Brain/mind - hardware/software

[mapleoak]

Does a computer program exhibit free will,

No, if given a certain logic sequence, it is entirely possible to determine exactly what a program will do.

if it sometimes “refuses” to perform an operation, and other times it does not? Or is it simply “buggy”?

It only ‘refuses’ if programmed to ‘refuse’ given a certain logic sequence or if it malfunctions.

How do we know the difference? In theory we can go into “debug” mode and examine the working of the program.

A computer program is a script. Debugging is not a matter of going into a “debug” mode.

At least we can do it today, because the prorgams are quite simple. Of course to debug a code which is a “mere” few million lines long is quite an undertaking, even if we have the original code.

It makes no difference how long the code is. It is still just a script.

But if the program is an evolving, learning kind (which type exists today) and there is no “blueprint” of it (cannot be, since the program modifies itself), then it is pretty much impossible to debug it.

There is no such thing as evolving or “learning” code.

 

[ateista]

No, if given a certain logic sequence, it is entirely possible to determine exactly what a program will do.

A computer program is a script. Debugging is not a matter of going into a “debug” mode.

Is it not? Do you think that one can just read the code and figure out what kind of processing will occur when the program is actually executed, and interacts with its environment through the I/O devices? You seem to be very naive…

There is no such thing as evolving or “learning” code.

Oh, yes, there is. There are many decision making algorithms, which remember their past, and which modify themselves.

I am not here to deceive you, and try to tell lies about the virtual world of computers. Evolving, self-modifying programs exist, and not just on paper.

 

[mapleoak]

Is it not? Do you think that one can just read the code and figure out what kind of processing will occur when the program is actually executed, and interacts with its environment through the I/O devices? You seem to be very naive…

Yes, and if it is a very involved and lengthly piece of code (remember it is code that a computer follows, not the computer thinking) it just takes more time and patience to follow the code. Of course it could be too lengthy to be practical to try and trace. When an I/O device “interacts” with its environment, it is receiving (name removed by moderator)ut from that device and sends data in the form of on/off bits to the computer which will do exactly as it is scripted to do when it encounters that data. It cannot decide that today it doesn’t feel like it. It could however be scripted to randomly (nothing is purely random with computers either, it is based on something such as a crystal clock pulse, etc.) follow a different script routine at various intervals, this however is not a computer “decision”.

Oh, yes, there is. There are many decision making algorithms, which remember their past, and which modify themselves.

There is no such thing as a decision making algorithm. A computer can be scripted with logic routines which depending on the (name removed by moderator)ut it receives will always act exactly as it programmed to do when it encounters that particular (name removed by moderator)ut or combination of (name removed by moderator)uts. For example, two switches on, two switches off, then follow or jump to subroutine Y. One switch on, three switches off, then follow or jump to subroutine X. Of course the (name removed by moderator)uts could be numbered in the thousands or millions, but given any particular combination, it will always do what it is scripted to do under those circumstances. Do you have an example of a computer which operates contrary to the above description?

I am not here to deceive you, and try to tell lies about the virtual world of computers. Evolving, self-modifying programs exist, and not just on paper.

Here is an example of a computer program which has the so-called ability to “learn”:

madwizard.org/view.php?page=info.digibrain2

You can download the source code as well and figure out how it does its magic. Very predictable, yet not in the least the computer using its smarts to figure things out. It is simply following its script.

 

[jimmy]

Not yet…

All we need to do is wait… and wait… and wait…and wait for the year 2029 to see one that does.

Maybe robot rights would be popular in the future.

I do think the argument from non-materialistic consciousness are arguments from ignorance. For example, we are currently unable to run a simulation of the human brain due to a lack of processing power in supercomputers. Maybe the law of accelerating returns will endow the ability to do this.

I do agree with the monist interpretation of consciousness. Many accounts of alzheimer’s disease involve the tragic depiction of a person becoming an empty shell. They cannot say cogito ergo sum; they become unaware of their own existence. It seems that when the brain disintegrates, it’s over.

I think this kind of misses the point. Christians do not argue that the body is simply an instrument of the soul and that the brain itself is meaningless. What they argue is that free will must arise from the soul since what is material can not be self determined.

But we must ask: “how do we know if something has free will?”. The only practical answer is that we observe its behavior and draw consequences based upon the observation. If the behavior of an entity is unpredictable, then we must assume that is has some kind of a freedom of action.

False, whether a coin lands on heads or tails is completely random yet that does not mean the coin has free will. A lack of predictability does not mean free will.

 

[crowonsnow]

False, whether a coin lands on heads or tails is completely random yet that does not mean the coin has free will. A lack of predictability does not mean free will.

I’ll assume will and free will to be the same thing. How do you determine the presence of will?

 

[jimmy]

I’ll assume will and free will to be the same thing. How do you determine the presence of will?

