Friam

falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

Classic

List

Threaded

41 messages Options

123

gepr

falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

To restate it, the mechanism consists of:

• a mesh of parallel processes evolving in time
• each process has a local branching structure for what might happen next
• these branches (and the events that walk them) compose
• that composition is monitored and remembered within some scope
• that monitor/memory is used by a controller to edit the branching structures

What we call "free will" is the extent to which, and perhaps the *shape* of, the branching structure(s) change over time. It's infeasible to measure the branching structures directly, especially 10 years later trying to decide if your mom's an alcoholic or not. But we can estimate the wiggle in the composite behavior over time and retro-infer whatever branching structure monitoring, remembering, and editing might have taken place.

I think to adequately falsify this mechanism, we could implement a few (several would be better) versions of it, sweep their parameters and classify the results. If none of them exhibit clear components and some kind of *sensitivity* in one or more parameters, then the basic mechanism can't generate the phenomena we're looking for.

I think the most important parameters would be the scope of the composer (which processes to include and which to truncate), the fidelity of the monitor, the size of the memory, and the kind of edits (point mutations or something more drastic). It would be validating (and pretty cool) if, say, with a memory size N, entrainment happens quickly, but with memory size N+M, the system flips between 2 behavior/output components. But finding something like that would be a negative result. We'd merely have programmed in the behavior we *wanted* to see come out.

And it would be interesting to include stochasticity peppered throughout to see if that had an effect on the sensitivity or robustness of the output components.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Russ Abbott

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

Glen,

That's a fairly complex model. Would you be willing to present some concrete examples of how it might work? I would find that useful in attempting to understand it.

Thanks.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:37 AM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:

To restate it, the mechanism consists of:

• a mesh of parallel processes evolving in time
• each process has a local branching structure for what might happen next
• these branches (and the events that walk them) compose
• that composition is monitored and remembered within some scope
• that monitor/memory is used by a controller to edit the branching structures

What we call "free will" is the extent to which, and perhaps the *shape* of, the branching structure(s) change over time. It's infeasible to measure the branching structures directly, especially 10 years later trying to decide if your mom's an alcoholic or not. But we can estimate the wiggle in the composite behavior over time and retro-infer whatever branching structure monitoring, remembering, and editing might have taken place.

I think to adequately falsify this mechanism, we could implement a few (several would be better) versions of it, sweep their parameters and classify the results. If none of them exhibit clear components and some kind of *sensitivity* in one or more parameters, then the basic mechanism can't generate the phenomena we're looking for.

I think the most important parameters would be the scope of the composer (which processes to include and which to truncate), the fidelity of the monitor, the size of the memory, and the kind of edits (point mutations or something more drastic). It would be validating (and pretty cool) if, say, with a memory size N, entrainment happens quickly, but with memory size N+M, the system flips between 2 behavior/output components. But finding something like that would be a negative result. We'd merely have programmed in the behavior we *wanted* to see come out.

And it would be interesting to include stochasticity peppered throughout to see if that had an effect on the sensitivity or robustness of the output components.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

Russ, Frank, Bruce,

This question is probably a distraction from Glen’s point of view, but, still, I am curious to know whether the words, “mechanism of free will” constitute an oxymoron for you.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 12:34 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

Glen,

That's a fairly complex model. Would you be willing to present some concrete examples of how it might work? I would find that useful in attempting to understand it.

Thanks.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:37 AM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:

To restate it, the mechanism consists of:

• a mesh of parallel processes evolving in time
• each process has a local branching structure for what might happen next
• these branches (and the events that walk them) compose
• that composition is monitored and remembered within some scope
• that monitor/memory is used by a controller to edit the branching structures

What we call "free will" is the extent to which, and perhaps the *shape* of, the branching structure(s) change over time. It's infeasible to measure the branching structures directly, especially 10 years later trying to decide if your mom's an alcoholic or not. But we can estimate the wiggle in the composite behavior over time and retro-infer whatever branching structure monitoring, remembering, and editing might have taken place.

