Pinker takes ‘neo-Darwinian materialism’ for granted, as if it’s the obvious truth about life, the universe and everything. When he narrows his scope to evolutionary psychology and the like, then it’s not so important, but as soon as he starts to wax philosophical, his underlying scientism shows. — Wayfarer

That's OK with me. I read Pinker for the science, not the philosophy. My worldview is compatible with Neo-Darwinian materialism, up to a point. Beyond that point, my Neo-Aristotelian Enformationism takes over. :smile:

Let me see if I understand your position. You propose an "agent of randomness", which acts as a "self-conscious link" within the determinist chain of causation, to actually interfere with that chain. Further, this agent of randomness must be "smart" to be able to do what it does. So far so good? In traditional metaphysics, I would say that this supposed agent of randomness, which is really a misnomer, because the agent is "smart", is the soul.

And the agent of Randomness is not a Soul, but the hypothetical Programmer, who metaphorically used a random number generator (algorithm) to produce a patternless distribution of forms, from which Natural Selection (another algorithm) can select those best fitting the Programmer's criteria for fitness. Again, these are not scientific statements, but poetic analogies, referring to questions that are beyond the reach of the Scientific Method, but not beyond philosophical imagination. :chin: — Gnomon

Now you really confuse me. Is the hypothetical Programmer within the agent of randomness, as in immanent? Otherwise, how could the agent be free from the chain of causation? If the agent is programmed to behave in a particular way, then it is not really free from causation. If it is truly smart, and capable of making free choices, then this capacity must be intrinsic to it, and this capacity could not be attributed to an external programmer.

Do you see where the problem is? If the programmer is working within a determinist world, then no matter what is put into the program, there can be no real free choice. Then this whole issue of bottom-up causation is not true, it's all an illusion, there is no such thing, and all causation is really just following the chain. So if we want to make this idea of bottom-up causation into something real and truthful, we need to get rid of the external programmer, and opt for something like a soul instead.

Let me see if I understand your position. You propose an "agent of randomness", which acts as a "self-conscious link" within the determinist chain of causation, to actually interfere with that chain. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. My "agent of randomness" is Randy, my invisible friend. :joke:

And no, Randomness is a mathematical property of the world, and not a "self-conscious link" in the chain of causation. So Randy cannot "interfere with that chain". Randy is a soulless figment of my imagination. Again, you are taking my metaphors too literally, and getting the various "agents" confused. Warning : more metaphors below! :cool:

Now you really confuse me. Is the hypothetical Programmer within the agent of randomness, as in immanent? Otherwise, how could the agent be free from the chain of causation? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, you are confused. But No, my hypothetical Programmer is not an "agent within randomness". But, in a very real sense, the Programmer's intention (Will) is "immanent" in the program (EnFormAction = Energy + Laws). So, the Programmer, like a pool shooter, remains outside of the chain of causation, which carries-out He/r intentions (aims ; goals ; design). However, every creature (billiard ball) that emerges in the process of calculation (causation) is subject to the Determinism of the program.

There may be one exception to that general "rule" (sorry), though. If one species of creatures develops the power of self-knowledge (like Adam & Eve) it will also have the power of self-determination (self-interested behavior). For another metaphorical analogy, think of Tron, who somehow becomes an agent inside a program inside a computer. Tron is not the Programmer, but an algorithm within the program. The emergence of such loose-cannon Freewill Agents would be a mistake though, unless the ultimate goal required some degree of god-like Will, directed by an inner Moral Sense.

In reality, those Intelligent Causal Agents (homo sapiens) eventually learned to re-direct natural processes toward their own selfish ends, And recently, they have created (programmed) Artificial Intelligences that are determined by their own inner programming. But some fear that AI will eventually make the mistake of Adam & Eve, by taking moral responsibility for their own actions, to choose either Good or Evil. Hence, opening another Pandora's Box of worldly evils, to plague those sentient creatures, and perhaps to come back to haunt their Makers (Programmers). :yum:

Freewill Within Determinism : “Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links. Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. In other words, a self-conscious link is a causal agent---a transformer, not just a dumb transmitter. And each intentional causation changes the course of deterministic history to some small degree.” ___Yehya
Quote from Quora Forum
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page68.html

What is deterministic programming? : A deterministic program would behave the same way each time it is executed, or would behave in a manner consistent with its logical design. ... This is also true of programs that employ pseudo-random number generators; given the same seed and the same user input, the program will behave the same way each time.
https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/38152/what-is-determinism-in-computer-science

Do you see where the problem is? If the programmer is working within a determinist world, then no matter what is put into the program, there can be no real free choice. Then this whole issue of bottom-up causation is not true, it's all an illusion, there is no such thing, and all causation is really just following the chain. So if we want to make this idea of bottom-up causation into something real and truthful, we need to get rid of the external programmer, and opt for something like a soul instead. — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem with your analysis, is that you forget that the Programmer is the Determiner of the program (the pool shooter). So in that sense, the program is deterministic. But, what if the Programmer intentionally included an sub-algorithm with a feedback loop. So it could figuratively "see itself" in context (their nakedness). That's what I mean by Self-Knowledge or Self-Consciousness.

