11 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioOkay. Why did recognizing fatalism remove the impetus to 'avoid causing suffering?'
What's the freaking deal, Knightmeister? You wanted to explore this and now that you've come
upon a dead end you just abandon it?
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
WAS THIS THE SPECIFIC QUESTION YOU WANTED ANSWERING?
If I have left you high and dry then I apologise. I think I was getting a bit bored with my own thread , would you permit me to speak as knightmeister again , maybe that will freshen things up?
11 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't care how you answer (as a computer or knightmeister or
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
WAS THIS THE SPECIFIC QUESTION Y ...[text shortened]... ead , would you permit me to speak as knightmeister again , maybe that will freshen things up?
whatever). I care that you answer the specific question: Given a deterministic
and non-dualistic universe (which is the premise of this thread as we
have both agreed), any action that you will have taken is the result of
a determined computation based on the overall program (and its auxiliary
subroutines) and the input it receives.
So, given the known input 'I' (a person who can be shocked) and the known
result 'R' (a person was shocked), you should be able to provide a logical
series of causes/effects from I to R.
I eagerly await your answer.
Nemesio
11 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioI thought I had given an answer. I described the process the computer went through when it computed that it was illogical that it had a choice to make (since only one outcome was possible) . The computer being logical does not perform functions that it deems to be illogical (ie make choices between one outcome) . The computer was being asked to make a choice on a course of action and two possibilities were placed before it. However , logic dictates that there is no need for the computer to faced with a decision to be made since the course of action was decided long ago when the computer was built. The computer was being asked the equivalent of how many prime numbers are there in a cheesecake. As such it decided to dismiss the question as illogical and the person got shocked.
I don't care how you answer (as a computer or knightmeister or
whatever). I care that you answer the specific question: Given a deterministic
and non-dualistic universe (which is the premise of this thread as we
have both agreed), any action that you will have taken is the result of
a determined computation based on the overall program (and its auxilia ...[text shortened]... ies of causes/effects from I to R.
I eagerly await your answer.
Nemesio
12 Jul 07
However , logic dictates that there is no need for the computer to faced with a decision to be made since the course of action was decided long ago when the computer was built.
Yes. It was decided by the program. So, explain the process for the
program's execution. Where is the calculation? Where is the weighing
of options? Where is the examination of implications?
The program does all of these things before it yields an output.
I want to see the processing. As a simple meat computer, I can explain
my processing. I gave an example above. I want to know the computer's
processing.
Step 1: Observes man bent over cable.
Step 2: Recognizes that the computer's choice is predetermined by its
program.
Step 3: ???
...
Step x: Shocks man.
Nemesio
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterLet me see if I understand you. I ask my computer to compute the factors of 24564. But these factors are fixed and are a logical fact of mathematics ie predetermined. So my computer decides that it is illogical to compute something that is fixed and promptly shuts down?
I thought I had given an answer. I described the process the computer went through when it computed that it was illogical that it had a choice to make (since only one outcome was possible) . The computer being logical does not perform functions that it deems to be illogical (ie make choices between one outcome) . The computer was being asked to make a ...[text shortened]... cheesecake. As such it decided to dismiss the question as illogical and the person got shocked.
My computer clearly had a pretty stupid programmer when its logic routines were put together.
The flaw in the logic is to assume that making a computation whose result is fixed but unknown is a waste of time.
My recommendation to the Judge would be to have the computer either sent to the scrap yard or completely reprogrammed as in its present form it is a danger to society. However if we have granted it rights due to it consciousness then we may have to send it to Jail or a reformatory to try and teach it better logic.
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me see if I understand you. I ask my computer to compute the factors of 24564. But these factors are fixed and are a logical fact of mathematics ie predetermined. WHITEY
Let me see if I understand you. I ask my computer to compute the factors of 24564. But these factors are fixed and are a logical fact of mathematics ie predetermined. So my computer decides that it is illogical to compute something that is fixed and promptly shuts down?
My computer clearly had a pretty stupid programmer when its logic routines were put t ...[text shortened]... ciousness then we may have to send it to Jail or a reformatory to try and teach it better logic.