To tell the truth I don’t think you can easily seperate the free will from the rest of the person. Free will presuposes a knowledge of self. There is an interaction between a persons will and their emotions and everything else. Just because a compute could choose between two options and even choose wrongly doesn’t necessarily mean it has free will. Free will would presuppose that there was a reason why it prefered that wrong answer. Without this reason the wrong answer is simply an error.

 

[crowonsnow]

To tell the truth I don’t think you can easily seperate the free will from the rest of the person. Free will presuposes a knowledge of self. There is an interaction between a persons will and their emotions and everything else. Just because a compute could choose between two options and even choose wrongly doesn’t necessarily mean it has free will. Free will would presuppose that there was a reason why it prefered that wrong answer. Without this reason the wrong answer is simply an error.

Thanks for the response but you’ve not helped me understand your position. Earlier you stated:

jimmy:

False, whether a coin lands on heads or tails is completely random yet that does not mean the coin has free will. A lack of predictability does not mean free will.

You seem to be saying that a coin has no will. To make such a statement you must have a methodology you apply. That’s what I’m asking for. Or did I not understand your above statement. Are you perhaps stating that a coin can demonstrate will?

Could you very briefly summarize your methodology for determining the presence of will if indeed you have one?

 

[jimmy]

Thanks for the response but you’ve not helped me understand your position. Earlier you stated:

You seem to be saying that a coin has no will. To make such a statement you must have a methodology you apply. That’s what I’m asking for. Or did I not understand your above statement. Are you perhaps stating that a coin can demonstrate will?

Could you very briefly summarize your methodology for determining the presence of will if indeed you have one?

My first statement was simply a logical statement that unpredictability does not mean that there is free will. Free will requires self consciousness. An object that is not conscious of itself and its surroundings can not have free will. Free will is the ability to make a conscious choice. If a coin can not make a conscious choice then it does not have free will.

 

[crowonsnow]

Free will requires self consciousness. An object that is not conscious of itself and its surroundings can not have free will. Free will is the ability to make a conscious choice.

So how do you determine that something is self conscious? I’m assuming you differentiate between making a choice and making a conscious choice.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

This question came up a few times: how can a materialist accept the concept of free will, or how can a materialist contend the existence of non-material thoughts generated by a physical brain.

One of the arguments was that the neuro-chemical activity of the brain (which is called the mind) is purely physical, and therefore its acitivity is reducible to either deterministic physical laws, or stochastic ones. If it is reduced to deterministic laws, then it is not free in any sense of the word, if it is reduced to stochastic ones, then it is some chaotic activity, which cannot be called a desicion making process.

These arguments look quite plausible, yet they are incorrect.

Let’s look at a computer hardware. Its physical functioning is purely electronic and deterministic. If some hardware problem comes up, then its functioning will be chaotic, unpredictable. The progams, that run on the computer are just electronic impulses. Nevertheless, what the program does, is something totally different.

It is not a physical world, it is a virtual world. It is not governed by physical laws, or even mathematical or logical ones, and its working cannot be reduced to these laws. A computer program may sometimes “refuse” to add even numbers, but may willingly add up odd ones. It may sometimes say that 1 + 1 = 3. It can create a multi-dimensional world. It can suspend gravity… within its own virtual world. It can do anything.

The program is an emergent attribute, its working is not subject to any limitation, except what the programmer decided. This may seem to expose another possible line of “attack”. After all if the program is simply carrying out its instructions, then its working can be explained or reduced to the programmer’s intent.

The answer: only in some very simple cases. There are evolving, learning programs, which remember previous questions and answers. It will not answer the same question twice with the same answer. It can modify its internal structure. Its working is not predictable by anyone, not even its original programmer.

The physical activity of the brain is just a bunch of electro-chemical impulses, also reducible to physical laws. But what the mind does is not. It is also a virtual world. Its working is not determined by physical or mathematical or logical constraints.

The analogy between the computer program and the mind is very strong. Both are virtual worlds, their activity cannot be reduced to physical laws. The “only” difference is that the brain is much more complicated than the computer.

Now mind you, I have no idea how free will emerges in the mind. No one does. This is not a constructive argument, which allows to replicate the nuts and bolts of free will in a computer. It is simply an existential argument, which shows that the physical operation of the brain / computer does not predict or limit the working of the mind / software.

I think your whole bit is adressed well here

richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=31637&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

A couple pages in, it turnes to you’re subject

 

[freesoulhope]

Neither the mind nor a computer program is physical, though they both utilize the physical “hardware” to “run on”. .

As far as i can tell, the virtual computor world appears to us in the form of pixles and colours on a flat 2d computor screen, intiated by various seqeunces of code, like Ones and Zeros. Its basically a 3 dimensional picture which has been animated and ultimatly invented by an inteligent being who likes building computor programs. The computor vitual world is material and uninteligible. Its nothing like the human mind.