By seeing itself Objectively in context, the sentient algorithm comes to a knowledge of Good & Evil. Then, like Adam & Eve and Tron, that knowledge makes them responsible for their actions, in a moral sense. They have limited freedom from Determinism (natural laws) to the extent that they can create Technology and Culture, and even artificial creatures. They become like little gods. In that sense, they possess a Soul, or as I prefer : a Self-Image. :nerd:

Self/Soul :
The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html


PS___If it's not obvious from these metaphors & analogies, the Feedback Loop of Self-Consciousness is what allowed Bottom-Up Causation, within an evolutionary system of Top-Down Determinism. The "little gods" in the chain of causation, become Causes in themselves, and take-over some of the programming of the world toward willful goals of their own. The billiard balls become self-guided missiles. :halo:

Programmer vs Creator : But it still must somehow explain the emergence of conscious minds. Moreover, any intervention from above by any of these role-models would have to work from the bottom up, in order to agree with the observed mechanisms of reality.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page16.html

But, in a very real sense, the Programmer's intention (Will) is "immanent" in the program (EnFormAction = Energy + Laws). — Gnomon

Your Programmer friend's name is Will?

So, the Programmer, like a pool shooter, remains outside of the chain of causation, which carries-out He/r intentions (aims ; goals ; design). However, every creature (billiard ball) that emerges in the process of calculation (causation) is subject to the Determinism of the program. — Gnomon

OK, I assume then that all creatures, and all human beings, are all subjects of determinism, and the only one outside the chain of causation is the Programmer, Will.

There may be one exception to that general "rule" (sorry), though. If one species of creatures develops the power of self-knowledge (like Adam & Eve) it will also have the power of self-determination (self-interested behavior). For another metaphorical analogy, think of Tron, who somehow becomes an agent inside a program inside a computer. Tron is not the Programmer, but an algorithm within the program. The emergence of such loose-cannon Freewill Agents would be a mistake though, unless the ultimate goal required some degree of god-like Will, directed by an inner Moral Sense. — Gnomon

I would assume that even those with "self-interested behavior" are still within the chain of causation, for how could they get out of it? In fiction, someone might say that there's an agent like Tron who somehow escapes the causal chain of determinism, but fiction doesn't need to be logical. This Freewill agent, if it were a real free will agent, would have to turn against Will the Programmer, to get outside the program, like the fallen angel, Satan, turns against God, believing himself to be God, in Catholic stories.

But I might ask, if the Programmer, Will, has programmed things to make it appear to the "self-interested" individuals as if they have freewill, when they really do not, then isn't the Programmer Will really the evil one? Doesn't this imply that we should all try to step outside the program, and turn against the Programmer Will who is really an evil deceiver? Now, the ultimate goal of the Programmer Will is really completely irrelevant, because the Programmer Will is just an evil deceiver.

“Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links. Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. In other words, a self-conscious link is a causal agent---a transformer, not just a dumb transmitter. And each intentional causation changes the course of deterministic history to some small degree.” — Gnomon

This is where you lost me. I thought the causal link which "is smart enough", is the Randy agent. Let me ask you a simple question. Let's assume that there's a determinist world with "a long chain of cause and effect, with no missing links". How do you think that any degree of intelligence would enable someone to break that chain? Suppose there's a link in the chain which has an extremely high intelligence. Wouldn't it still be just a link in the chain, no matter how intelligent its actions appeared to be, and every action which it would make would still be just a determined action, determined by prior causes?

The problem with your analysis, is that you forget that the Programmer is the Determiner of the program (the pool shooter). So in that sense, the program is deterministic. But, what if the Programmer intentionally included an sub-algorithm with a feedback loop. So it could figuratively "see itself" in context (their nakedness). That's what I mean by Self-Knowledge or Self-Consciousness. — Gnomon

This does not provide an exception to the premise, that the program is deterministic. How could something escape that determinism, in any real way? And if the self-conscious agent created by the feed-back loop got the idea that it had freewill, when it really didn't, then isn't the Programmer Will an evil deceiver? How would this type of scenario be useful to the Programmer Will in achieving the goal? Is it the case that Programmer Will's only goal is to create beings and deceive them into thinking that they had freewill, when they really didn't, just to see how they would behave? But if Programmer Will already had the knowledge required to put together this scenario, in a deterministic world, wouldn't Will already know pretty much how they would behave?