I think to adequately falsify this mechanism, we could implement a few (several would be better) versions of it, sweep their parameters and classify the results. If none of them exhibit clear components and some kind of *sensitivity* in one or more parameters, then the basic mechanism can't generate the phenomena we're looking for.

I think the most important parameters would be the scope of the composer (which processes to include and which to truncate), the fidelity of the monitor, the size of the memory, and the kind of edits (point mutations or something more drastic). It would be validating (and pretty cool) if, say, with a memory size N, entrainment happens quickly, but with memory size N+M, the system flips between 2 behavior/output components. But finding something like that would be a negative result. We'd merely have programmed in the behavior we *wanted* to see come out.

And it would be interesting to include stochasticity peppered throughout to see if that had an effect on the sensitivity or robustness of the output components.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Hm. How about an example where the composer changes the composition?

Let's say we have 2 processes, P1 and P2 with 1 branch each:
P1 → A v B
P2 → C v D

And let's say A and C compose and B and D compose.
P1 ^ P2 → AC v BD

The 0th time through the structure, the monitor records: AC.
The controller adds another composition: AD to create the structure:
P1 ^ P2 → AC v BD v AD

On 6/18/20 11:34 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> That's a fairly complex model. Would you be willing to present some concrete examples of how it might work? I would find that useful in attempting to understand it.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Russ Abbott

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

I'm afraid I don't understand your notation. E.g., what does P1 → A v B mean? I would prefer an example that's more concrete, e.g., with actual conceivable events.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:00 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hm. How about an example where the composer changes the composition?

Let's say we have 2 processes, P1 and P2 with 1 branch each:
P1 → A v B
P2 → C v D

And let's say A and C compose and B and D compose.
P1 ^ P2 → AC v BD

The 0th time through the structure, the monitor records: AC.
The controller adds another composition: AD to create the structure:
P1 ^ P2 → AC v BD v AD

On 6/18/20 11:34 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> That's a fairly complex model. Would you be willing to present some concrete examples of how it might work? I would find that useful in attempting to understand it.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

That was as explicit as I can get without writing code. "P1 → A v B" means "process one results in the event A or the event B." Conceivable events? I have in mind variables taking on values, like x = 1 or x = 2. Those assignments should be relatively conceivable. A composition might be concatenation. So, if we have 2 variables, x and y, and x ∈ {1,2} and y ∈ {3,4}, then a composition might be [1,3] or [2,4].

Does that help?

On 6/18/20 12:15 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

> I'm afraid I don't understand your notation. E.g., what does P1 → A v B mean? I would prefer an example that's more concrete, e.g., with actual conceivable events.
> _
> _
> __-- Russ Abbott
> Professor, Computer Science
> California State University, Los Angeles
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:00 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Hm. How about an example where the composer changes the composition?
>
> Let's say we have 2 processes, P1 and P2 with 1 branch each:
> P1 → A v B
> P2 → C v D
>
> And let's say A and C compose and B and D compose.
> P1 ^ P2 → AC v BD
>
> The 0th time through the structure, the monitor records: AC.
> The controller adds another composition: AD to create the structure:
> P1 ^ P2 → AC v BD v AD

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

8^D I can explain how it's not self-contradicting. There is a concept we call "free will". Sure, the radical extremists among us want to deny its target's existence or assert that it obviously exists. But none of us deny the fact that other people use the word and (assuming no philosophical zombies) it's meaningful to them somehow. So, if you use a simple form of Ramsey's technique, you can call that concept XYZ. People are running around talking about XYZ. We even use it in our laws and courts, whatever it is, however it arises.

Now, since it's a commonly used concept, *used* to mechanistic effect, there is something to which XYZ refers that is effective, has effect, composes with other mechanisms like handcuffs, hiking boots, or hammers. Since XYZ has mechanistic effect, it's reasonable to hypothesize it has internal structure and we can build machines that are structurally as well as functionally analogous [†] to whatever XYZ refers to.

Hence "mechanism for free will". (I admit it might be better with "of" rather than "for". I'm sloppy. So sue me.) It's no more self-contradictory than "mechanism for hammering".