But on eis not asking the computer to do anything of the sort one is asking the computer to make a choice between A and B when it's illogical that there can be such a choice due to the outcome being determined. The last time I looked it was logical to believthat there were two options available to make such a thing as a "choice". It would be like asking the computer to compute the factors of 24564 but at the same time acknowledge the factors weren't fixed.
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe definition of choice in a deterministic universe is basically an IF statement based on a computation. Only one outcome is possible but which outcome that is, is not known by the 'chooser' thus the computation must be run.
But on eis not asking the computer to do anything of the sort one is asking the computer to make a choice between A and B when it's illogical that there can be such a choice due to the outcome being determined. The last time I looked it was logical to believthat there were two options available to make such a thing as a "choice". It would be like askin ...[text shortened]... to compute the factors of 24564 but at the same time acknowledge the factors weren't fixed.
Whether or not there are two options available to make a thing a choice has nothing to do with logic but rather to do with definition.
Most people would, I believe, consider an IF statement in a standard computer program to be a choice. You obviously disagree.
The two options are available if the IF statement is considered independently of the inputs. The inputs determine the outcome. For a given set of inputs there is only one possible outcome but that outcome is not necessarily known before the computation is done.
12 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOnly one outcome is possible but which outcome that is, is not known by the 'chooser' thus the computation must be run. WHITEY
The definition of choice in a deterministic universe is basically an IF statement based on a computation. Only one outcome is possible but which outcome that is, is not known by the 'chooser' thus the computation must be run.
Whether or not there are two options available to make a thing a choice has nothing to do with logic but rather to do with definit ...[text shortened]... one possible outcome but that outcome is not necessarily known before the computation is done.
But the chooser must behave as if both outcomes are possible whilst knowing logically that this cannot be. In a sense the chooser must delude himself that multiple outcomes really are possible otherwise fatalism kicks in.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou failed to explain that concept with the computer. Please try again. What is this 'fatalism' and who does it kick? How exactly does the knowledge that there will be only one outcome stop you from making a choice? Are you saying that all computers are necessarily delusional? You're just not making any sense.
But the chooser must behave as if both outcomes are possible whilst knowing logically that this cannot be. In a sense the chooser must delude himself that multiple outcomes really are possible otherwise fatalism kicks in.
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you saying that all computers are necessarily delusional? You're just not making any sense.
You failed to explain that concept with the computer. Please try again. What is this 'fatalism' and who does it kick? How exactly does the knowledge that there will be only one outcome stop you from making a choice? Are you saying that all computers are necessarily delusional? You're just not making any sense.
BUT this computer believes itself to be sentient and has been prgrammed as such.
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioOriginally posted by Nemesio
Ahem.
Step 1: Observes man bent over cable.
Step 2: Recognizes that the computer's choice is predetermined by its
program.
Step 3: ???
...
Step x: Shocks man.
RSPONSE==
1. Observes man bent over cable.
2. Experiences the desire (possible sub rountine) to not shock man and runs it provisionally
3. Experiences the sub rountine to shock man and runs it provisionally
4. Experiences the beginnings of deliberation between 2 and 3
5. Experiences the impossibilty of the fact that one could be actually choosing between 2 and 3 since either 2 or 3 will happen inevitably and the computer has no real power to stop the inevitable event from happening.
6. Logic crash - does not compute / fatalism logically sets in
7. Sub rountine 3 is still running.
14 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterSubroutine 2 was still running, too. This 'logic crash' doesn't explain the
6. Logic crash - does not compute / fatalism logically sets in
logical preference of 3 over 2.
It would seem that you are arguing that the recognition that libertarian
free will doesn't exist leads to aberrant behavior. But certainly you aren't
advocating that, are you?
Nemesio
15 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioBut sub rountine 3 was the last one to be run and took precedence because the inherent programming of the computer has a default setting that requires action rather than inaction.
Subroutine 2 was still running, too. This 'logic crash' doesn't explain the
logical preference of 3 over 2.
It would seem that you are arguing that the recognition that libertarian
free will doesn't exist leads to aberrant behavior. But certainly you aren't
advocating that, are you?
Nemesio