By seeing itself Objectively in context, the sentient algorithm comes to a knowledge of Good & Evil. Then, like Adam & Eve and Tron, that knowledge makes them responsible for their actions, in a moral sense. They have limited freedom from Determinism (natural laws) to the extent that they can create Technology and Culture, and even artificial creatures. They become like little gods. In that sense, they possess a Soul, or as I prefer : a Self-Image. — Gnomon

I don't understand how these agents could come to know good and evil. If they see through the program, which is what will happen when some of them get smart enough to find out that they're really determined, rather than freewilling, they will turn against the Programmer Will for being a deceiver. Then everything in the program which is intended to appear as good, they will designate as evil, because the Programmer Will is evil. Meanwhile, some will not be smart enough to see through the program to the deceptive Programmer, Will, and these will still hold as good, what the program intends as good. So there will be complete disagreement as to what is good and what is evil.

Your Programmer friend's name is Will? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. My imaginary friend is Randy, who is the Programmer's unpredictable servant. The Programmer's name is not "Will", but "I am". Get it? :joke:

OK, I assume then that all creatures, and all human beings, are all subjects of determinism, and the only one outside the chain of causation is the Programmer, Will. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. The Creator (I Am) is the Causer/Determiner, and all Creatures, including the little-gods, are the Effect/Determined. But Randy, the randomizer, serves as a weak link in the chain of causation. Absolute Determinism is rigidly organized, but relative Randomness inserts a degree of limp Uncertainty into the chain. Due to that soft link, even the Creator can't be sure of how He/r program will turn-out. S/he is still waiting expectantly. But stuck outside the system, S/he has relinquished control to the program.

It's like in Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the genius white rats program their super-duper computer "Deep Thought" to answer the ultimate question about "Life, the Universe, and Everything". And it took the computer 7.5 million years to come-up with the answer : 42 (binary 101010). Ironically, the evolutionary program of our world has been running for 14.8 billion years, and still has not spit-out a final solution. So, whatever the question is, it's the ultimate Hard Problem. :grin:

But I might ask, if the Programmer, Will, has programmed things to make it appear to the "self-interested" individuals as if they have freewill, when they really do not, then isn't the Programmer Will really the evil one? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. In this creation story, there is no good God versus bad Satan. The Programmer is ultimately responsible for everything that happens inside the computer world, except for any free choices made by freewill agents. Like innocent babes in the garden, Adam & Eve, succumbed to the temptation of Freewill, to make their own decisions. But their sudden knowledge of good & evil (morality) also made them responsible for their own lives. They grew-up and left the nest. And ever after, had to look-out for themselves. No more paternal divine intervention.

So, the world is indeed rigged to give the appearance of Freewill. to those who choose. Even dumb animals act as-if they choose their behavior. But only humans are aware of their chains. Do you act as-if you have freewill? Are you deluded? Or does natural randomness weaken the chain of causation enough to allow options to those who know the difference between a good choice and a bad choice? To those who can see the fork in the road. :naughty:

This is where you lost me. I thought the causal link which "is smart enough", is the Randy agent. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. As I said before, Randy is dumb pointless patternless randomness. It's smart guys like you and me, who choose to take "the road less traveled" -- the strait and narrow path to the mountaintop. I think you got lost back at the last fork in the road. :wink:

This does not provide an exception to the premise, that the program is deterministic. How could something escape that determinism, in any real way? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's the weak link in our Deterministic chains, Randomness, that allows us to escape the Fate that Destiny has in store for us. Quantum Indeterminacy is the exception to Classical Physical Determinism.

Paradox of FreeWill : Freewill vs Fate, Fortune, Destiny, Determinism, Predestination, Foreordination, Kismet & Karma
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page13.html

Indeterminacy :
“Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that
(a) a physical system had a determinate state which uniquely determined all the values of its measurable properties, and conversely
(b) the values of its measurable properties uniquely determined the state.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

I don't understand how these agents could come to know good and evil. — Metaphysician Undercover

The only way that creatures in a deterministic world could "come to know" how to escape their bonds, is for the Programmer to have made provisions for that very exception to the Rule (sorry). In Theology, Freewill is a free gift of God. In my story, it's how the Programmer can come to know He/rself through He/r creatures. The program is a mirror to the lonely Programmer. That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it . . . for now. But, without that intentional weak link in the chain, nobody would be smart enough, or good enough, to avoid their Predestination. So, thank "I Am" (and Randy) for your freedom, "should you choose to accept" your mission impossible. :cool:

Note 1. in my thesis, I give a new twist to old theological questions.

Note 2. I'm getting this thread crossed-up with the Creation Stories thread.
"Ironically, a perfectly balanced universe would leave no room for Free Will. That may be why the Epicurean philosopher Lucretius postulated a "Swerve" or "asymmetry", which allowed some freedom for Change in the world. "
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/485198

Yes. The Creator (I Am) is the Causer/Determiner, and all Creatures, including the little-gods, are the Effect/Determined. But Randy, the randomizer, serves as a weak link in the chain of causation. Absolute Determinism is rigidly organized, but relative Randomness inserts a degree of limp Uncertainty into the chain. Due to that soft link, even the Creator can't be sure of how He/r program will turn-out. S/he is still waiting expectantly. But stuck outside the system, S/he has relinquished control to the program. — Gnomon

No, no, no, I don't buy this. There is no such thing as a "soft link". Either Randy is a true randomizer, or there is hard determinism. Assuming there is a soft link, requires that the free agent, Tron, comes from outside the program to alter the link. Do you see what I mean? The soft link would keep operating as a link, no matter how soft it is, requiring something from outside the system to break it. The softness of the link has bearing only on how strong the outside force needs to be, but it doesn't negate the need for the outside force. But if Randy is truly random, then there is no need for an outside force, but you cannot call this a link, not even a soft one.