[†] The *strength* of the structural analogy dictates whether the analog is merely a simulation or an emulation. The strength of the functional analogy dictates how coherent the concept is in the first place. If we can't find *any* way to simulate it, then it probably doesn't exist. If we can find a way to simulate it, but not emulate it, then it might be illusory or derivative.

On 6/18/20 11:43 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> This question is probably a distraction from Glen’s point of view, but, still, I am curious to know whether the words, “mechanism of free will” constitute an oxymoron for you.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Russ Abbott

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

In reply to this post by gepr

Actually, I was hoping for more of a real-life example, like deciding when to go for a bike ride -- which is what I'm now considering. Variables taking on values isn't something I normally associate with discussions of free will.

Although since you mentioned it, how does the system decide whether to process A or B? Isn't that what you want to explain?

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:24 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:

That was as explicit as I can get without writing code. "P1 → A v B" means "process one results in the event A or the event B." Conceivable events? I have in mind variables taking on values, like x = 1 or x = 2. Those assignments should be relatively conceivable. A composition might be concatenation. So, if we have 2 variables, x and y, and x ∈ {1,2} and y ∈ {3,4}, then a composition might be [1,3] or [2,4].

Does that help?

On 6/18/20 12:15 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't understand your notation. E.g., what does P1 → A v B mean? I would prefer an example that's more concrete, e.g., with actual conceivable events.
> _
> _
> __-- Russ Abbott
> Professor, Computer Science
> California State University, Los Angeles
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:00 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Hm. How about an example where the composer changes the composition?
>
> Let's say we have 2 processes, P1 and P2 with 1 branch each:
> P1 → A v B
> P2 → C v D
>
> And let's say A and C compose and B and D compose.
> P1 ^ P2 → AC v BD
>
> The 0th time through the structure, the monitor records: AC.
> The controller adds another composition: AD to create the structure:
> P1 ^ P2 → AC v BD v AD

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

Exactly! That's the point of the exercise. Marcus and Jon have pointed out that discussions of free will get bogged down in all sorts of meandering extra stuff. This is an attempt to have a discussion about it that doesn't go that way. The objective is to build a machine that might *look* as if it has free will.

The system does not *decide* to produce A or B, it simply produces A or B. The individual branch point (and the path taken) is *not* what I'm mapping to free will. (Yes, I've already been WRONGLY accused of redefining the term.) I'm saying that the aggregate phenomenon we mean when we say "free will" *might* be generated/simulated by this mechanism. I'm not mapping free will to one small part of the mechanism. I'm mapping it to the *whole* mechanism, multiple processes, including individual branch points, the composer, the memory, etc.

To answer specifically, a process can take branch A or B purely deterministically (with a rule like "always take path A"), pseudo-randomly (where it will always take branch A if the seed is the same), or actual randomly. Those are all options we can play with. But I'm not proposing any of those (by themselves) map to what we call free will. The whole mechanism is what I'm trying to map to free will, to simulate free will with.

On 6/18/20 2:29 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Variables taking on values isn't something I normally associate with discussions of free will.
>
> Although since you mentioned it, how does the system decide whether to process A or B? Isn't that what you want to explain?

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

Your abstract description, that Russ asked you to clarify with an example, reminded me of my life:

Me - I have to file these papers, bring in the mail, call the pharmacy, put away the car, read Glen's email, chase the coyote out of the meadow, etc

Grandson - Grandpa, has to login to the computer so I can play Garry's Mod, Grandma has to get me a soft drink, and I'm going to ask for a brownie, etc.

Wife - Frank has to figure out why all the words in the emails I write have squiggly red lines under them, Matthew has to wash his hands, I have to clean all the face masks and disinfect the groceries, I have to start dinner after finding out what they want, etc.

All these agendas are executed simultaneously.

I have no free will.

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 3:44 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Exactly! That's the point of the exercise. Marcus and Jon have pointed out that discussions of free will get bogged down in all sorts of meandering extra stuff. This is an attempt to have a discussion about it that doesn't go that way. The objective is to build a machine that might *look* as if it has free will.

