Book 2 – Page 73

[sleepymancer]

Free will is not negated just because there exists some environmental influence.

How pedantic.

Every time I talk about the environment, I specifically state that we're talking about an environment in which mathematical equations are replacing conscious choice. If that's happening in Erfworld, that *IS* the environment making changes to your decisions.

But Kreistor, pedantism is what we do here in the MK!

It does seem very difficult to balance free will and traits/environment. I agree that if 'choice' is a process wherein a trait value is randomly rolled against then the decision to make or break is not a matter of individual will.

Extending, a little beyond that, I wonder if, within the parameters of Erfworld, the decision to increase or decrease one's loyalty trait, as a response to narrative circumstances, could have scope for free will within it? Likewise, I wonder if the choice to make the roll against the loyalty trait itself would count as free will (assuming that the roll was checked as a personal choice rather than at the instigation of another)?

Of course, Erfworld is a game-like situation, and 'dice' need people to choose to roll them. Free will, as such would be the choice of the player; but of course in the narrative game environment (speaking as a seasoned storyteller/gamesmaster) players often only roll at the GMs instigation.

Not sure where that would put us.

[MarbitChow]

Every time I talk about the environment, I specifically state that we're talking about an environment in which mathematical equations are replacing conscious choice. If that's happening in Erfworld, that *IS* the environment making changes to your decisions.

Sorry, I must have missed your assumption that Erfworld had a computer simulation layer on top of the 'organic' layer.
I don't believe that there is any such process taking place in Erfworld, but I do believe that there is a Loyalty stat, and that Erfworld is actively manipulating it's inhabitants.
I'll grant that your free will vs. random stat roll argument is valid, but I disagree with it's underlying assumption.

Edited for clarity: I don't think that Erfworld's 'computer model' is ever *replacing* choice. I do think it's heavily influencing it, as I've stated, and it uses arbitrary 'stats' to determine (pseudo-impartially) how much influence to exert.
I think Erfworld made Ansom love Wanda, and I think Jillian and Ossomer exerted free will. I don't see these events as contradictory. I think Ansom is weaker-willed than his brothers or Jillian.

[Chit Rule Railroad]

And that's the inconsistency in how Loyalty is discussed and how it is treated in Erfworld. If it is a random die roll, then the Unit has no control over the choice. But it is treated as if the Unit chose, in which case it's not random.

That depends on whether you locate the die as being part of or separate from the unit. It's the same thing on Earth - if someone makes a decision, no degree of predictability or unconsciousness in that process changes who made the decision.

Blaming the unit for the roll of his die would be irrational if the die is known to be truly random, but (A) that kind of superstition is empirically common among Earth gamers, (B) there is no way for observers to separate the die roll from the unknown modifiers affecting it (potentially including stateful modifiers that are influenced by previous, secret dice rolls - a D&D example would be someone getting a circumstance bonus on opposing a Bluff check because his Spot check revealed a disguise), and (C) how would anyone know that the die is not loaded?

[drachefly]

To "translate" what Kreistor said (rather, make sure I understand correctly) a "(game) stat" exists at the atomic (as in, fundamental, indivisible) level mechanism, whereas the equivalent thing on Earth would be the result of a multitude of interactions at some "lower" level, and as such, more awkward to put in numbers when only one individual is present.

Noooo... in the Real World, we make decisions based on whatever decision making process we use. Some people really do flip a coin to make a decision that they can't figure out which option they prefer. But that is the choice to put randomness in charge. The decision making process isn't environmental, it is mental. Some people do it on gut feel, but just as many do it on a careful analysis of the costs and benefits of each choice.

I have no idea how this is supposed to be disagreeing with BLAND's characterization.

Since they can't see it, if Loyalty was a rating, it's not used and is irrelevant.

You're joking, right? Things that aren't obvious don't exist, is what you seem to be saying here.

[Kreistor]

To "translate" what Kreistor said (rather, make sure I understand correctly) a "(game) stat" exists at the atomic (as in, fundamental, indivisible) level mechanism, whereas the equivalent thing on Earth would be the result of a multitude of interactions at some "lower" level, and as such, more awkward to put in numbers when only one individual is present.