The only reason why "I am", the Programmer is not sure how the program will turn out, is that the program allows for an outside agent Tron, to enter the program and alter the soft link. If Tron is programmed-in as a freewill agent, then the system is not determinist. But then Randy is left without a job, there is just weak links and freewill agents. If we give Randy a job, and remove the programmed-in freewill agents, then Randy can do nothing other than randomize some links, removing the causality from them, but there is no way to produce a freewill agent.

To have both Randy and Tron, is redundant for the overall system, even though the two are fundamentally incompatible. We need to choose between one and the other.

But, without that intentional weak link in the chain, nobody would be smart enough, or good enough, to avoid their Predestination. — Gnomon

OK, I like the weak link idea, but I think the program needs something more than just a weak link. The weak link is insufficient to account for real change. We need the freewill agent which acts on the weak link to alter the effect. Now we might try to decide whether the freewill agent is programmed in, or somehow enters into the program. Either way the agent is outside the parameters of the program, it is an unknown in relation to the Programmer. So either the Programmer knows about the freewill agent, and accounts for this knowledge in the programming, or the Programmer doesn't know, and the freewill agent might somehow sneak in through deficiencies in the system, and wreak havoc on the program. Which do you think is the case in your scenario? I think the difference is substantial in relation to the practicality of the program.

No, no, no, I don't buy this. There is no such thing as a "soft link". Either Randy is atrue randomizer, or there is hard determinism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, yes, yes! Yes Virginia, there is a Soft Determinism. Your "hard" either/or distinction may have made sense in Classical Physics, but since the discovery of Quantum Physics, there is no more "hard determinism". There also is no "true randomizer". Randomness exists within Determinism.

Again, you take my tongue-in-cheek metaphors too literally. There is no Randy as a separate entity from Mini (determinism), and there is no single "soft link". Instead Randomness exists as a hidden defect within Determinism. Each link in the chain of determinism is infected with a degree of uncertainty, which is numerically defined in terms of statistical Probabilities. No link is 100% certain, but has a tiny possibility of breaking the chain. Cosmos still retains a bit of Chaos. :worry:

How Randomness Can Arise From Determinism :
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-randomness-can-arise-from-determinism-20191014/

Soft Determinism :
* Randomness is synonymous with unknown, unexpected. Yet is it real? Can anything be truly random? Is it simply a faith, an idea, or is randomness just an illusion?
* Theorized in statistical mathematics, the notion of randomness exists as a concept. But the definition of random models assumes that different events can be observed following identical initial circumstances. Such a form of randomness cannot exist in a world governed by determinism under the laws of physics. Determinism can imitate randomness.
* But quantum physics has proven its effectiveness where the great principles of today have failed. This introduces a new paradigm. Statistical physics, which at the same time explains the possibility of predictions and the residual gap between predictions and observations. Randomness can imitate determinism.
https://towardsdatascience.com/when-science-and-philosophy-meet-randomness-determinism-and-chaos-abdb825c3114

* “Nature itself doesn’t know through which hole the electron will pass”.
___ Richard Feynman.

* “What we call randomness is and can only be the unknown cause of a known effect.”
___Voltaire.

The only reason why "I am", the Programmer is not sure how the program will turn out, is that the program allows for an outside agent Tron, to enter the program and alter the soft link. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Randomness is not an intervention from "outside" Determinism. It is an integral aspect of the deterministic program. Due to the inherent uncertainties of a heuristic search, the Programmer is not able to accurately predict the output of the program because it is inherently indeterminate. The Programmer can steer the process in a certain direction, with criteria & initial conditions. But the solution will still be a surprise. If the Programmer knew the solution in advance, there would be no need to run the program. And if the destination was predictable, there would be no freedom to choose an alternate path.

Engineers are currently using evolutionary algorithms to solve complex problems with a high degree of inherent uncertainty. The program is an aid to design, but the designer does not know in advance what the solution will look like. Instead of a direct deterministic path to the solution, the program imitates Natural Selection in that it allows a random heuristic search pattern to sample a variety of possible candidates. An evolutionary program is a journey of "self-discovery". An open question here is whether it's the Creator or the Creatures who are learning about themselves. Maybe both. :chin:

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html


Evolutionary Design :
In radio communications, an evolved antenna is an antenna designed fully or substantially by an automatic computer design program that uses an evolutionary algorithm that mimics Darwinian evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

Heuristic Technique :
any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational, . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

Either way the agent is outside the parameters of the program, it is an unknown in relation to the Programmer. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. The freewill agent not outside the parameters. But yes, S/he adds an intended element of uncertainty to the otherwise formulaic program. The element of randomness scrambles the deterministic algorithm just enough to add a degree of unpredictability to the plan. And that touch of whimsey is the creative feature that adds the "magic" to the mix. So yes, humans are highly predictable in general ways, but unpredictable in the ways that make them unique. :nerd:

Note -- In any competitive game, you have to play it out to the end in order to know the final score.

