excreationist

madmax2976:
<a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0804882.html" target="_blank">About Deep Blue and Kasparov</a>
Now as you know, computers are totally deterministic. As long as the software and the inputs are the same, the outputs will be the same.
I guess you think that that chess computer didn't go through a "decision process"... then what was it doing?

An AI dictionary definition for <a href="http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/DECISION.html" target="_blank">decision</a>:
But I suppose that only one future course of action is possible (in AI at least)...

But the thing is, that since the we and the computer aren't omnipotent, we don't instantly know what the decision will be, based on our selection criteria.

It's like having ten identical boxes in front of you, each containing a different food. Initially the boxes are closed and you don't know what's inside them. Your task would be to choose your favourite food. You could argue that it isn't really a choice though, since your food preferences are already finalized before you even look at the choices.
Initially you know that you will arrive at a choice, but you don't know what box you will choose (since you don't know what's inside them yet).

I think choice means arriving at a conclusion or course of action where there initially *seemed* to be many outcomes.

So let's say a dog always pants when you bring out the food. Since this behaviour seems so predictable and inevitable, I wouldn't call it a "choice". But if you throw a ball, the dog might sometimes run after it, or sometimes ignore it. I'd call that a "choice".

In the case of chess computers, there is no shortcut that a programmer can do to make it instantly find the computer's choice - it takes a lot of computation to work it out. And most people wouldn't be very good at working out what move the computer will make - so I'd say that the computer has a "choice".

On the other hand, falling coins are unpredictable too, and I wouldn't say that they have a choice. Maybe choice requires a system with a certain amount of intelligence or complexity that evaluates alternatives based on some selection criteria. A coin doesn't really do this - it just falls on one side because of its momentum and gravity.

Kharakov

but simply decided not to--&gt; because of all the factors that influenced your decision, including all previous experiences (includes everything that has ever happened in the universe up to that point) that have affected you.

It is coherent. When someone refers to their "experiences" they refer to the past: "3 a : the conscious events that make up an individual life b : the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or mankind generally
4. something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through" (www.m-w.com).

True, but your statement has nothing to do with whether or not experiences have anything to do with choices made. You cannot help it though because all past experiences are the reason for your inability to understand what DRFseven was saying.

Experiences refer to more than just what an individual has experienced: the experiences that produced the individual are the reason the individual is the way they are- they cannot help it, just like later in life- all actions (physical, mental, etc.) that have affected them (experiences) dictate what they will do, and how they will behave.

crocodile deathroll

I am of the view that preexisting brain chemistry is is responsible for our descision about a half second before we think we feel we made that particular descision it you read the work of Benjamin Libet you will see what I mean
<a href="http://members.ll.net/tomofdarwin/freewill.htm" target="_blank">http://members.ll.net/tomofdarwin/freewill.htm</a>
crocodile deathroll

excreationist

Cool... well maybe that's why I was under the impression that the voice in our head merely commentates what we're thinking about...

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by excreationist:
madmax2976:
<a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0804882.html" target="_blank">About Deep Blue and Kasparov</a>

Not to nitpick, but Deep Blue was advised by a cadre of human grandmasters, without which it could not have beaten Kasparov. I remember reading some articles in the Chess literature at the time that said that all the crucial moves had in fact been made by the humans, and IBM covered it up. May have just been wishful thinking, however, but the rumor was widely reported.

Michael

madmax2976

Not quite. I grant that it appears that we do have the ability to choose. However it also appears that the universe is, at least largely, deterministic. Taken to the extreme case this would imply that our actions are not "choices" we make, but simply events that are forced to occur due to the laws of nature, just as a rock must fall due to the laws of gravity and motion. For any action we do, we could not have done otherwise. Thus any sense of choice would be an illusion.

I'll ask again. Do you believe the laws of nature are prescriptive or descriptive?

Define "to decide" without referencing, directly or indirectly, the ability to choose.

If we assume you have the ability to choose this would imply that you could have picked out clothes to wear or not. Taken to its extreme conclusion, determinism might indicate that you could not have done anything other than what you did. You had no more say in the matter than a rock does when it falls. Thus there was no "choice". You had to do exactly what you did.

Or perhaps it is only an illusion due to our inability to compute all the factors involved? If all the molecules/atoms and nerve cells in our brains operate according to the laws of nature and do what the must they must do without the abilility to choose otherwise, then the inference of that might be that that we have no ability to do other than what we do. You would have no more choice over what you do than water has over where it will flow or a meteorite has on where it will land. The laws of nature would force all things to happen just as they did.

Of course the above describes the prescriptive or necessitarian position regarding the laws of nature. I am descriptivist and believe the laws descibe our world, they don't "force" anything to occur any particular way.

Devilnaut

How exactly does it appear that we have choice? I said that you think that in a deterministic universe, we do not have choice. Is this accurate?

Please explain exactly what it means for the laws of nature to be prescriptive or descriptive, and how it relates to the nature of choice. I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you really not understand what those words mean? To pick between various alternatives, to select one among many alternatives. It is not possible to define most words without using SOME kind of synonym. Try defining the word define without using the words description or explain. Does this mean that defining words is only an illusion?

The fact is, using the proper definition of the word choice, we can say without a doubt that we do indeed make choices, and whether they are somehow determined or not is irrelevant.



So it is merely coincidence that they all happen according to particular rules?



devilnaut

madmax2976

<strong> No thats not accurate. I said that determinism, taken to the extreme, might indicate that we don't have the ability to choose.

I believe we do have the ability to choose. What I am curious about is other people's resolution to the question of choice in a deterministic universe.

Think about a rock rolling down a hill. It just happens to bounce around and roll down the west side in a zig zag fashion. There was no choice involved for the rock on which way it would go. Its path was governed by laws of gravity, motion, energy, etc.. The question would be, even thought there may be more complex variables involved, are human "paths" (actions) the same as the rock - devoid of any real choice?

Assuming you don't agree and you believe that WE do have choice, explain why you don't agree.

<strong> If laws are prescriptive this would indicate events occur because the laws of nature "force" them to.

If laws are descriptive this merely means the laws of nature describe what happens when events occur.

These sites can fill you in on some of this issue:

<a href="http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/lawofnat.htm" target="_blank">http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/lawofnat.htm</a>

<strong> I'm being told that a resolution to the question lies in the proper definition of "choice".

However:

1. No argument has been given for why the definitions given are the "proper" ones.

2. The definitions given use words that mean the same thing, thereby making the claim those definitions are the "proper" ones appear quite unsound.

If the extreme deterministic position were true, then it would be relevant. You wouldn't be able to make any choices, you would just do what the various laws of the universe force you to do.

<strong> What happens according to what rules? Are you asking why some phenomena acts the way it does and not some other way? Or are you asking why the laws are the way they are?

MadMordigan

There was no choice involved for the rock on which way it would go. Its path was governed by laws of gravity, motion, energy, etc.. The question would be, even thought there may be more complex variables involved, are human "paths" (actions) the same as the rock - devoid of any real choice?

The precise path the rock follows as it falls down a hill of sufficient complexity is determined by variables that have a non-linear relationship to the path taken. Things like the spin, initial velocity, complexity of the rock's surface, ect, can only be known to a discrete accuracy. We cannot know with sufficient precision all the variables that will determine the path of that rock. A small variation in the spin, or roughness of the surface will make LARGE differences in the path the rock will take.

So it is with our mind-states. We cannot measure and quantify the precise psycological and neurological influences that make up any given decision. A small difference in the influence of fatigue, for example, can make large differences in our decisions.

From our own perspective, it seems like we are making a choice that is not indeterminate.

DRFseven

How do you know that? You can state it, but what makes you think it's true? What am I doing, then, if not deciding, when I deliberate over options? What would a proper word be?

Something has to cause one of the alternatives to be chosen. This means that NOTHING can be selected without more weight on one side than the other. The more similar the weight of the alternatives seems, the "harder" it is to make the decision. Sometimes we come to the point where we're "between a rock and a hard place" because we are unable to ascertain any advantage and we say, "I just can't decide." If decisions were made freely, we'd have no need to tie them to advantages. Do you dispute this?

No, madmax; remember, I said that because my memory is a part of me, *I* identify myself as making the decision. It is you, who, in stipulating that decisions must be made freely, have speculated on a decision-dispensing thing that operates outside our thinking processes. I seriously doubt that you mean this, but, please, tell me once and for all, if you believe we can make decisions independently of our thought processes. If we can't, how might memories of our life experiences upon which our thought processes turn NOT determine our decisions?