The system does not *decide* to produce A or B, it simply produces A or B. The individual branch point (and the path taken) is *not* what I'm mapping to free will. (Yes, I've already been WRONGLY accused of redefining the term.) I'm saying that the aggregate phenomenon we mean when we say "free will" *might* be generated/simulated by this mechanism. I'm not mapping free will to one small part of the mechanism. I'm mapping it to the *whole* mechanism, multiple processes, including individual branch points, the composer, the memory, etc.

To answer specifically, a process can take branch A or B purely deterministically (with a rule like "always take path A"), pseudo-randomly (where it will always take branch A if the seed is the same), or actual randomly. Those are all options we can play with. But I'm not proposing any of those (by themselves) map to what we call free will. The whole mechanism is what I'm trying to map to free will, to simulate free will with.

On 6/18/20 2:29 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Variables taking on values isn't something I normally associate with discussions of free will.
>
> Although since you mentioned it, how does the system decide whether to process A or B? Isn't that what you want to explain?

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

Because you have all of these nice constraints, you can sample the remaining degrees of freedom more deeply.

“Be regular and orderly in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work.” -- Gustave Flaubert

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 3:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

Your abstract description, that Russ asked you to clarify with an example, reminded me of my life:

Me - I have to file these papers, bring in the mail, call the pharmacy, put away the car, read Glen's email, chase the coyote out of the meadow, etc

Grandson - Grandpa, has to login to the computer so I can play Garry's Mod, Grandma has to get me a soft drink, and I'm going to ask for a brownie, etc.

All these agendas are executed simultaneously.

I have no free will.

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 3:44 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Exactly! That's the point of the exercise. Marcus and Jon have pointed out that discussions of free will get bogged down in all sorts of meandering extra stuff. This is an attempt to have a discussion about it that doesn't go that way. The objective is to build a machine that might *look* as if it has free will.

The system does not *decide* to produce A or B, it simply produces A or B. The individual branch point (and the path taken) is *not* what I'm mapping to free will. (Yes, I've already been WRONGLY accused of redefining the term.) I'm saying that the aggregate phenomenon we mean when we say "free will" *might* be generated/simulated by this mechanism. I'm not mapping free will to one small part of the mechanism. I'm mapping it to the *whole* mechanism, multiple processes, including individual branch points, the composer, the memory, etc.

To answer specifically, a process can take branch A or B purely deterministically (with a rule like "always take path A"), pseudo-randomly (where it will always take branch A if the seed is the same), or actual randomly. Those are all options we can play with. But I'm not proposing any of those (by themselves) map to what we call free will. The whole mechanism is what I'm trying to map to free will, to simulate free will with.

On 6/18/20 2:29 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Variables taking on values isn't something I normally associate with discussions of free will.
>
> Although since you mentioned it, how does the system decide whether to process A or B? Isn't that what you want to explain?

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Well, my mechanism would suggest you might have MORE free will because you have lots of branch points you can modify for the next time around!

On 6/18/20 3:25 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> Your abstract description, that Russ asked you to clarify with an example, reminded me of my life:
>
> Me - I have to file these papers, bring in the mail, call the pharmacy, put away the car, read Glen's email, chase the coyote out of the meadow, etc
>
> Grandson - Grandpa, has to login to the computer so I can play Garry's Mod, Grandma has to get me a soft drink, and I'm going to ask for a brownie, etc.
>
> Wife - Frank has to figure out why all the words in the emails I write have squiggly red lines under them, Matthew has to wash his hands, I have to clean all the face masks and disinfect the groceries, I have to start dinner after finding out what they want, etc.
>
> All these agendas are executed simultaneously.
>
> I have no free will.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Russ Abbott

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

In reply to this post by gepr

So you are defining a mechanism that by definition is mechanistic (perhaps with some randomness sprinkled over it) and then saying that it may look to some people like it seems to have free will? If that's what you're doing, what are you claiming that demonstrates? If that's not what you're doing, I'm afraid I still don't understand.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 2:44 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Exactly! That's the point of the exercise. Marcus and Jon have pointed out that discussions of free will get bogged down in all sorts of meandering extra stuff. This is an attempt to have a discussion about it that doesn't go that way. The objective is to build a machine that might *look* as if it has free will.