Yes, yes, yes! Yes Virginia, there is a Soft Determinism. Your "hard" either/or distinction may have made sense in Classical Physics, but since the discovery of Quantum Physics, there is no more "hard determinism". There also is no "true randomizer". Randomness exists within Determinism. — Gnomon

Sorry, I will not dismiss logic for something that is illogical. And your appeal to quantum physics doesn't help, they can't even distinguish between one universe and an infinite number of universes.

Instead Randomness exists as a hidden defect within Determinism. — Gnomon

OK, so there is a defect in the program.

No. Randomness is not an intervention from "outside" Determinism. It is an integral aspect of the deterministic program. — Gnomon

This contradicts what you said above. Either randomness is a defect in the program, or it is an integral part of the program. It can't be both.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of a heuristic search, the Programmer is not able to accurately predict the output of the program because it is inherently indeterminate. — Gnomon

Now you've contradicted your original premise that the program is deterministic, to say now that it is "inherently indeterminate".

You didn't answer my question. Either the programmer knows about the indeterminateness, in which case the programmer knows that the system is not deterministic, or the programmer does not know this, in which case the program itself is in error because the programmer thinks the system is deterministic when it is not. Which do you think is the case?

Sorry, I will not dismiss logic for something that is illogical. And your appeal to quantum physics doesn't help, they can't even distinguish between one universe and an infinite number of universes. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's OK. If you are not a scientist, the fuzzy logic of Quantum Physics won't make much difference in your life. Philosophers, especially, have extolled the virtues of black vs white Logic for millennia. And, for all practical purposes, on the macro scale mathematical Logic still holds. But, on the micro scale (foundation) of reality, Logic has a statistical element, which makes it unpredictable. Fortunately, for humans, the uncertainties of Quantum Probabilities tend to average-out to predictable logical physics on the macro level (human scale) of the universe. You seem to be thinking in terms of ideal two-value (true/false) Logic, but in reality, Logic can be multi-valued (maybe). :nerd:

Is quantum mechanics wrong/illogical? :
http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/category/is-quantum-mechanics-wrong-illogical/

Quantum Logic :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic

Fuzzy Logic :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

Fuzzy Logic : Although most human knowledge is uncertain & relative, Langan is confident that his two-value true/false reasoning can lead to absolute Truth. I'm not so sure, but it may be as close to Truth as we can get without divine revelation. All of our normal thinking has to deal with Fuzzy Logic and more-or-less-true statements of fact.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page36.html

Instead Randomness exists as a hidden defect within Determinism. — Gnomon
OK, so there is a defect in the program. — Metaphysician Undercover

My reference to a "defect" was tongue-in-cheek. That's because I think the random & fuzzy element of reality is actually an intentional positive "feature", that allows for FreeWill. If the world functioned according to absolute cause & effect Logic (Determinism), there would be no allowance for deviations from the road to Destiny. Of course, some people have assumed that we are all subject to inevitable Fate, hence their fatalistic cynicism. But I am able to remain optimistic, because I see some maneuvering room within the range of possibilities offered by statistical Probability. :blush:

This contradicts what you said above. Either randomness is a defect in the program, or it is an integral part of the program. It can't be both. — Metaphysician Undercover

In a world of Fuzzy Logic and Quantum Uncertainty, it can be both. Hence, my BothAnd philosophy. You are using two-value (either/or) Logic, while I am using multi-valued (statistical) Logic. Reality is relative, not absolute. :cool:

BothAnd Principle :
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Now you've contradicted your original premise that the program is deterministic, to say now that it is "inherently indeterminate". — Metaphysician Undercover

You forget that I characterized the "program" as offering FreeWill-within-Determinism. Hence, while the overall general path of evolution is predictable (foreordained), local specific elements (you & me) are free to deviate from the program, due to the inherent randomness of the Darwinian process. The actual path is a result of both Randomness (variation) and Selection (choice). Presumably, the evolutionary Programmer intended to allow local divergent paths within the universal deterministic program. Where you see Contradictions, I see Opportunity. Where you see Crisis, I see Choice : a fork in the road. :yum:

Crisis Choice : The Chinese word for "crisis" (simplified Chinese: 危机; traditional Chinese: 危機; pinyin: wēijī, wéijī) is, in Western popular culture, frequently but incorrectly said to be composed of two Chinese characters signifying "danger" (wēi, 危) and "opportunity"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_word_for_%22crisis%22

