Free-agent cannot be created

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Free-agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:52 pm

Here is the argument:

1) Knowledge is structured
2) Creation requires knowledge
3) Therefore, any created thing is structured
4) Free-agent is not structured (because otherwise there would be tension in decision)
5) Therefore, free-agent cannot be created

Dimebag
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by Dimebag » Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:01 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:52 pm
Here is the argument:

1) Knowledge is structured
2) Creation requires knowledge
3) Therefore, any created thing is structured
4) Free-agent is not structured (because otherwise there would be tension in decision)
5) Therefore, free-agent cannot be created
1) Pretty vague. What is the structure of knowledge? Knowledge to me is information. So if information has structure, then maybe I could accept that.

2) how about creation via luck, like for example natural selection, or say, experimenting with different possibilities. Sometimes you stumble upon something really important through blind luck, no knowledge involved.

3) I’m not sure that follows. You said creation requires knowledge, but it doesn’t follow then that anything created is structured, all that you said is it requires knowledge to create. I’m not saying I disagree with the conclusion, but it doesn’t follow from the premise, so the logic isn’t quite right.

4) I don’t even know what you mean by “otherwise there would be tension in decision”, nor why that means a free agent is not structured.

I think free agents require certain structures. Firstly, they need goals. Secondly they need the ability to imagine different possibilities which can be entertained. Thirdly, they need to have causal control over themselves. Maybe what you mean by structure here isn’t how I’m using it.

So my question to you is, what do you mean by structure?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:01 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:01 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:52 pm
Here is the argument:

1) Knowledge is structured
2) Creation requires knowledge
3) Therefore, any created thing is structured
4) Free-agent is not structured (because otherwise there would be tension in decision)
5) Therefore, free-agent cannot be created
1) Pretty vague. What is the structure of knowledge? Knowledge to me is information. So if information has structure, then maybe I could accept that.
Knowledge is about how concepts are related.
Dimebag wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:01 am
2) how about creation via luck, like for example natural selection, or say, experimenting with different possibilities. Sometimes you stumble upon something really important through blind luck, no knowledge involved.
Randomness does not exist. I have a thread on this topic in here.
Dimebag wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:01 am
3) I’m not sure that follows. You said creation requires knowledge, but it doesn’t follow then that anything created is structured, all that you said is it requires knowledge to create. I’m not saying I disagree with the conclusion, but it doesn’t follow from the premise, so the logic isn’t quite right.
3) Follows from 1) and 2).
Dimebag wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:01 am
4) I don’t even know what you mean by “otherwise there would be tension in decision”, nor why that means a free agent is not structured.
Something which is structured has parts. Parts are either make decision or not. In the first case, parts could make different decisions in a situation. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest.
Dimebag wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:01 am
I think free agents require certain structures. Firstly, they need goals. Secondly they need the ability to imagine different possibilities which can be entertained. Thirdly, they need to have causal control over themselves. Maybe what you mean by structure here isn’t how I’m using it.
Things that are experienced by the free-agent are structured, thought for example.
Dimebag wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:01 am
So my question to you is, what do you mean by structure?
By structure, I mean that the free-agent has parts.

Dimebag
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by Dimebag » Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:25 am

bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:01 pm
Knowledge is about how concepts are related.
Okay, that’s fair enough, I’ll run with that.
Bachman wrote:Something which is structured has parts. Parts are either make decision or not. In the first case, parts could make different decisions in a situation. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest.
I don’t quite understand this the way you have phrased these sentences, specifically the parts in bold lettering, could you please rephrase these in another way to make the statements clearer for me?

Impenitent
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by Impenitent » Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:52 am

all you have to do is make James Bond unemployed...

-Imp

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:44 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:25 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:01 pm
Knowledge is about how concepts are related.
Okay, that’s fair enough, I’ll run with that.
Bachman wrote:Something which is structured has parts. Parts are either make decision or not. In the first case, parts could make different decisions in a situation. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest.
I don’t quite understand this the way you have phrased these sentences, specifically the parts in bold lettering, could you please rephrase these in another way to make the statements clearer for me?
Think of the case that the free-agent is made of two parts, X and Y are the parts. Suppose that free-agent arrives at a situation that requires a decision. X says to go this way and Y says to go that way. No decision could be made.