The system does not *decide* to produce A or B, it simply produces A or B. The individual branch point (and the path taken) is *not* what I'm mapping to free will. (Yes, I've already been WRONGLY accused of redefining the term.) I'm saying that the aggregate phenomenon we mean when we say "free will" *might* be generated/simulated by this mechanism. I'm not mapping free will to one small part of the mechanism. I'm mapping it to the *whole* mechanism, multiple processes, including individual branch points, the composer, the memory, etc.

To answer specifically, a process can take branch A or B purely deterministically (with a rule like "always take path A"), pseudo-randomly (where it will always take branch A if the seed is the same), or actual randomly. Those are all options we can play with. But I'm not proposing any of those (by themselves) map to what we call free will. The whole mechanism is what I'm trying to map to free will, to simulate free will with.

On 6/18/20 2:29 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Variables taking on values isn't something I normally associate with discussions of free will.
>
> Although since you mentioned it, how does the system decide whether to process A or B? Isn't that what you want to explain?

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

Russ,

I think he is saying the former. And I think you and I agree that it follows from what he is saying that there is no ghost in the cartesian machine. I predict he will assert that he is agnostic on that point. Let’s see.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 6:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 2:44 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Exactly! That's the point of the exercise. Marcus and Jon have pointed out that discussions of free will get bogged down in all sorts of meandering extra stuff. This is an attempt to have a discussion about it that doesn't go that way. The objective is to build a machine that might *look* as if it has free will.

The system does not *decide* to produce A or B, it simply produces A or B. The individual branch point (and the path taken) is *not* what I'm mapping to free will. (Yes, I've already been WRONGLY accused of redefining the term.) I'm saying that the aggregate phenomenon we mean when we say "free will" *might* be generated/simulated by this mechanism. I'm not mapping free will to one small part of the mechanism. I'm mapping it to the *whole* mechanism, multiple processes, including individual branch points, the composer, the memory, etc.

To answer specifically, a process can take branch A or B purely deterministically (with a rule like "always take path A"), pseudo-randomly (where it will always take branch A if the seed is the same), or actual randomly. Those are all options we can play with. But I'm not proposing any of those (by themselves) map to what we call free will. The whole mechanism is what I'm trying to map to free will, to simulate free will with.

On 6/18/20 2:29 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Variables taking on values isn't something I normally associate with discussions of free will.
>
> Although since you mentioned it, how does the system decide whether to process A or B? Isn't that what you want to explain?

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

I know there is a ghost in the Cartesian machine because I am he. But you knew that.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 6:31 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russ,

I think he is saying the former. And I think you and I agree that it follows from what he is saying that there is no ghost in the cartesian machine. I predict he will assert that he is agnostic on that point. Let’s see.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 6:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

So you are defining a mechanism that by definition is mechanistic (perhaps with some randomness sprinkled over it) and then saying that it may look to some people like it seems to have free will? If that's what you're doing, what are you claiming that demonstrates? If that's not what you're doing, I'm afraid I still don't understand.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 2:44 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Exactly! That's the point of the exercise. Marcus and Jon have pointed out that discussions of free will get bogged down in all sorts of meandering extra stuff. This is an attempt to have a discussion about it that doesn't go that way. The objective is to build a machine that might *look* as if it has free will.

The system does not *decide* to produce A or B, it simply produces A or B. The individual branch point (and the path taken) is *not* what I'm mapping to free will. (Yes, I've already been WRONGLY accused of redefining the term.) I'm saying that the aggregate phenomenon we mean when we say "free will" *might* be generated/simulated by this mechanism. I'm not mapping free will to one small part of the mechanism. I'm mapping it to the *whole* mechanism, multiple processes, including individual branch points, the composer, the memory, etc.

To answer specifically, a process can take branch A or B purely deterministically (with a rule like "always take path A"), pseudo-randomly (where it will always take branch A if the seed is the same), or actual randomly. Those are all options we can play with. But I'm not proposing any of those (by themselves) map to what we call free will. The whole mechanism is what I'm trying to map to free will, to simulate free will with.