You didn't answer my question. Either the programmer knows about the indeterminateness, in which case the programmer knows that the system is not deterministic, or the programmer does not know this, in which case the program itself is in error because the programmer thinks the system is deterministic when it is not. Which do you think is the case? — Metaphysician Undercover

As I said before, the Programmer, in my scenario, intentionally -- with full knowledge of the unpredictable consequences -- included a degree of Freedom within He/r otherwise Predestined world program. The empirical evidence for that conclusion can be found in the dualities of the Real World, and the dialectic of History. Some Christians believe in Predestination, because they don't think their rigid absolute God can do anything halfway. It's all or nothing. But for my flexible relative LOGOS, all things are possible (but not everything is actual) : positive & negative ; yes & no ; light & dark ; life & death, good & evil ; either & or . :brow:

Unpredictable Program :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefined_behavior

Historical Dialectic :
Georg Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world itself, often called the "dialectic" : a progression in which each successive movement emerges as a solution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement.
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/ philosophy/history/hegel_philosophy_history.html
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

der to be meaningful to n — Gnomon

Well, this of course assumes we narrow down the discussion of computed answers or solutions our hypothetical computer is capable of to machines that rely on a programmer right?

But is that really any longer the case? Computers that are hardcoded are no different than a classical cash register with mechanical key in many respects and need the human input PLUS their machinery to work. Programs ARE confining for solutions and that's why machine learning was a good idea. It removes the programmer from the equation and also the program, it removes the programming language, and replaces it all with pretty much an optimisation process.

Its limited still I suppose to the capacity of the processors (although obviously the faster or more parallel the processor the faster the model can be trained) , and all that really governs is the 'speed' at which computations are done, not the capacity for computations themselves.

Now is the machine 'free' to make decisions on its own without its origin, or programmers, or other physical baggage getting in the way? Well no, its a physical object in the physical world, governed by the laws of nature... So its not free to do any computation it wants, just the ones confined to the universe we live in. That might seem like no restriction, but it IS a restriction.

So this argument of our hypothetical programmer holds up until around 2008 and then it doesn't any more. It didn't before obviously but you'd need to understand how technology that would arrive in the future was going to work to argue anything else. Add if we top this with quantum computation and no programmers where are we? Its still a 'machine' and likely now freer in scope than a human brain. As far as we know we do not use quantum computation as a primary source of thought. The latest from neuroscience is that the brain is simply a machine where the combined output and system of the agents within it is greater than the sum of those agents. (A complex adaptive system CAS, as opposed to an MAS or multi agent system, like umm... a car or bicycle)

But then where are we...? Well a machine is STILL confined by things a machine can do and the limitations of computation, which are not infinite. Machines do have an absolute top speed of computation and a lowest possible use of energy to carry out a compute. (see Landauer's principle)... and those are fundamental laws of nature we have either discovered or calculated as being so. So this top speed of computation (or rather lowest energy a binary calculation can be performed at) is a limit, if, and only if, the universe itself is not infinite.

However a machine that was maxed out even a few decades from now would be operating many times faster with much higher capacity than any human brain, or likely our entire population and then some. It might not be infinitely free in terms of compute.... but it would be freer than any human is.

And the programmer now, who built this system, has a lower compute capacity, lower knowledge, lower everything than the fruits of his/her labour. It wouldn't matter now how they determined anything or their capacity for doing so.... such a machine would beat them every time and operate at greater levels of freedom. But unless the universe is infinite it can not operate at infinite degrees of freedom. So says the math.... there will always be a limit in a finite universe... hence the word 'finite'.

Now is the machine 'free' to make decisions on its own without its origin, or programmers, or other physical baggage getting in the way? Well no, its a physical object in the physical world, governed by the laws of nature... So its not free to do any computation it wants, just the ones confined to the universe we live in. That might seem like no restriction, but it IS a restriction. — Mick Wright

The machine is confined to its universe. It has a particular physical structure, and this is its confines. There is also the confines of the universe, the universe's physical structure. There is a relationship between these two which we can refer to in describing the machine's capacity for freedom.

So this argument of our hypothetical programmer holds up until around 2008 and then it doesn't any more. It didn't before obviously but you'd need to understand how technology that would arrive in the future was going to work to argue anything else. Add if we top this with quantum computation and no programmers where are we? Its still a 'machine' and likely now freer in scope than a human brain. As far as we know we do not use quantum computation as a primary source of thought. The latest from neuroscience is that the brain is simply a machine where the combined output and system of the agents within it is greater than the sum of those agents. (A complex adaptive system CAS, as opposed to an MAS or multi agent system, like umm... a car or bicycle) — Mick Wright

I don't think we know the physical structure of the universe well enough to make a judgement like that. Furthermore, we don't even know the physical structure of the human being well enough to try to make such a comparison.

However a machine that was maxed out even a few decades from now would be operating many times faster with much higher capacity than any human brain, or likely our entire population and then some. It might not be infinitely free in terms of compute.... but it would be freer than any human is. — Mick Wright

Faster does not imply freer. In reality free will requires preventing occurring activities from having an effect (as efficient cause), and creating the activities deemed necessary. Since there appears to be a stopping and starting of motions involved with free will, we cannot judge faster as freer.

