over again. Things on a quantum scale are very random indeed. But on our scale we can see that even with this random underlying we are able to repeat something again. I can't throw a coin through a wall without breaking the wall, no matter how I try. However I do understand your point.

[kurtilein3]

i agree with you, reality as we know it will stay real. common sense makes sense. scientific truth needs to be universal. scientific research will continue to cause us to reconsider reality, but a change in the underlying theories wont change the facts we already know. from this perspective, quantum mechanics still looks very interesting and very confusing, but i think the discussion is a bit overheated.

[Panserborne1]

I think everytime you said or wrote determinism, you should replace it with fatalism. They are rather different. Many, many philosophers and scientists are compatibilists (they think free will is compatible with a deterministic universe). Of course fatalism is false, but from research a deterministic universe seems rather likely. I encourage everyone to read "Freedom Evolves" by philosopher and scientist Daniel Dennett, who is an expert on this topic

[kurtilein3]

``Many, many philosophers and scientists are compatibilists (they think free will is compatible with a deterministic universe).´´

yes, and i tried to clearly outline how far you can argue from determinism, and where the boundaries are. deterministic but proven to be unpredictable, thats the paradox that finally allows for free will. dan dennett is great, i watched lots of his talks, ill read his books.

[Panserborne1]

Ok, cheers. I admit I got a bit lost with your argument, it was very technical, but sounds like you put a lot of work into it. My main concern was the way nowadays a lot of people don't distinguish determinism from destiny/fatalism. Determinism says there is only one possible future at any given time, but that future is determined by our actions, so humans do affect the world, and that's where the free will comes in (IMO)

[lemuelbecc]

I enjoyed your video. You built your argument and and executed it well. I'm excited at the realisation that, as you say, unless our minds are beyond universal computers, all that we are may be artificially replicated.

[kurtilein3]

i guess one fundamental problem will stay unanswered: how the heck did i end up in this body?

but its quite likely that we get artificial minds asking the same question ^^ that wont answer the question, but it might take some validity out of the question.

[TrystanCJ]

Hmm . . . Could you put this in layman terms? I'm very unversed in science and I've only just started studying philosophy. I'm very interested in the free will/determinism debate.

[kurtilein3]

hmm, i dont know if ill do another video on the topic. did you watch the video in the description-box?

[TrystanCJ]

I'm watching/listening to it now.

[kurtilein3]

as soon as they branch off, you are in one of them, and the rest is completely lost, gone, never to be seen again, not existing for your universe anymore. and its only those specific quantum-mechanical effects that trigger this. if you look at a grain of sand, this grain of sand (acording to the interpretation) is causing this more than a trillion times per second. whole universes. it is the most wasteful theory that has ever been considered in science.

[popebenadict16]

i dont agree at all

[premed411]

Turing's universal computer is entirely deterministic.

Please see "themilitantatheist's" comments.

Either way, the future is unpredictable. :P

[uncprinciple]

However, I would agree that nobody will distinguish a deterministic mind from a free-will mind if the deterministic mind is highly complex (with lots of inner loops). This is similar to pseudo random numbers which are generated by a deterministic machine and which are indistinguishable from random data.

[kurtilein3]

yes, great comment, this is the point im trying to make. watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo <--- great video on the topic.

i like the analogy to magic tricks... REAL magic is the magic that CANNOT be done, while all the magic tricks that we can actually do are NOT real magic ^^

i guess most people just fear that they will be utterly embarassed when we figure out how consciousness really works, it will be just a box of tricks and illusions. people like to believe that consciousness is more than that.

[uncprinciple]

I would also be suspicious when you cite Kurzweil. He also seems not to be aware that science describes everything from a third-person's perspective. The brain is extremely complex (e.g. it utilizes random wiring and some special physical effects which affects neighboring neurons to realize associations). I don't think that we'll have the technology to simulate a human brain in our lifetime.

[kurtilein3]

well, random wiring...

if we build it using a supercomputer that is heavily focused on data storage, we dont have those problems. the data-packets go where their adress tells them to go. surely optical cables in the terrabit-range are more powerful than the physical limitations our neurons have to deal with ^^

[uncprinciple]

The brain is highly flexible. It is not designed (unlike a computer). It just gives the random neuron wiring a `meaning' (after an optimization procedure). The centers of the brain are just there because of the local stimuli (eye, ear, ...). They are only local because of efficiency (smaller circuits).

[kurtilein3]

yes, i agree.

but for a copper cable or glass-fiber cable it doesnt really matter how long it is. its different for neurons, because for our body it does matter how long the neurons are, they require a lot of energy to keep them running, and to make it more challenging they only accept one special kind of sugar that has to be produced in our liver for that purpose.

i dont think that its important to really emulate this.

[IShitOnYourGod]

Between 5 and 20 years until real AI? Call me a hardened skeptic, but, no chance.

[kurtilein3]

we will see ^^

i think it will take longer until an artificial mind surpasses our own minds when it comes to IQ, but 5-20 years for the first major breakthrough and undenyable positive results appears to be possible. the timeframe for the first artificial cell, made from scrap, that is able to replicate, is similar. and nuclear fusion is 30-60 years away.

they cant all be wrong ^^

[kurtilein3]

666norton420: this interpretation is just one way to explain the fact that things in quantum-mechanics happen according to probabilities. dont confuse it with the multiverse-theory which is used to explain why our universe looks so incredibly the same everywhere, its referring to the multiverse that was created during the phase of exponential expansion during the early stages of the big bang.

[SkirtsUpPantsDown]

Simulating a human mind is something I would expect to be a lot more complex than nailing down a single theory on the minds function. I've begun to see the mind a cartel of different modules, each with a distinct method of operation and means of influencing its fellows. We may be able to approximate human reactions soon, but it will be at least 50 years before we have sufficient understanding for a true simulation.