On 6/18/20 2:29 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Variables taking on values isn't something I normally associate with discussions of free will.
>
> Although since you mentioned it, how does the system decide whether to process A or B? Isn't that what you want to explain?

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Hm. You have a strange way of phrasing it. What I'm doing is defining a mechanism that *might* generate the phenomenon of interest. It's typical simulation. If it *cannot* generate the phenomenon, then that falsifies this mechanism, which is what we want, falsifiable hypotheses.

On 6/18/20 5:25 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> So you are defining a mechanism that by definition is mechanistic (perhaps with some randomness sprinkled over it) and then saying that it may look to some people like it seems to have free will? If that's what you're doing, what are you claiming that demonstrates? If that's not what you're doing, I'm afraid I still don't understand.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

jon zingale

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

In reply to this post by gepr

The recurring image for me is that of a river delta, avulsion and all.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Russ Abbott

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

In reply to this post by gepr

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:22 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:

What I'm doing is defining a mechanism that *might* generate the phenomenon of interest. It's typical simulation. If it *cannot* generate the phenomenon, then that falsifies this mechanism, which is what we want, falsifiable hypotheses.

What do you mean by "generate the phenomenon"? If the phenomenon is non-existent, it can't be generated. Even if that weren't a problem, who is to judge whether "the phenomenon" had been generated? And how is that judgment made?

On the other hand, how do you establish that "it *cannot* generate the phenomenon"? That sounds like a pretty hard thing to establish on the basis of empirical evidence.

This all seems to be digging a deeper hole.

gepr

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

"Generate the phenomenon" means that some machine, by its operation, behaves according to some recognizable pattern. The *phenomenon* of "free will" does exist. We know it exists because people talk about it so much. It's ingrained in our legal system. Etc. Maybe you'll remember the quote "I can't define it. But I know it when I see it"? Now, as I've typed ad nauseum at this point, whether that phrase ("free will") refers to what people *think* it refers to is another matter. This mechanism is an attempt to refine what people might think the phrase refers to.

Validation/falsification in modeling and simulation is a relatively mature discipline. There are many ways to falsify some mechanism by the phenomena it generates (face, data, trace, etc.). Of course, you're right that it isn't simple. Just like "intelligence", some people are impressed with the achievements of AI and some aren't. Regardless, the act of designing AI machines that *try* to generate intelligence has lead to a fantastic refinement of what "intelligence" means. I think the same can be done with "free will" if people would focus on building machines that fail at the task.

It's relatively easy to establish that a *particular* mechanism fails to generate some pattern. Brute force parameter sweeps is feasible with the computational power we have now. But there are many ways to search and sample a behavior/phenomena space that aren't as difficult. What's difficult is trying to falsify some hypothesis that's NOT based on a particular, concrete mechanism.

If anything, I'm tossing a rope down the hole. Anyone who talks about "free will" *without* proposing a mechanism for it is digging the hole deeper.

On 6/18/20 6:53 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> What do you mean by "generate the phenomenon"? If the phenomenon is non-existent, it can't be generated. Even if that weren't a problem, who is to judge whether "the phenomenon" had been generated? And how is that judgment made?
>
> On the other hand, how do you establish that "it *cannot* generate the phenomenon"? That sounds like a pretty hard thing to establish on the basis of empirical evidence.
>
> This all seems to be digging a deeper hole.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

jon zingale

Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen,

You say: "The system does not *decide* to produce A or B, it simply produces
A or B. The individual branch point (and the path taken) is *not* what I'm
mapping to free will. (Yes, I've already been WRONGLY accused of redefining
the term.) I'm saying that the aggregate phenomenon we mean when we say
"free will" *might* be generated/simulated by this mechanism. I'm not
mapping free will to one small part of the mechanism. I'm mapping it to the
*whole* mechanism, multiple processes, including individual branch points,
the composer, the memory, etc."

The image I am forming here is that of the bifurcating tendrils which form
when lemon juice is added to water. At each moment, Rayleigh-Taylor
instability generates new paths which further express instability in my
glass.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

123