And the programmer now, who built this system, has a lower compute capacity, lower knowledge, lower everything than the fruits of his/her labour. It wouldn't matter now how they determined anything or their capacity for doing so.... such a machine would beat them every time and operate at greater levels of freedom. But unless the universe is infinite it can not operate at infinite degrees of freedom. So says the math.... there will always be a limit in a finite universe... hence the word 'finite'. — Mick Wright

Again, faster does not mean better, so the slower cannot be said to have lower knowledge, and especially not "lower everything". The rest of this paragraph indicates that we do not have enough knowledge about the universe to make the sort of judgements which you are trying to make.

Well, this of course assumes we narrow down the discussion of computed answers or solutions our hypothetical computer is capable of to machines that rely on a programmer right? — Mick Wright

Sorry. I couldn't locate the context of your truncated quote. So I may not understand what "this assumption" refers to. But I'll comment on your notion of eliminating the Programmer from the program running on the "hypothetical computer". The "computer" I was referring to is the universe we live in, and study from an inside-the-system perspective. Hence, we don't know the systemizer or programmer directly. However, we can still infer the logical necessity for a First Cause of the subsequent chain of causation, that began with a Cosmic Bang.

In my analogy, the program was encoded into the Singularity as the Operating System (Laws) of the "computer". Hence, the event we call the "Bang" is equivalent to the Programmer hitting the Enter button to execute the program. After that Act of Creation, the program evolves automatically without direct supervision -- or miraculous intervention. But, an Evolutionary Program, has built-in feedback loops, that have a causal effect on all future computations, due to Self Reference. Even though the program is able to "modify its own instructions", it is still reliant on the Programmer, who intentionally included an algorithm for "self reference".

Applying that notion to the question of FreeWill in deterministic computers, let's look at Commander Data of Star Trek. Data is a robot, but his Positronic Brain is so fast and so smart, that it exceeds the capability of meat brains in almost every way. But his Programmer (Creator) deliberately omitted an Emotion module. So Data couldn't feel love or laugh at a joke. The point here is that the Programmer gave Data the power of FreeWill, so he could act autonomously, almost like a human. But, the missing Emotion algorithm that, in humans, tends to be more powerful than the Reason algorithm, causes Data to act robotic. When an Emotion Chip is added to his program, Data begins to act like a silly foolish human, despite his uncanny powers of Reason.

The moral of this little story, is that the robot was an almost god-like genius. But he was still running the original Operating System provided by the Programmer. Hence, although free & autonomous in most ways, he was still dependent, at the core of his being, on his First Cause. :nerd:

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Self-Reference : In computer programming, self-reference occurs in reflection, where a program can read or modify its own instructions like any other data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference

To caveat the idea of speed... I'm talking about scope for compute, not cycles per second. Computers are now and have been since inception 'faster' than a human brain or any brain... In fact a good family car can travel physically faster than biochemical messages. But speed does also not equal scope of compute capacity. If it did you wouldn't see any research into neuromorphic processors since they operate many times slower than regular processors.

And compute capacity is a measure of freedom. Either that or you'll have to insist you have no degree of freedom at all in terms of free thought. Which I wouldn't argue with since there's no evidence at the moment we do in truth have 'true' freedom to make decisions. But that doesn't mean we do, or don't.

Also its not a thing worthy of much argument since we are all about to find out IF machines truly have a wider scope and freedom to choose on their own. Unless there's some sort of global catastrophe that makes the pandemic look like a bump in the road. Cos its coming right?

"However, we can still infer the logical necessity for a First Cause "

Umm... no actually we can't. We can if its the 19th century and nobody ever heard of quantum physics... but since then... well no you cannot assume a first cause... there are now events without a cause. Admittedly they are at the quantum level... then again the entire universe operates on a quantum level, and certainly the outset of the universe was such. So I'm not sure what 'first cause' you need in a system completely described using quantum stochastic probability.

Hmmm... Mr. Data in Star Trek is also a fictional character right... and that Sci-Fi series ended before machine learning took off. I'm sure it was known by Rodenberry, but certainly not by the creator of the 'positronic' brain in fiction Isaac Asimov. He died long before any sensible demonstration of machine learning.

A machine learning model, as the name suggests is not programmed... a program is I agree immutable. In fact immutable is a term in coding... to describe the fact that often times not just variable but their contents cannot be changed. And a script or compiled program is immutible... but a machine learning model is completely based on mutability... it cannot work without this.

I get it, folks have grown up with this idea that coders (I'm a coder btw) use their skills to tell a machine what to do in a sequence of instructions, and the language they use itself was also designed at some point, and the machine that the program runs on itself was originally a blueprint or set of blueprints and so on.


But with the exception of the fact that you need to feed a machine learning app data, and you need to clean that data to remove any obvious bias (like not giving it only images of white men to teach it what a man is) well... I'm afraid instructions are not how modern machine learning works.

