Pei,
I assumed your system is determinisitc from your posts, not your papers. So
I'm still really, genuinely confused by your position. You didn't actually
answer my question (unless I've missed something in all these posts) re how
your system could "have a choice" and yet not be arbitrary at all.
Listen, you can define your system any which way you like. Why not do it
simply and directly? A free system can decide at a given point, either of
two or multiple ways, - in my example, to Buy, Sell or Hold. A deterministic
system at that same point, will have only one option. It will have, say, to
decide to Sell. Which is your system? (Philosophers may argue till the end
of time about what is/ isn't compatibilist, incompatibilisit, etc etc but
they won't define "free" and "determined" decisionmaking any differently).
To answer your question,
"how do you know that the
human mind is not deterministic in this sense? Just because you don't
know a complex set of algorithms that can explain its behaviors?"
Yes, it is not impossible that there is some extremely complex set of
determinisitic algorithms that explains everything. It is not impossible
that we are all a simulation on a computer run by some advanced
civilisation. (How do you know that we are not?) But there is NO EVIDENCE
whatsoever that human behaviour does fall into deterministic patterns - no
laws of scientific behaviour, despite hundreds of years of trying. No one
can provide the slightest indication of what such a complex set of
algorithms might be. And a nondeterministic programming explanation is
basically simple. And fits the "crazy" evidence and much more. And -
Occam's Razor - which kind of explanation should science go with?
Re:
"Wrong. NARS often needs to work hard to decide "between different
goals, tasks, axioms and algorithms", and is not always successful in
doing that."
thanks for clarifying. But presumably once it is either successful or a
failure in deciding its priorities, then its priorities are fixed? And is
therefore determined, or not?
Nor do I understand how or why your system could or would be deterministic
and yet behave crazily like my dieting woman example for the whole of its
life. By all means explain or point me to the passage in your work where you
explain this. (Remember also re human, crazy behaviour that we're talking
about people behaving in fundamentally self-contradictory ways - oscillating
from what they consider "virtuous" to "vicious" behaviour their entire
lives. I trust you will agree that this happens a great deal)..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pei Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] The Advantages of a Conscious Mind
On 5/6/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pei,
I don't think there's any confusion here. Your system as you describe it
IS
deterministic. Whether an observer might be confused by it is irrelevant.
Equally the fact that it is determined by a complex set of algorithms
applying to various tasks and domains and not by one task-specific
algorithm, is also irrelevant. It's still deterministic.
OK, let's use the word in this way. Then how do you know that the
human mind is not deterministic in this sense? Just because you don't
know a complex set of algorithms that can explain its behaviors?
The point, presumably, is that your system has a clear set of priorities
in
deciding between different goals, tasks, axioms and algorithms
Wrong. NARS often needs to work hard to decide "between different
goals, tasks, axioms and algorithms", and is not always successful in
doing that.
You confused "the algorithms in a system that make it work" with
"algorithms defined with respect to problem classes".
Humans don't. Humans are still trying to work out what they really want,
and
what their priorities are between, for example, the different activities
of
their life, between work, sex, friendship, love, family etc. etc. Humans
are
designed to be in conflict about their fundamental goals throughout their
lives. And that, I would contend, is GOOD design, and essential for their
success and survival.
Agree, but the same description is true for NARS, in principle.
If there's any confusion, think about many women and dieting. They will
be
confronted by much the same decisions about whether to eat or not to eat
on
possibly thousands of occasions throughout their lives. And over and
over,
throughout their entire lives, they will - freely - decide now this way,
now that. Yo-yoing on and off their diets. Your system, as I understand
it,
would never do that - would never act in such crazy, mixed up,
contradictory
ways.
Your understanding about NARS is completely wrong. Can you tell me
which publications of mine give you this impression? Or you simple
assume that all "deterministic" systems must behave in this way?
Pei
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database:
269.6.4/790 - Release Date: 05/05/2007 10:34
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