[themilitantatheist]

I am curious where you pulled that 50 year figure?

On what basis are you claiming at least 50 years will be required?

[SkirtsUpPantsDown]

"On what basis are you claiming at least 50 years will be required?"It was a simplistic estimate based on previous simplistic estimates.

[kurtilein3]

skirtsuppantsdown: did you watch the video i linked in the description-box? i think you are talking about an approach based on behavior, while true intelligence appears to be something different, based on remembering stuff & making predictions, and intelligent behavior is just the outcome of this.

[SkirtsUpPantsDown]

Yes, intelligence could quite rightly be based on predictions; but what to predict and to what end? Human motivations and priorities seem to operate on a rewards/penalties system. This ties into the memory based prediction system by affirming certain actions(remember: thought processes are active) while impugning others. Loved the linked video, Ted talks are always great.

[kurtilein3]

if you remember that its not a good idea to jump into an empty swimming-pool, next time you will be likely to remember it and avoid it. it works both ways. if you remember that the food you get in one restaurant is delicious, next time you might take that information to decide to go to the same restaurant.

[SkirtsUpPantsDown]

There's a lot of subtlety in deciding which memories are worth considering in each context. Also, taking any decision can only be the direct consequence of some objective, and these objectives can not be as simple as "get food".

[kurtilein3]

i thought that we already solved the predictibility-problem.

it may be 100% deterministic, so it might be predictable in theory, but thats the point i made in my videos... youll never predict human behaviour ^^

and yes, it can easily get very complex. and then you have another problem: sometimes people have ideas that noone ever had before.

[SkirtsUpPantsDown]

"i have heard of a different version of the multi-verse theory, where your actions create new universes"

I'd check the credibility of your source on that one. This implies that human minds are able to create universes through exercising freewill. I'm incapable of entertaining that possibility without serious evidence.

[nontheistdavid]

I believe that is called the "Many worlds interpretation of quauntume mechanics" espoused by Hugh Everett. In fact I think there was a story about him in Scientific America or last months Discover. In any case it was in a relatively recent science magazine available at your local Barnes and Noble. :P

[neuronstorm]

In practice software is often non-deterministic - but this bubbles up from hardware effects - e.g timing issues, thermal effects. ie the 'inputs' are more than just the variables seen within the program. You state 'this is proven' mathematically with regards to some software being nondeterministic. Can you provide a link on this specific issue?

[neuronstorm]

Basically - I'm skeptical that a nondeterministic machine can be built in pure software. If you run your software on a hypothetical virtual-infrastructure which strictly controls the timing seen by the running program - then I'd contest 2 separate runs would produce the same final outcome. Sure.. you might not be able to calculate it in advance because the software *is* the way to calculate the result... but if repeat runs return the same answer... where's the room for free will?

[themilitantatheist]

I believe you are correct. Software itself cannot be non-deterministic in the way kurtilein is suggesting.

The more troublesome aspect is that non-determinism does not get you anything anyway - a nondeterministic turing machine is equivalent to the deterministic one. You dont get any extra power.

[kurtilein3]

in my oppinion we are unable to prove that it is deterministic because we wont be able to predict it. im arguing that a deterministic turing-machine might be all that is required for free will. and if you want to disprove this, you have to deal with infinite regression. all you can do is make an exact copy of our mind and run it, leaving you with exactly the same problems.

[themilitantatheist]

Determinism is not the ability to predict per se. It is the assertion that there is an unbroken cause and effect. This is clearly the case on a deterministic TM. I think you are trying to link decidability with determinism - which is not really useful in this context.

The unfortunate thing as I have said is we CANNOT build a turing machine. Not now not ever.

[themilitantatheist]

Dont get my criticisms wrong. I believe that the functionality of the brain could be simulated on TM - this does not require the brain to BE a TM.

I still don't understand what you mean by determinism in this sense.

[kurtilein3]

if you have this kind of unpredictable programs in our mind, and you want to prove that it is deterministic, you will have to deal with some nasty infinite-regression-problems. if those programs are interwoven, respond to input, well, you would need to extract them all and run them, leaving you with a copy of our mind and no answers.

[themilitantatheist]

I am not sure what you mean.

I think you are trying to tie decidability to determinism? Not sure what you are claiming here...

Furthermore the brain cannot be a universal turing machine since this would require the brain to have infinite storage space.

[kurtilein3]

well, the brain has near-infinite storage space. some autistic savants more or less prove it. watch?v=95L-zmIBGd4 <-- watch this.

yes, i would have needed to clarify the connection. you get some really tough infinite regression problems if you want to argue for an deterministic mind if our mind is partially unpredictable as i describe it.

[themilitantatheist]

Near-infinite is not good enough if you want to argue the brain IS a turing machine (or computationally equivalent).

Furthermore the brain is setup in a way to receive unbounded input over time - so making the halting principle unless.

I would really like to see the "mathematical proof" that the brain is equivalent to a TM. It is just not the case.

[kurtilein3]

to themilitantatheist:

my proof would be that you are able to interpret a program written for a TM using pen & paper. of course, if you need infinite storage space for a TM, this isnt enough. but when it comes to real skills, our capabilities at least arent surpassing TMs.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

Predicting the future and the future being deterministic are two separate issues. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there.

[kurtilein3]

but if you prove that you cannot prove that it isnt there, and it looks as if it were there, whats the difference? if an illusion gets indistinguishable from reality, is it still an illusion?

daniel dennett did a lot of work on this topic, i like his way of combining philosophy and real science, watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo <-- this one is really great.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

Yes it is irrelevant to be sure. That doesn't remove the uncertainty though.

[o00Sebastian00o]

Exactly. Very important distinction.