I have no idea how this is supposed to be disagreeing with BLAND's characterization.

Because it's not a "lower level" interaction. Making decisions is high level brain function. Bland is implying that everyone chooses based on their gut feel, and while some do, many others weight the costs and benefits, and choose according to a rational thought process.

[Oberon]

Heh. Looks like Parson can say "shit" in the Magic Kingdom.

Parson can say shit anyplace he fucking wants to say shit. This isn't the Playground anymore, son. It hasn't been for a very long time.

But yeah, Ossomer turned. So... Next time a dwagon decides to take a stab at Stanley, or an archon decides that Charlie isn't all that much of an orgasm engine for her, we have precedent.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Because {conscious, deliberate decision is} not a "lower level" interaction. Making decisions is high level brain function. Bland is implying that everyone chooses based on their gut feel, and while some do, many others weight the costs and benefits, and choose according to a rational thought process.

That's not what I imply. What I imply, rather, is that low brain function or high brain function, it's all particles bumping into each other in the end. And even that may not be the final picture. What I'm saying is that phenomena on Earth that have a complex structure, with many interacting parts, would be simplified in a game by aggregating all those interactions into one number.

[Chit Rule Railroad]

I'm wondering if Wanda is now incapacitated, and if, because of that, the decrypted would have lost her bonus even if she had stayed in Spacerock.

[Kreistor]

Because {conscious, deliberate decision is} not a "lower level" interaction. Making decisions is high level brain function. Bland is implying that everyone chooses based on their gut feel, and while some do, many others weight the costs and benefits, and choose according to a rational thought process.

That's not what I imply. What I imply, rather, is that low brain function or high brain function, it's all particles bumping into each other in the end. And even that may not be the final picture. What I'm saying is that phenomena on Earth that have a complex structure, with many interacting parts, would be simplified in a game by aggregating all those interactions into one number.

Nice pet theory. Completely denies the entire psychology discipline, the way our brain operates, self-awareness, the existence of a soul, and a half-dozen other belief systems. I personally think your theory is full of so much S*** I'm not even considering it worthy of debate, just derision. I just flat out say, "That's just obviously wrong and you have no chance of proving it, and the gum on the bottom of my shoe is worth more to mankind."

[BLANDCorporatio]

Wow.

I think someone hijacked Kreistor's account and used it to post a very ill-conceived message. To wit,

Nice pet theory {that about particles bumping into each other}. Completely denies the entire psychology discipline

Nope, any more than physics denies chemistry, or chemistry biology, or biology psychology, or "electrons sloshing about" denies (the value of) computer science.

{denies}the way our brain operates, self-awareness, the existence of a soul, and a half-dozen other belief systems.

It's funny how you ignore me saying "that {the particles thing} may not even be the final picture", and ignore the meat of the issue in favour of the words. Is the soul, whatever the concept, indivisible? Is there no such thing as several memories in every mind, several desires, several fears, several thoughts, several dreams, a multitude of complexity? Call it whatever you like, the mind, or soul, is not the simplest level, that of indivisibles.

I personally think your theory is full of so much S*** I'm not even considering it worthy of debate, just derision.

And I think you're Kreistor's little brother, intent on sounding smart on the internet. It's not that worthy a purpose.

I just flat out say, "That's just obviously wrong and you have no chance of proving it, and the gum on the bottom of my shoe is worth more to mankind."

You really shouldn't ask your parents to buy gum that expensive. They may not say it to your face, but it really hurts the family finances.

[Ptharien's Flame]

Nice pet theory. Completely denies the entire psychology discipline, the way our brain operates, self-awareness, the existence of a soul, and a half-dozen other belief systems. I personally think your theory is full of so much S*** I'm not even considering it worthy of debate, just derision. I just flat out say, "That's just obviously wrong and you have no chance of proving it, and the gum on the bottom of my shoe is worth more to mankind."

No, I don't think you understand what Bland is saying here. Bland's point is akin to what I and many others say about computers. Just because they are deterministic and (relatively) simple at their cores doesn't mean that they are incapable of nondeterminism and "decision-making" as abstractions at a higher level. I (and I think Bland would agree) would say the same is true of humans, or of anything else, really.

Edit: Bland seems to have responded in kind before I had finished typing

[Kreistor]

Wow.

I think someone hijacked Kreistor's account and used it to post a very ill-conceived message. To wit,

No. I see so many foolish theories, that sometimes I just don't bother debating them.

Nice pet theory {that about particles bumping into each other}. Completely denies the entire psychology discipline

Nope, any more than physics denies chemistry, or chemistry biology, or biology psychology, or "electrons sloshing about" denies (the value of) computer science.

Nice claim. No proof. Ignored.

Oh, and BTW, when replacing statements inside quotes, the correct punctuation is [square brackets], not (round). Its also RUDE when unnecessary, like this.

{denies}the way our brain operates, self-awareness, the existence of a soul, and a half-dozen other belief systems.

It's funny how you ignore me saying "that {the particles thing} may not even be the final picture", and ignore the meat of the issue in favour of the words. Is the soul, whatever the concept, indivisible? Is there no such thing as several memories in every mind, several desires, several fears, several thoughts, several dreams, a multitude of complexity? Call it whatever you like, the mind, or soul, is not the simplest level, that of indivisibles.

An incomplete theory is not worthy of debate. When you've got the theory nailed down with the appropriate quotes and scientific evidence, I'll consider it. I know you'll never have that, so I'll be waiting forever.

I personally think your theory is full of so much S*** I'm not even considering it worthy of debate, just derision.

And I think you're Kreistor's little brother, intent on sounding smart on the internet. It's not that worthy a purpose.

No, I just think that you've done absolutely no investigation into this at all. You've picked up on low level brain chemistry (and only maybe) and somehow think that's all the brain is. It is far more complex, reusing pathways for many purposes, making them highly adaptable and non-deterministic on the low level, much less the high... and yet they retrieve the same result to recurring inputs.

I just flat out say, "That's just obviously wrong and you have no chance of proving it, and the gum on the bottom of my shoe is worth more to mankind."

You really shouldn't ask your parents to buy gum that expensive. They may not say it to your face, but it really hurts the family finances.

No, your theory is completely useless, and I mean that literally. It has been suggested in the past, and brain studies have shown that the mind cannot be reduced to the neuron level. Our thoughts are complex interactions of concepts, not impulses, that are far more than the sum of the electrical processes that are involved. We simply cannot reduce the human mind to a sum of neuochemistry reactions.

And that is why the computer as we have designed it will never be truly self-aware. Our own thought process is so complex that it still requires study, and we have barely scratched that surface, so reproducing it inside an electrical machine is simply a pipe dream at this time. I know computer scientists try to claim differently, but that only demonstrates their faith in mathematics, and demonstrates taht they have done little study into the actual psychology they are trying to emulate.

We can simulate things that humans do in computers... but in the end all they can do is perform complex mathematics that we develop. We can simulate human behavior with complex mathematics, but that does not make the result a mind.

[BLANDCorporatio]

The hijacking continues.

Nope, any more than physics denies chemistry, or chemistry biology, or biology psychology, or "electrons sloshing about" denies (the value of) computer science.

Nice claim. No proof. Ignored.

This statement convinces me that you are trolling. Do I really need to prove that physics underlies chemistry underlies biology etc, and that this devalues none of the sciences mentioned? Therefore, regardless of what magic force you believe causes the mind to function, an appeal to a more basic level does not undermine other disciplines like psychology?

That's almost like requiring me to teach you English.

An incomplete theory is not worthy of debate. When you've got the theory nailed down with the appropriate quotes and scientific evidence, I'll consider it. I know you'll never have that, so I'll be waiting forever.

This is another statement that just trolls for insults. How on Earth do you expect scientific theories develop, if not through debate, experiment, interpretation of results? To claim that the only theory worthy of discussion is a complete one is ludicrous.

And disingenuous, as you yourself provide none.

No, I just think that you've done absolutely no investigation into this at all. You've picked up on low level brain chemistry (and only maybe) and somehow think that's all the brain is. It is far more complex, reusing pathways for many purposes, making them highly adaptable and non-deterministic on the low level, much less the high... and yet they retrieve the same result to recurring inputs.

{snip} brain studies have shown that the mind cannot be reduced to the neuron level. Our thoughts are complex interactions of concepts, not impulses, that are far more than the sum of the electrical processes that are involved. We simply cannot reduce the human mind to a sum of neuochemistry reactions.

It's worth remembering where this pissing contest started from. We both agreed (!!) that in Erfworld, it appeared that the sum total of a unit's soul is a couple of stats and a die, basically. Whereas on Earth, all decisions are results of complex interactions between ___________ <- and you can fit whatever you want here.

Jesus Christ, must we agree so violently?

Of course when it comes to the specifics of the what to put in the gap, we'd disagree. On one side, there's me and whoever studies the mind professionally (like neuropsychologists, for example), who put forth a testable model, that allows prediction, failure, improvement, and on the other you (and others, I know), putting forth- nothing.

Yet, by claiming the mind IS NOT a chemical, or physical, or even mathematical phenomenon, but without venturing what it IS, you have the gall to chastise others for not providing a complete theory.

Congratulations. It's a successful troll.

[Kreistor]

The hijacking continues.

Nope, any more than physics denies chemistry, or chemistry biology, or biology psychology, or "electrons sloshing about" denies (the value of) computer science.

Nice claim. No proof. Ignored.

This statement convinces me that you are trolling. Do I really need to prove that physics underlies chemistry underlies biology etc, and that this devalues none of the sciences mentioned? Therefore, regardless of what magic force you believe causes the mind to function, an appeal to a more basic level does not undermine other disciplines like psychology?

You have a theory about how the mind works. Either you invented it or you based it on science. You've made generalized claims, but at no time referenced any material to back your position. Until I see the science you are basing your opinion on, you're just spouting a pet theory, and I'm npot wasting my time on someone that can't even crack open a basic psych text.

I consider your position to be obviously flawed, because it denies the possibility of self-awareness. For that, I suggest reading "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" (a Pulitzer winner) that demonstrated that transistor based machines cannot become self-aware. Marvelous and fun read that I recommend to anyone in late high school or older. Hard to find, though, since it was written in the mid-80's.

An incomplete theory is not worthy of debate. When you've got the theory nailed down with the appropriate quotes and scientific evidence, I'll consider it. I know you'll never have that, so I'll be waiting forever.

This is another statement that just trolls for insults. How on Earth do you expect scientific theories develop, if not through debate, experiment, interpretation of results? To claim that the only theory worthy of discussion is a complete one is ludicrous.

No, you stated that the theory was not complete, which means its a work in progress, and you could still find the flaws on your own. It also means you didn't get it from a reputable source, and is your own invention, in which case you need to cite source material. I really don't care about your opinion of the mind, if it's based only only anecdotal evidence, when real studies are out there to discuss.

And disingenuous, as you yourself provide none.

I'm countering your theory, not presenting my own. I'm asking for citation to prove your case. If you can't provide that, then I don't need to waste time providing citation to disprove it. It's false on its face until you cite evidence.

The only important thing to me is that there is Free Will, which I'm pretty certain I don't need to prove. I don't need to prove or disprove a mechanism whereby we have Free WIll: that we have it is all I need. Everyone reading knows that they have Free Will, so I can rely on everyone to provide their own evidence.

No, I just think that you've done absolutely no investigation into this at all. You've picked up on low level brain chemistry (and only maybe) and somehow think that's all the brain is. It is far more complex, reusing pathways for many purposes, making them highly adaptable and non-deterministic on the low level, much less the high... and yet they retrieve the same result to recurring inputs.

{snip} brain studies have shown that the mind cannot be reduced to the neuron level. Our thoughts are complex interactions of concepts, not impulses, that are far more than the sum of the electrical processes that are involved. We simply cannot reduce the human mind to a sum of neuochemistry reactions.

It's worth remembering where this pissing contest started from.

Yes, from your statement that the mind can be reduced to low level interactions.

We both agreed (!!) that in Erfworld, it appeared that the sum total of a unit's soul is a couple of stats and a die, basically. Whereas on Earth, all decisions are results of complex interactions between ___________ <- and you can fit whatever you want here.

I AGREED TO NO SUCH THING!

I have stated from the start that Lo0yalty, Duty, and Obedience are *NOT* Stats, which denies ANY agreement with the above statement. I have stated that Erfworlders view it from a Stats perspective, because Stats are a part of their world, but as a theoretical stat, with no identifiable mechanism that uses Loyalty to influence a Unit's choice to Turn. With no evidence of randomness in non-magically influenced Turning, there is no Game Mechanic for a Loyalty stat to be used as an input to. That means that Turning is a matter of Free Will, not game mechanics.

Jesus Christ, must we agree so violently?

When you LIE about me and my opinions, add your statements into my own quotes, and use other nefarious techniques? WE WILL DISAGREE EXTREMELY VIOLENTLY. And you think that I'm the troll? I'm not putting words in your mouth, not perverting your quotes with inserted statements, and am playing fair. I haven't even used a curse, which you conveniently did last message.

On one side, there's me and whoever studies the mind professionally (like neuropsychologists, for example), who put forth a testable model, that allows prediction, failure, improvement, and on the other you (and others, I know), putting forth- nothing.

Where? I see no citation of such studies in your text. Another lie.

Yet, by claiming the mind IS NOT a chemical, or physical, or even mathematical phenomenon, but without venturing what it IS, you have the gall to chastise others for not providing a complete theory.

I don't need to explain what it is. I know that studies on the mind are still in their infancy, and neuroscientists tell us their field is barely beginning. I know that psychology is so complex, it changes every few years. Studies of the mind are not conclusive, except on the understanding that the mind is extremely complex.

Congratulations. It's a successful troll.

Yes, my whole purpose was to get you to lie, cheat, and curse. I get all my jollies out fo such reactions.

I'd really rather have citation of the science behind your theory. I know you can't, because I know it doesn't exist.

[Ptharien's Flame]

I'd really rather have citation of the science behind your theory. I know you can't, because I know it doesn't exist.

I don't know about BLAND's position, but I have sources.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/weakmemory/tarball-spec-public/alldoc.pdf
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/fc-tr.pdf
The former paper describes the concrete, deterministic system upon which the abstract "high-level" semantics described by the latter paper are entirely built. The latter system (System FC) has been proven to be strictly more powerful than a Turing machine, thus actually proving that computers (at least those with an x86 processor) are capable of being self-aware .

[BLANDCorporatio]

Kreistor, my patience with you will only sustain one more post, because I do believe you just troll, and my time, as Mr. Jobs told us once, is limited.

I see you mention "Goedel Escher Bach" as your science. Funnily enough, I read that book too. And your memory of it is bunk (also, I have access to said book in a shelf somewhere and if need be I can back my interpretation of it with page numbers and paragraph quotes; bad choice of misdirection on your part). The book precisely goes against the interpretation you say, that "transistor machines cannot be self-aware". Not only is a big theme of the book that strange loops are common, it devotes an entire chapter to refuting Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's new mind", which is closer to your view ...

Only that one isn't either, because Penrose allows Quantum Mechanical phenomena to describe what brings the mind into existence.

And if you cite "Godel Escher Bach" as a a science resource, me citing any of Daniel C Dennett's works is an answer in kind. Dennett, who said "we have a soul; it's made of tiny robots".

Another source for an overview on the science of mind is Steven Pinker. I don't much like evo psych myself, but unlike you I don't presume to claim that it's not there, or is unscientific in principle.

Two more things-

When you LIE about me and my opinions, add your statements into my own quotes, and use other nefarious techniques? WE WILL DISAGREE EXTREMELY VIOLENTLY.

I think you have no idea what you're saying, as in, you forgot what you said a few posts ago. Like drachefly said, there is no contradiction between what you first said and an interaction between parts, which is what I "translated".

