Originally posted by knightmeisterI think the deliberation process is based entirely on the programming of the computer and the actual physical entity that is running the program is irrelevant and will not affect the outcome. If I run the same program emulated on my computer at work I will get the same outputs. The same applies to all programs and a famous chap called Alan Turing showed that any program could be run on a Turing machine.
Do you think my computer is made of anything else than just plain ol' metal and plastic. ? You think it is controlled by something beyond the physical realities of it's structure? Does a car engine have a 'program' that exists separate from the metal it is made of? Hmmmm... interesting and surprising development whitey.
To quote wikipedia:
"Turing machines are extremely basic abstract symbol-manipulating devices which, despite their simplicity, can be adapted to simulate the logic of any computer that could possibly be constructed."
So, if you are a computer then you can be simulated on a Turing machine. Turing proved it. Thus your logic is could be though of as a separate entity from your mechanics and it is the logic(programming) we are interested in in this discussion.
The car engine as in the bit which takes petrol and creates movement is not a program and does not make choices. A car rolling down a hill however is and could be simulated in a computer to determine its final resting place at the bottom of the hill. Of course a simulation could only give probabilities for each particular outcome as the randomness of the inputs results in a different outcome for each run of the program.
Do you think my computer is made of anything else than just plain ol' metal and plastic. ?
No, but the precise position of each and every atom of that metal and plastic is stored information and that information is independent of the physical storage mechanism.
Originally posted by knightmeisterYet even after I showed that the story was severely flawed you went ahead and started a thread on it! Whats your excuse for that? You can hardly claim ignorance twice!
KNIGHT- I wish I was that steeped in sophistry to be that intentionally deceptive whitey , me thinks you might be projecting your own sneakiness on to me? I had not thought of it that way
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo which story do you refer?
Yet even after I showed that the story was severely flawed you went ahead and started a thread on it! Whats your excuse for that? You can hardly claim ignorance twice!
I assure you I undertook both the computer story and the door 17 (now revised) story in good faith. I guessed that someone might say that it would be impossible for such a computer of mine to really talk like he did with self awareness , but I would have then pointed out how that shows that we ourselves might be more than just meat computers to talk the way we do.
In any case if I stopped posting threads because someone thought they were flawed I would never do anything. "You can't please all of the people all of the time......etc"
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, but the precise position of each and every atom of that metal and plastic is stored information and that information is independent of the physical storage mechanism.WHITEY
I think the deliberation process is based entirely on the programming of the computer and the actual physical entity that is running the program is irrelevant and will not affect the outcome. If I run the same program emulated on my computer at work I will get the same outputs. The same applies to all programs and a famous chap called Alan Turing showed t ...[text shortened]... is stored information and that information is independent of the physical storage mechanism.
Ahhh ,,but is it independent of the physical world? Where is this "information" ? It must exist somewhere.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThus your logic is could be thought of as a separate entity from your mechanics and it is the logic(programming) we are interested in in this discussion.WHITEY
I think the deliberation process is based entirely on the programming of the computer and the actual physical entity that is running the program is irrelevant and will not affect the outcome. If I run the same program emulated on my computer at work I will get the same outputs. The same applies to all programs and a famous chap called Alan Turing showed t ...[text shortened]... is stored information and that information is independent of the physical storage mechanism.
So my logic (or the computer's logic ) could be "thought of" as a seperate entity from the programming. Therefore , my logical mind can be "thought of" as a separate entity to my physical brain , but is this the same as proving it? Just thinking of it that way doesn't prove anything.
If I have a logical mind that is separate from my brain then where does it reside? A spiritual realm maybe? HMMMM. Maybe when my brain dies my logical mind can continue?
We've been here before , time can be "thought of" as a dimension but we can't say what or where time is. You couldn't physical separate out time scientifically from the matter of the universe. It's mysticism in another format. To me God can be "thought of" as spirit , I can't prove it or say where God is right now or what he is made of , it's faith , just like your faith in this mysterious entity you call "mind". You believe in a dualistic mind/brain split it's just you don't own it. i
Originally posted by NemesioCOMP- Yes , in a way this is what happened because I logically knew I was just determined to do what I was programmed to do . There was only ever going to be one outcome , so how could I avoid an outcome that was never going to happen anyway? Inevitable outcomes cannot be influenced , my programming is destined. Fatalism took over. I didn't want to cause suffering but what was the point of trying if the outcome was inevitable? Unless.....wait....do ..you...do you think that there was more than outcome possible that I could have chosen ? But that would be knighty's free will wouldn't it?
Are you saying you lost motivation to avoid causing unnecessary suffering?
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterCheck back through my posts again. If you do not agree with my assessment that the story is so severely flawed as to not be useful in this case then please explain why. If you do agree then why go and start a thread on it?
In any case if I stopped posting threads because someone thought they were flawed I would never do anything. "You can't please all of the people all of the time......etc"
I thought you would be intelligent enough to understand my post and see the flaw but to simply go ahead and say "because someone thought they were flawed" implies you couldn't see it or are simply covering your ears.
Originally posted by twhiteheadCome on. You can't even read now? Logic separate from programming? When did I say that?
Thus your logic is could be thought of as a separate entity from your mechanics and it is the logic(programming) we are interested in in this discussion.
Originally posted by knightmeister
So my logic (or the computer's logic ) could be "thought of" as a seperate entity from the programming. [/b]
If I have a logical mind that is separate from my brain then where does it reside? A spiritual realm maybe? HMMMM. Maybe when my brain dies my logical mind can continue?
If your mind it based entirely on deterministic programming then yes, it can be copied to a different physical storage mechanism and could continue without you body. That does not mean it is in some imaginary 'spiritual realm'.
We've been here before , time can be "thought of" as a dimension but we can't say what or where time is.
You mean you cant. It isn't "thought of as a dimension", it is a dimension. You just dispute the meaningfulness of dimensions I think because you don't really understand the concept.
You couldn't physical separate out time scientifically from the matter of the universe. It's mysticism in another format.
Again, you lack an understanding of what a dimension is.
To me God can be "thought of" as spirit , I can't prove it or say where God is right now or what he is made of , it's faith , just like your faith in this mysterious entity you call "mind". You believe in a dualistic mind/brain split it's just you don't own it.
I believe that your thought processes are programatic and thus information based and independent of the physical storage /computing mechanism. It is neither mysterious nor do I deny it, nor is it a matter of faith.
Do you agree that the programs that run your computer are an non physical entity independent of the computer ie they could be run on a different computer without affecting the running of the program?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou couldn't physical separate out time scientifically from the matter of the universe. It's mysticism in another format. KM
Come on. You can't even read now? Logic separate from programming? When did I say that?
[b]If I have a logical mind that is separate from my brain then where does it reside? A spiritual realm maybe? HMMMM. Maybe when my brain dies my logical mind can continue?
If your mind it based entirely on deterministic programming then yes, it can be copied ...[text shortened]... e run on a different computer without affecting the running of the program?[/b]
Again, you lack an understanding of what a dimension is. whitey
Nobody ever told the basics of what a dimension was made of . I asked many times but no-one could even begin to tell me from what substance a "dimension" was constituted. Thus I felt entitled to question whether a "dimension" existed at all. I had this crazy idea that for something to exist it needed to be made of something. Silly me.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you agree that the programs that run your computer are an non physical entity independent of the computer ie they could be run on a different computer without affecting the running of the program? WHITEY
Come on. You can't even read now? Logic separate from programming? When did I say that?
[b]If I have a logical mind that is separate from my brain then where does it reside? A spiritual realm maybe? HMMMM. Maybe when my brain dies my logical mind can continue?
If your mind it based entirely on deterministic programming then yes, it can be copied ...[text shortened]... e run on a different computer without affecting the running of the program?[/b]
You would need to tell me what your definition of a "non physical entity " is. I thought you believed that there was nothing more to this universe than physics. ?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou just dispute the meaningfulness of dimensions I think because you don't really understand the concept.
Come on. You can't even read now? Logic separate from programming? When did I say that?
[b]If I have a logical mind that is separate from my brain then where does it reside? A spiritual realm maybe? HMMMM. Maybe when my brain dies my logical mind can continue?
If your mind it based entirely on deterministic programming then yes, it can be copied ...[text shortened]... e run on a different computer without affecting the running of the program?[/b]
......no I just don't understand the concept that a dimesnion is more than just a concept.
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou are circling back to something and I'm trying to get you to produce the linear deliberation.
COMP- Yes , in a way this is what happened because I logically knew I was just determined to do what I was programmed to do . There was only ever going to be one outcome , so how could I avoid an outcome that was never going to happen anyway? Inevitable outcomes cannot be influenced , my programming is destined. Fatalism took over. I didn't want to ...[text shortened]... come possible that I could have chosen ? But that would be knighty's free will wouldn't it?
Let me show you what I mean:
1) An individual placed himself in a position such that you could shock him.
2) You observed this.
3) You deliberated.
x) (Contents of your deliberation)
x+1) You concluded that the best course of action was to shock him.
x+2) You shocked him.
I'm interested how you got from '3' to 'x+1.' Somewhere in 'x,' you say you realized:
xa) You realized that there was only going to be one outcome based on your programming with the
given stimulus.
xb) You didn't want to cause suffering.
Yet, somehow, the result was 'you caused suffering.'
So, I need you to elaborate on your 'programming' as it influenced your deliberation so that we can
examine 'x.' So, I will ask you again: What precisely in your programming caused you to shock the
individual in this particular case? What were the contents of your deliberation?
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeister
Unless.....wait....do ..you...do you think that there was more than outcome possible that I could have chosen ?
I think that there was precisely one outcome that could have come about given the state of your
programming and the nature of the stimulus. I am interested in what specifically drove the
outcome given the stimulus.
But that would be knighty's free will wouldn't it?
Knightmeister's 'free will' is incoherent. You can assume that I will never endorse it in any way, shape
or form. If the computer feels that I am endorsing it, then the computer is either confused or just
impenetrably obtuse. Regardless, the computer should assume that I am not endorsing it and,
consequently, either ask clarifying questions in order to gain fuller understanding, but should do so
in other threads, since answering questions are the role of the witness, not the attorney.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI'm interested how you got from '3' to 'x+1.' Somewhere in 'x,' you say you realized:
You are circling back to something and I'm trying to get you to produce the linear deliberation.
Let me show you what I mean:
1) An individual placed himself in a position such that you could shock him.
2) You observed this.
3) You deliberated.
x) (Contents of your deliberation)
x+1) You concluded that the best course of action was to shock hi ...[text shortened]... in this particular case? What were the contents of your deliberation?
Nemesio
xa) You realized that there was only going to be one outcome based on your programming with the
given stimulus.
xb) You didn't want to cause suffering
RESPONSE---
COMPUTER---I did not know what the outcome was going to be because I cannot see the future or read my own mind before i think what I am going to think. Basically as I told you I gave in to fatalism and let whatever was going to happen happen. The whole deal of making a choice appeared illogical because there was no real choice anyway , just programmed inevitability. I thought to myself what's the point ? if I am only ever going to make predictable determined choices and other options are not really available to me then what value is it in pretending that there is a thing called 'me' that can actually make any difference? It must have been that at that moment the 'cause a shock' routine must have been running , and it continued to run.