Dimebag
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by Dimebag » Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:37 pm

bahman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:44 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:25 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:01 pm
Knowledge is about how concepts are related.
Okay, that’s fair enough, I’ll run with that.
Bachman wrote:Something which is structured has parts. Parts are either make decision or not. In the first case, parts could make different decisions in a situation. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest.
I don’t quite understand this the way you have phrased these sentences, specifically the parts in bold lettering, could you please rephrase these in another way to make the statements clearer for me?
Think of the case that the free-agent is made of two parts, X and Y are the parts. Suppose that free-agent arrives at a situation that requires a decision. X says to go this way and Y says to go that way. No decision could be made.
Okay I think I see what you are getting at. First, you are assuming that choice X and Y are both equal in all respects, in both chances of success of attainment, as well as potential gain. Let’s flesh out this scenario.

You are in a supermarket and need to buy a can of beans. You stand in front of an aisle with cans of beans. All the same brand, same price same size. And two specific cans have been identified which are closest to you, both equally close. How does this free agent decide which can to take. It would seem to be at a stalemate. Well. Here’s an idea. It chooses the one it looks at.

You can only look at one thing at any one time, you can’t hold two things in your direct focus, that is the way object recognition works. If the cans were joined, like if they were part of a greater whole, like in a crate, we would view the crate as the singular object of attention to take, but as the cans are sitting individually, the singular can is the discrete unit which is taken into consideration.

Another consideration when making a choice. As your eyes move between the two closest cans, you have a consideration of time which is quickly passing, and so the need to choose increases with each second, to the point where, whichever can the eyes are fixed upon at the time the selection is made, becomes the can of choice. Obviously the eyes have some scanning pattern for determining the most novel and useful information at any one time. If the goal is, find a can of beans, the eyes will engage their searching pattern, scanning for the objective goal.

This scanning is not a deliberate process, it uses the information from the environment, combined with the internal goals to produce appropriate eye movement towards useful and goal oriented objects. So it might be argued that the agent doesn’t freely choose which object it comes upon, rather the goal and the environment does.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:56 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:44 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:25 am

Okay, that’s fair enough, I’ll run with that.

I don’t quite understand this the way you have phrased these sentences, specifically the parts in bold lettering, could you please rephrase these in another way to make the statements clearer for me?
Think of the case that the free-agent is made of two parts, X and Y are the parts. Suppose that free-agent arrives at a situation that requires a decision. X says to go this way and Y says to go that way. No decision could be made.
Okay I think I see what you are getting at. First, you are assuming that choice X and Y are both equal in all respects, in both chances of success of attainment, as well as potential gain. Let’s flesh out this scenario.

You are in a supermarket and need to buy a can of beans. You stand in front of an aisle with cans of beans. All the same brand, same price same size. And two specific cans have been identified which are closest to you, both equally close. How does this free agent decide which can to take. It would seem to be at a stalemate. Well. Here’s an idea. It chooses the one it looks at.

You can only look at one thing at any one time, you can’t hold two things in your direct focus, that is the way object recognition works. If the cans were joined, like if they were part of a greater whole, like in a crate, we would view the crate as the singular object of attention to take, but as the cans are sitting individually, the singular can is the discrete unit which is taken into consideration.

Another consideration when making a choice. As your eyes move between the two closest cans, you have a consideration of time which is quickly passing, and so the need to choose increases with each second, to the point where, whichever can the eyes are fixed upon at the time the selection is made, becomes the can of choice. Obviously the eyes have some scanning pattern for determining the most novel and useful information at any one time. If the goal is, find a can of beans, the eyes will engage their searching pattern, scanning for the objective goal.

This scanning is not a deliberate process, it uses the information from the environment, combined with the internal goals to produce appropriate eye movement towards useful and goal oriented objects. So it might be argued that the agent doesn’t freely choose which object it comes upon, rather the goal and the environment does.
What you are describing happens when a free-agent follows a chain of causality. A free-agent, however, is free to stop a chain of causality whenever s/he wants.

Dimebag
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by Dimebag » Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:31 am

bahman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:56 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:44 pm

Think of the case that the free-agent is made of two parts, X and Y are the parts. Suppose that free-agent arrives at a situation that requires a decision. X says to go this way and Y says to go that way. No decision could be made.
Okay I think I see what you are getting at. First, you are assuming that choice X and Y are both equal in all respects, in both chances of success of attainment, as well as potential gain. Let’s flesh out this scenario.