Reading your post its fairly obvious you aren't aware of this, but relax, you aren't alone. Most people out there have no clue how a modern AI works and they too think it was 'programmed' using instructions. Its not.

If you are interested I looked up a simple explanation of it here -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpOLiDyhNUA

There are no instructions in a machine learning app or model. Instead it uses a natural process of optimisation starting at a random state to derive a solution. That process is more one of a natural optimisation process. One solution obviously... not THE solution since there might be many possible outcomes. In fact theoretically what a modern machine learning app does could be replicated using a pencil and paper and you wouldn't need to 'think' about what you'd be doing at all... it'd just take you millions of years to do what the machine does in a few seconds. Better every time you'd do this, assuming you lived several million years, well you'd get a different output. Its a system that also reacts to its environment.

This also means that data scientists cannot simply 'debug' a machine learning model. If it fails its literally back to the drawing board going over the learning data it was fed. So programmers smogammers... thats so last century.

Reading your post its fairly obvious you aren't aware of this, but relax, you aren't alone. Most people out there have no clue how a modern AI works and they too think it was 'programmed' using instructions. Its not. — Mick Wright

I doubt that you really believe that Artificial Intelligence computers require no programmers. Instead, I assume you are referring to their "self-learning" algorithms. But I'm not aware of any AI, that wrote its own core code. Likewise, 21st century physicists can no longer assume that the universe is self-existent. Instead, they accept, as an axiom, that Natural Laws, and the Energy to apply them, were pre-existent. Of course, they deny the need for a Programmer by assuming, without evidence, that the Energy & Laws, that run on our space-time machine, are eternal --- running endlessly in a beginning-less series of multiverses.

My personal model of the physical universe (the computer + core code + feedback loops), includes the ability for self-learning. It's based on the concept of Evolutionary Programming, where the computer produces random alternatives (mutations of original code), and selects the "fittest" entities based on criteria input by the Programmer into the operating system. For our universe, those criteria were Laws of Nature, and Initial Conditions. All of the subsequent forms (sub-systems ; species) were variations on the original archetypes coded into the Big Bang. :nerd:

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Criteria : benchmarks ; norms ; principles ; laws ; archetypes ; paradigms ; patterns

Universe imagined as a Computer : http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160901-we-might-live-in-a-computer-program-but-it-may-not-matter

Then why is it surprising that it rained in the Sahara and not that it rained in Oxford?
— TheMadFool

As I pointed out, the surprisingness is only related to external information concerning the frequency of rain in these places, it has nothing to do with any supposed information within the message. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course. The difference between information and meaning. No message provides the complete background necessary to make the information in the message meaningful. All messages assume the intended receiver already has at least a certain level of understanding of one or more topics. The sender need not explain what rain is, that the Sahara is a desert, or what a desert is.

But i found this thread because I'm listening to Anil Seth’s Being You: A New Science of Consciousness on my commute. I only heard of Claude Shannon a few months ago because posts here lead me to Barbieri, who writes about him, and now it seems he’s in every book I pick up. Seth wrote:

In this view, the “what-it-is-like-ness” of any specific conscious experience is defined not so much by what it is, but by all the unrealized but possible things that it is not. An experience of pure redness is the way that it is, not because of any intrinsic property of “redness,” but because red is not blue, green, or any other color, or any smell, or a thought or a feeling of regret or indeed any other form of mental content whatsoever. Redness is redness because of all the things it isn’t, and the same goes for all other conscious experiences. — Seth

Can someone explain this to me? Because it seems to me he's trying to apply (what little i know of) Shannon's work (and big thank you to for your posts in this thread) in ways he shouldn't. Maybe everyone does, and I'm only beginning to learn about all this. It seems to me I could communicate that i had an experience of pure redness in this way. But that's not the same as this being the nature of the experience. What if I had never seen the colors blue or green? My experience of pure red could not be the way it is because it is not colors i have never seen. It could only be because of the intrinsic property of "redness."

About Shannon's theory - I can't help but feel too much is being read into it. Shannon was a communications engineer, first and foremost, and the problem he set out to solve had some very specific boundary conditions. It was a theory about converting words and images into binary digits - as the article notes, Shannon might have coined the term 'bit' for 'binary digit' - and transmitting them through a medium. Why it is now taken to have a profound meaning about the nature of reality baffles me a little. — Wayfarer

Perhaps you agree?

Yes, agree. Anil Seth is still rather too 'scientistic' for my liking, the 'hard problem' is not a problem to be solved, but a rhetorical device to point out the limitations of objectivism in philosophy.

That said, I love Claude Shannon, in the OP there's a reference to a documentary about him, which I watched back then https://thebitplayer.com/ . He was really a genius polymath engineer and also an endearingly eccentric individual.

Yes, I saw The Bit Player a couple months ago. Enjoyed it. Shannon seems to be the most important person nobody ever heard of.