I don't need to explain what it is. I know that studies on the mind are still in their infancy, and neuroscientists tell us their field is barely beginning. I know that psychology is so complex, it changes every few years. Studies of the mind are not conclusive, except on the understanding that the mind is extremely complex.

So you cling to some magical, unexplainable view, whilst demanding that others bring you a complete scientific picture, all the while denying that people devoted to constructing such a view even exist!

And then say with a trollface, I presume, that I'm being deceitful. You're funny. Let's all laugh and that was that. My case here is done, but I honestly think you were not worth the trouble.

[BLANDCorporatio]

I'd really rather have citation of the science behind your theory. I know you can't, because I know it doesn't exist.

I don't know about BLAND's position, but I have sources.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/weakmemory/tarball-spec-public/alldoc.pdf
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/fc-tr.pdf
The former paper describes the concrete, deterministic system upon which the abstract "high-level" semantics described by the latter paper are entirely built. The latter system (System FC) has been proven to be strictly more powerful than a Turing machine, thus actually proving that computers (at least those with an x86 processor) are capable of being self-aware .

Thank you Ptharien's Flame, that's an informative contribution, but:

1) This won't please Kreistor. It is the nature of scientific papers that they limit their scope to something manageable in a study. No one study will provide the complete theory he seeks, even extensive ones.

2) He cites pop-sci as reference for his position (and popsci that doesn't support it, at that). One doesn't need to go to the real stuff in these conditions.

3) He really isn't worth debating.

[Ptharien's Flame]

Thank you Ptharien's Flame, that's an informative contribution

You're welcome!

but:

1) This won't please Kreistor. It is the nature of scientific papers that they limit their scope to something manageable in a study. No one study will provide the complete theory he seeks, even extensive ones.

I was hoping to be a bit more conclusive on that score, since those are mathematical proofs I cite, not studies.

2) He cites pop-sci as reference for his position (and popsci that doesn't support it, at that). One doesn't need to go to the real stuff in these conditions.

What? Pop-sci isn't the real stuff???

3) He really isn't worth debating.

You may be debating with or against someone, but not just debating them. Nonetheless, I fully agree with this sentiment.

[Kreistor]

I'd really rather have citation of the science behind your theory. I know you can't, because I know it doesn't exist.

I don't know about BLAND's position, but I have sources.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/weakmemory/tarball-spec-public/alldoc.pdf
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/fc-tr.pdf
The former paper describes the concrete, deterministic system upon which the abstract "high-level" semantics described by the latter paper are entirely built. The latter system (System FC) has been proven to be strictly more powerful than a Turing machine, thus actually proving that computers (at least those with an x86 processor) are capable of being self-aware .

And Bland is sort of right. your System F paper doesn't actually discuss self-awareness, and discusses only how to implement an extension to "System F" that can help solve some programming problems. If it has been used to create a program that can pass the Turing Test (which I agree is inadequate, since question-response intelligence can be faked... Eliza would have passed some variants of Turing) I'd prefer to see that paper. I'm not going to be programming with System F, so that specific paper you cited isn't useful. I need to see the one where they discuss System F and self-awareness, and how the psychologists and philosophers reacted to this representation of self-awareness. Or at least where they talk about System F having gone past Turing. A description of how to extend some undescribed System F doesn't really give evidence that System F achieved what you claimed, does it?

But still, it's not necessary. I know that computer scientists are happily punching in code to try to make a self-aware program, as they have for decades. That they are creating more advanced and capable programs isn't actually evidence that self-awareness is achievable.

And then say with a trollface, I presume, that I'm being deceitful.

Again with the characterizations. Is that particularly wise?

I think you have no idea what you're saying, as in, you forgot what you said a few posts ago.

Then why didn't you quote me? You spent all that time typing, when you could have just quoted me and nailed me. You can't quote me because you're lying.

It's not Trolling to catch an opponent lying.

[Sieggy]

Somehow I hope Rob figures out a way of working a vengeful band of billygoats into the plot that demolishes the troll lurking beneath the Expository Bridge of Death who demands that crossing travelers answer these questions three ere the other side they see . . . and that said questions involve definitions of self consciousness. t'would warm the cockles of me heart . . .