You are in a supermarket and need to buy a can of beans. You stand in front of an aisle with cans of beans. All the same brand, same price same size. And two specific cans have been identified which are closest to you, both equally close. How does this free agent decide which can to take. It would seem to be at a stalemate. Well. Here’s an idea. It chooses the one it looks at.

You can only look at one thing at any one time, you can’t hold two things in your direct focus, that is the way object recognition works. If the cans were joined, like if they were part of a greater whole, like in a crate, we would view the crate as the singular object of attention to take, but as the cans are sitting individually, the singular can is the discrete unit which is taken into consideration.

Another consideration when making a choice. As your eyes move between the two closest cans, you have a consideration of time which is quickly passing, and so the need to choose increases with each second, to the point where, whichever can the eyes are fixed upon at the time the selection is made, becomes the can of choice. Obviously the eyes have some scanning pattern for determining the most novel and useful information at any one time. If the goal is, find a can of beans, the eyes will engage their searching pattern, scanning for the objective goal.

This scanning is not a deliberate process, it uses the information from the environment, combined with the internal goals to produce appropriate eye movement towards useful and goal oriented objects. So it might be argued that the agent doesn’t freely choose which object it comes upon, rather the goal and the environment does.
What you are describing happens when a free-agent follows a chain of causality. A free-agent, however, is free to stop a chain of causality whenever s/he wants.
Yes. And yet, if it does stop such a chain of causality, it will have prior motivations for doing so, correct? Does an agent ever do something with no cause or motivation?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:36 am

Dimebag wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:31 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:56 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:37 pm

Okay I think I see what you are getting at. First, you are assuming that choice X and Y are both equal in all respects, in both chances of success of attainment, as well as potential gain. Let’s flesh out this scenario.

You are in a supermarket and need to buy a can of beans. You stand in front of an aisle with cans of beans. All the same brand, same price same size. And two specific cans have been identified which are closest to you, both equally close. How does this free agent decide which can to take. It would seem to be at a stalemate. Well. Here’s an idea. It chooses the one it looks at.

You can only look at one thing at any one time, you can’t hold two things in your direct focus, that is the way object recognition works. If the cans were joined, like if they were part of a greater whole, like in a crate, we would view the crate as the singular object of attention to take, but as the cans are sitting individually, the singular can is the discrete unit which is taken into consideration.

Another consideration when making a choice. As your eyes move between the two closest cans, you have a consideration of time which is quickly passing, and so the need to choose increases with each second, to the point where, whichever can the eyes are fixed upon at the time the selection is made, becomes the can of choice. Obviously the eyes have some scanning pattern for determining the most novel and useful information at any one time. If the goal is, find a can of beans, the eyes will engage their searching pattern, scanning for the objective goal.

This scanning is not a deliberate process, it uses the information from the environment, combined with the internal goals to produce appropriate eye movement towards useful and goal oriented objects. So it might be argued that the agent doesn’t freely choose which object it comes upon, rather the goal and the environment does.
What you are describing happens when a free-agent follows a chain of causality. A free-agent, however, is free to stop a chain of causality whenever s/he wants.
Yes. And yet, if it does stop such a chain of causality, it will have prior motivations for doing so, correct? Does an agent ever do something with no cause or motivation?
You need motivation for doing things including decision. You, however, can create motivation and follow it which means that you can initiate a chain of causality. You follow a chain of causality when one motivation is available at any point. You might need a decision when two motivations are involved otherwise you want one motivation more than another which means that you follow a chain of causality. You make a decision whenever motivations cannot get you anywhere (for example when you like them equally) or when the outcome of your decision is not clear to you (we can only forecast the outcome of short term plan).

Dimebag
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by Dimebag » Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:00 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:36 am
You need motivation for doing things including decision. You, however, can create motivation and follow it whicih means that you can initiate a chain of causality. You follow a chain of causality when one motivation is available at any point.
I’m not so sure of this part, though I will allow you to describe how we create motivations. I think we can “find” motivation, we can become motivated by the external world. We can even come to some kind of new motivation via a form of self insight. But there is always some trigger. The motivation always has some prior cause for coming into existence, and maybe in between that prior cause and the having of that motivation, we take ownership of that motivation. The deeper question is, what is it that is choosing or creating or taking ownership of motivation, this “I”.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:00 am

