John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Good to see you coming around, JP. The only mystery now is why you want to call something so impersonal, unconscious and lacking forethought "free will".

Traditional historical usage - i.e. it's what the term means.

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

romansh wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
We could say that it becomes so obscured that you can get away with thinking it's free. Or we could suppose that the more constraints you can identify the better you are able to sind your way. I wouldn't call that free will, but I think JP would, as, perhaps, would David McC. It's a somewhat odd idea that free will is optimisation or error minimisation.

I don't think we have any disagreement that is substantive.

And I understand we can have any phenomena defined. Now personally I find it really annoying that common words like souls, angels and even knowledge get redefined and as a consequence any discussion is mired between common and specialist uses. The problem is JP does this ... I don't know whether he realizes how annoying it is (at least to me).

The question that JP and to be fair others avoid is can this error minimization or optimization happened otherwise? And again I am not asking whether we can envisage other error minima or optima ... because plainly we can at times.

This is a question many if not a large majority of compatibilists do not answer.

Happened otherwise? As in could I have acted otherwise? Any optimisation can be seen as finding a peak, or trough that is the best result in the given condition. It is defined by the conditions and what counts as "best". If time and resources allowed we can imagine a exhaustive search for the optimum being as inevitable as a ball rolling down hill. In practice exhaustive search is not possible. It takes too long to be useful, so we can get stuck in local minima. So we could say that which of several possible minima are found depends on the conditions and how they are searched, which is all initial conditions. Given identical conditions we should expect the same minima to be found every time. JP likes to imagine his program is generating creative output, but it's search for minima in the input data. Given the same input it will produce the same output every time, just like the PRNG. What it "creates" is determined by what's there in the input code and data.

I've already demonstrated in this thread how a PRNG can produce different results every time it is run. My program is no more predictable than I am. The only way to know what it, or I will do, is to set up the exact conditions and "run" us.

archibald wrote:

John Platko wrote:Why is it ok for a term like Atom to be endlessly redefined to fit the best understanding of physical reality we have but terms like: soul, and angel must remain as they were conceived thousands of years ago without the benefit of what we now know and without the advantage of the modes of explanation we now have available?

Er...because the term still today has widespread meaning as something else?

John, if I were unable, like you, to shake off the sticky bits of religion, then I too might enjoy trying to rehabilitate its woo language. As it is, I don't.

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

romansh wrote:

I don't think we have any disagreement that is substantive.

And I understand we can have any phenomena defined. Now personally I find it really annoying that common words like souls, angels and even knowledge get redefined and as a consequence any discussion is mired between common and specialist uses. The problem is JP does this ... I don't know whether he realizes how annoying it is (at least to me).

The question that JP and to be fair others avoid is can this error minimization or optimization happened otherwise? And again I am not asking whether we can envisage other error minima or optima ... because plainly we can at times.

This is a question many if not a large majority of compatibilists do not answer.

Happened otherwise? As in could I have acted otherwise? Any optimisation can be seen as finding a peak, or trough that is the best result in the given condition. It is defined by the conditions and what counts as "best". If time and resources allowed we can imagine a exhaustive search for the optimum being as inevitable as a ball rolling down hill. In practice exhaustive search is not possible. It takes too long to be useful, so we can get stuck in local minima. So we could say that which of several possible minima are found depends on the conditions and how they are searched, which is all initial conditions. Given identical conditions we should expect the same minima to be found every time. JP likes to imagine his program is generating creative output, but it's search for minima in the input data. Given the same input it will produce the same output every time, just like the PRNG. What it "creates" is determined by what's there in the input code and data.

I've already demonstrated in this thread how a PRNG can produce different results every time it is run. My program is no more predictable than I am. The only way to know what it, or I will do, is to set up the exact conditions and "run" us.

No you haven't. We have both illustrated the opposite. PRNGs produce exactly the same sequence every time for any given initial condition.
I already pointed out your mixing up human subjective knowledge (somebody finding out what the PRNG sequence is for a particular seed) and the concept of objective knowledge (what defines the sequence irrespective of whether anyone knows it subjectively). How many times must I repeat it before you get the point?

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Happened otherwise? As in could I have acted otherwise? Any optimisation can be seen as finding a peak, or trough that is the best result in the given condition. It is defined by the conditions and what counts as "best". If time and resources allowed we can imagine a exhaustive search for the optimum being as inevitable as a ball rolling down hill. In practice exhaustive search is not possible. It takes too long to be useful, so we can get stuck in local minima. So we could say that which of several possible minima are found depends on the conditions and how they are searched, which is all initial conditions. Given identical conditions we should expect the same minima to be found every time. JP likes to imagine his program is generating creative output, but it's search for minima in the input data. Given the same input it will produce the same output every time, just like the PRNG. What it "creates" is determined by what's there in the input code and data.

I've already demonstrated in this thread how a PRNG can produce different results every time it is run. My program is no more predictable than I am. The only way to know what it, or I will do, is to set up the exact conditions and "run" us.

No you haven't. We have both illustrated the opposite. PRNGs produce exactly the same sequence every time for any given initial condition.
I already pointed out your mixing up human subjective knowledge (somebody finding out what the PRNG sequence is for a particular seed) and the concept of objective knowledge (what defines the sequence irrespective of whether anyone knows it subjectively). How many times must I repeat it before you get the point?

What do you mean by initial conditions of a program?

To me, the initial conditions are all the specifications presented at the time I hit "run."

Code: Select all

random.seed()

Code: Select all

initial = random.getstate()
random.setstate(initial)

John Platko wrote:

rom wrote:

The question that JP and to be fair others avoid is can this error minimization or optimization happened otherwise? And again I am not asking whether we can envisage other error minima or optima ... because plainly we can at times.

This is a question many if not a large majority of compatibilists do not answer.

I'm not avoiding the question, I'm just saying that's not a very interesting question because it doesn't seem to have an answer in 2017. It is beyond human understanding of reality. But the kind of free will that Carroll, Dennett, and I am talking about is interesting because it is meaningful in day to day life.

GrahamH wrote:If you want to obscure your meaning you are doing a fine job with the use of words like "angel".
If you want to personalise a concept of communications (why would you want to do that?) then "messenger" would be a better choice. Unless you will be including the "...of God" bit later on as part of a bait-and-switch.

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

I've already demonstrated in this thread how a PRNG can produce different results every time it is run. My program is no more predictable than I am. The only way to know what it, or I will do, is to set up the exact conditions and "run" us.

No you haven't. We have both illustrated the opposite. PRNGs produce exactly the same sequence every time for any given initial condition.
I already pointed out your mixing up human subjective knowledge (somebody finding out what the PRNG sequence is for a particular seed) and the concept of objective knowledge (what defines the sequence irrespective of whether anyone knows it subjectively). How many times must I repeat it before you get the point?

What do you mean by initial conditions of a program?

To me, the initial conditions are all the specifications presented at the time I hit "run."

Exactly so, and that includes the state sampled by

Code: Select all

random.seed()

which is the key initial condition. If you know that value you can predict the sequence. It will be the same every time, as you demostrated. It's just that you don't know the seed value, but you can know it, and use it again on subsequent runs. You demonstrated that in the bit headed "code with no free will". But the "free will" is not in the code at all, it's in the initial conditions, in the world beyond the code, which was the point.

You can get and set the initial conditions for the PRNG with

Code: Select all

initial = random.getstate()
random.setstate(initial)

That allows you to "rewind time" to see if an algorithm can ever "choose otherwise" given the exact same initial conditions. You know what the answer is, don't you?

John Platko wrote: Let's start with what you think an angel is and then we can see how much I disagree.

John Platko wrote:
But my program changes the seed several times while it's running. The results are not a function of the programs initial conditions (unless one perverts the meaning of initial conditions). The seed is changed as a function of current conditions at the time the program is running. And that changes from run to run.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:

rom wrote:

The question that JP and to be fair others avoid is can this error minimization or optimization happened otherwise? And again I am not asking whether we can envisage other error minima or optima ... because plainly we can at times.

This is a question many if not a large majority of compatibilists do not answer.

I'm not avoiding the question, I'm just saying that's not a very interesting question because it doesn't seem to have an answer in 2017. It is beyond human understanding of reality. But the kind of free will that Carroll, Dennett, and I am talking about is interesting because it is meaningful in day to day life.

So are you claiming agnosticism when discussing the hard determinist's concept of free will?
ie you don't know whether you can do otherwise or not?

And yet you think that the free will concepts essentially defined into existence by Dennett, Carroll and others (not Lubos) are interesting.

That for me is interesting.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:
But my program changes the seed several times while it's running. The results are not a function of the programs initial conditions (unless one perverts the meaning of initial conditions). The seed is changed as a function of current conditions at the time the program is running. And that changes from run to run.

So what John?

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

No you haven't. We have both illustrated the opposite. PRNGs produce exactly the same sequence every time for any given initial condition.
I already pointed out your mixing up human subjective knowledge (somebody finding out what the PRNG sequence is for a particular seed) and the concept of objective knowledge (what defines the sequence irrespective of whether anyone knows it subjectively). How many times must I repeat it before you get the point?

What do you mean by initial conditions of a program?

To me, the initial conditions are all the specifications presented at the time I hit "run."

Exactly so, and that includes the state sampled by

Code: Select all

random.seed()

which is the key initial condition. If you know that value you can predict the sequence. It will be the same every time, as you demostrated. It's just that you don't know the seed value, but you can know it, and use it again on subsequent runs. You demonstrated that in the bit headed "code with no free will". But the "free will" is not in the code at all, it's in the initial conditions, in the world beyond the code, which was the point.

You can get and set the initial conditions for the PRNG with

Code: Select all

initial = random.getstate()
random.setstate(initial)

That allows you to "rewind time" to see if an algorithm can ever "choose otherwise" given the exact same initial conditions. You know what the answer is, don't you?

But my program changes the seed several times while it's running. The results are not a function of the programs initial conditions (unless one perverts the meaning of initial conditions). The seed is changed as a function of current conditions at the time the program is running. And that changes from run to run.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote: Let's start with what you think an angel is and then we can see how much I disagree.

Can you start a thread called Platko's dictionary please?

That way for those of us who care about how much you disagree can respond there ... thanks

John Platko wrote:

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:
But my program changes the seed several times while it's running. The results are not a function of the programs initial conditions (unless one perverts the meaning of initial conditions). The seed is changed as a function of current conditions at the time the program is running. And that changes from run to run.

So what John?

So the initial conditions don't determine the outcome - that's so what!

John Platko wrote:

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote: Let's start with what you think an angel is and then we can see how much I disagree.

Can you start a thread called Platko's dictionary please?

That way for those of us who care about how much you disagree can respond there ... thanks

I'm more interested in the atheist dictionary of what religious terms must mean.

The more I think about it, that's really what's needed. Atheists need to write the dogma of all religion. What a religious person must believe. Some seem to think they understand it all, what a soul is, what prayer is, what angels are. And of course what God must be.

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:
But my program changes the seed several times while it's running. The results are not a function of the programs initial conditions (unless one perverts the meaning of initial conditions). The seed is changed as a function of current conditions at the time the program is running. And that changes from run to run.

So what John?

So the initial conditions don't determine the outcome - that's so what!

Yes they do. They obviously do. If you record those values that are external to the code and plug them back in again you get the exact same results over and over. If you put the seed values in the code you get entirely repeatable results, as your own snippet of code demonstrates.

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

romansh wrote:
So what John?

So the initial conditions don't determine the outcome - that's so what!

Yes they do. They obviously do. If you record those values that are external to the code and plug them back in again you get the exact same results over and over. If you put the seed values in the code you get entirely repeatable results, as your own snippet of code demonstrates.

It would defeat the point of the program to record the values external to the code and plug them back in. But that's irrelevant, that's not what the code does. To rerun the actual program and get the same results one would have to roll back time.

John Platko wrote: Atheists need to write the dogma of all religion.