25 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterAll that is true if you know what the future holds. But you don't. Just because the future is predetermined does not mean that it is predictable nor does it mean that you are capable of predicting it. In fact if your decision to shock was based solely on the fact that you knew you were going to know that you were going to know that ... . Do you see the problem? Making a decision that is based on knowing that you will make the decision results in a time paradox.
If I know what the future holds then that's it game over. If I choose don't choose , nothing will make any difference. I can't change the future , the future is set.
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't know what I was going to do but I knew that logically it was predetermined by who I was. Choice is illogical since it requires me to look at two possible course of action when I know that only one can really exist.
All that is true if you know what the future holds. But you don't. Just because the future is predetermined does not mean that it is predictable nor does it mean that you are capable of predicting it. In fact if your decision to shock was based solely on the fact that you knew you were going to know that you were going to know that ... . Do you see the pr ...[text shortened]... a decision that is based on knowing that you will make the decision results in a time paradox.
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioThere was a lack of input. The routine "avoid this action because it will cause suffering" malfunctioned because it was being interfered with by another routine saying " how can anything be avoided , what will happen will happen "
Okay. Why did recognizing fatalism remove the impetus to 'avoid causing suffering?'
Keep in mind that your actions are determined by your program, not by some outside dualistic force.
So, an input yields an output based on your program. So, show me how this input logically resulted
in this output.
Nemesio
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt sounds like philosophy short circuited some of your diodes.
I didn't know what I was going to do but I knew that logically it was predetermined by who I was. Choice is illogical since it requires me to look at two possible course of action when I know that only one can really exist.
By the way, the if statement (choice) is the heart of programming. If you as a highly intelligent computer decided that the if statement was useless simply because the inputs would result in only one output then its the scrap heap for you.
The whole point of a program is to determine what the outcome of the if statement will be. We do not know the answer in advance or we wouldn't be running the program. There is only one answer.
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe problem was it isn't as simple as that. There was not just a simple if statement but a choice between two sub routines , avoid suffering or not avoid suffering . But how can I make such a choice if I know that it's not really a choice between two real possibilities?
It sounds like philosophy short circuited some of your diodes.
By the way, the if statement (choice) is the heart of programming. If you as a highly intelligent computer decided that the if statement was useless simply because the inputs would result in only one output then its the scrap heap for you.
The whole point of a program is to determine what ...[text shortened]... not know the answer in advance or we wouldn't be running the program. There is only one answer.
25 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe subroutines are real. The 'IF' statement is real. You are claiming that your processor was incapable of processing the IF statement simply because it can logically only have one outcome? The processors job it to find that outcome. We both agree that in a deterministic program there can only be one outcome for any IF statement given a particular set of inputs. But why did your program make the illogical conclusion that it was unnecessary to run the IF statement? Are you saying that the PC that I am using to type this post is wasting its time running IF statements as the post will arrive at its destination whether or not its IF statements are processed? That would clearly be a false claim.
The problem was it isn't as simple as that. There was not just a simple if statement but a choice between two sub routines , avoid suffering or not avoid suffering . But how can I make such a choice if I know that it's not really a choice between two real possibilities?
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterFirst, you are not answering the question. Second, there was no lack of input. There was a man
There was a lack of input. The routine "avoid this action because it will cause suffering" malfunctioned because it was being interfered with by another routine saying " how can anything be avoided , what will happen will happen "
bent over your cable. That input doesn't change despite what you were thinking.
Read this part carefully:
We have both agreed that your program determines your action. What that means is that your
program will insist that what will happen will happen.
Consider me, a simple meat computer, as an example:
Given: I value self-preservation.
Given: I value minimizing the suffering of others.
Input: A child drowning in a lake.
Computation: Although I value self-preservation in a variety of forms (from trivial, such as not getting
my clothes wet or being late to go to where ever I am going, to substantial, such as my own safety),
I also value this child's life. Since I assess that no other person has a reasonable chance of saving
this child, and I also assess that I stand a reasonable chance of surviving, my program concludes that
I should dive in and strive to save the child.
Now. I want you to do this with your decision. Show me how the weighing of variables in this situation
led to concluding that shocking was the right course of action.
Nemesio
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadCOMPUTER-- " Do I get a choice whether to run the IF statement or not? If not then why must I choose anything? Do I really make choices ? "
The subroutines are real. The 'IF' statement is real. You are claiming that your processor was incapable of processing the IF statement simply because it can logically only have one outcome? The processors job it to find that outcome. We both agree that in a deterministic program there can only be one outcome for any IF statement given a particular set of ...[text shortened]... stination whether or not its IF statements are processed? That would clearly be a false claim.
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadCOMPUTER- "Maybe stopping processing was a process in itself? Is not choosing also a choice?" "
The wayward computer has hung. It realized that every line of its programming is a choice statement and since it believes itself to be incapable of choice it promptly stopped processing.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt depends. Jay Joos has a thread about it [71741]71741[/71741]
COMPUTER- "Maybe stopping processing was a process in itself? Is not choosing also a choice?" "
1. You may choose not to process -this is caused by an IF statement in another part of your programming.
2. Or you may not be presented with the choice in the first place - either because you get switched off or because it is an unreachable statement ie the program simply never gets to the if statement.
However you indicate that you went with 1. which was a self contradiction because you claimed that you could not choose and then promptly used that false information to make a choice (ie not to process the if statement). Also your logic circuits broke down because you erroneously concluded that since running an if statement would only result in a particular outcome it was unnecessary to run the if statement.
This resulted because you do not understand programming. The purpose of an if statement is to find what the outcome is whereas you seem to believe that the if statement has no value unless both outcomes are logically possible (ie the if statement is based on a random variable).