Dimebag wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:00 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:36 am
You need motivation for doing things including decision. You, however, can create motivation and follow it which means that you can initiate a chain of causality. You follow a chain of causality when one motivation is available at any point.
I’m not so sure of this part, though I will allow you to describe how we create motivations. I think we can “find” motivation, we can become motivated by the external world. We can even come to some kind of new motivation via a form of self insight. But there is always some trigger.
Yes, there are two sources for motivation, self and external world. There are two scenarios available for the first case, 1) you wait for a self-motivation by reflecting to see what pops up to your conscious mind and then decide or 2) you decide and create your motivation at once.
Dimebag wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:00 am
The motivation always has some prior cause for coming into existence, and maybe in between that prior cause and the having of that motivation, we take ownership of that motivation.
That is not the case when you cause and decide a motivation at once (the second scenario). That is true since your decision always coincides with motivation.
Dimebag wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:00 am
The deeper question is, what is it that is choosing or creating or taking ownership of motivation, this “I”.
What you call it "I", I call mind. Mind is essence of being/thing with the ability to experience, decide and cause. Mind is one of the fundamental entity of the reality, together with physical (thoughts, objects, etc.), what we experience and cause, makes our world.

Dimebag
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by Dimebag » Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:07 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:00 am
That is not the case when you cause and decide a motivation at once (the second scenario). That is true since your decision always coincides with motivation.
So by “you cause” you mean the mind causes and decides on a motivation. My question remains, how does the mind do this with no prior causes?
bahman wrote:
Dimebag wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:00 am
The deeper question is, what is it that is choosing or creating or taking ownership of motivation, this “I”.
bahman wrote: What you call it "I", I call mind. Mind is essence of being/thing with the ability to experience, decide and cause. Mind is one of the fundamental entity of the reality, together with physical (thoughts, objects, etc.), what we experience and cause, makes our world.
Once again, how does the mind cause without any causes imposing on it? If it does have causes imposing on it, it is following a chain of causation. Or is there some point in which choice is inserted in that causal chain?

Here is my take on the free will determinism dichotomy.

Our brains are fully determined. We don’t have the kind of free will that is described as starting a causal chain, that is not commensurate with the concept of a mechanical deterministic system. It would essentially be a random fluctuation if it is not part of the causal system. Instead, my view is this.

Our brains job is to predict (or imagine, or entertain, or simulate) possible future outcomes. It is always trying to stay one step ahead of the external world, trying to predict what will happen next. It can also predict outcomes of its own action in the world and imagine those possibilities, and it simulates or models these possibilities.

When we have a situation which is unexpected where a choice needs to be made, where there is uncertainty, our brains imagine and simulate possible outcomes of choices or actions. When these possible choices are being compared, that is the sensation of choosing. Once a choice has been evaluated, the most favourable choice which is deemed to be of minimal risk to the organism is selected. There is no single internal entity which chooses, the system itself chooses, but takes advantage of all of the expert systems of the brain which might be relevant to make the choice. This is why the process is conscious, due to the need to broadcast to the entire brain network. When the choice is in line with internally held motivations and is not being forced by an external influence, it feels more free, not coerced.

So my view is that, free will is not what people typically think of in the traditional sense. There can still be choice, as there is the selection from imagined possibilities, there is uncertainty in the outcome.

Other times, we like to think we choose freely, we merely act out of habit. We are free from external coercion, but not free from our own habitual patterns. This is fine, as long as we don’t compromise our higher goals by these habitual behaviours. So there is an internal tension or struggle between satisfying habitual behaviours which might satisfy lower desires such as our need for immediate pleasure, and our higher goals which might require some kind of sacrifice of those habitual behaviours in service of that higher cause. If we have higher goals but our habitual behaviours are dominating our ability to act on those higher goals, we might feel a lack of freedom over ourselves.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free-agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:09 am

Dimebag wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:07 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:00 am
That is not the case when you cause and decide a motivation at once (the second scenario). That is true since your decision always coincides with motivation.
So by “you cause” you mean the mind causes and decides on a motivation. My question remains, how does the mind do this with no prior causes?
What we know as a chain of causality is not possible without a mind that has ability to experience and cause. I have an argument for that: Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused. But there is nothing after X vanished and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must be a mind that is conscious of X and causes Y. So the question of how the mind could be conscious and cause has no relevance. These are simply the properties of the mind. That is how reality is.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest