Debate 6 Discussion: Whether Truth Exists in a Deterministic Universe: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 6 Discussion: Whether Truth Exists in a Deterministic Universe » Debate 6 Discussion: Whether Truth Exists in a Deterministic Universe

Debate 6 Discussion: Whether Truth Exists in a Deterministic Universe

Page: 1 2 3

Debate 6 Discussion: Whether Truth Exists in a Deterministic Universe

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 12/16/04 - 05:41 PM:	#26
dreamweaver wrote: I thought it would be quite obvious. The person, in that example, is "forced" to believe, and say something. The same occurs in a deterministic Universe, but it happens all the time. So, I guess I still have the same question: would it be correct to say that the person in question really believes that he is a chicken? Again, why cannot someone be convinced in a deterministic universe? You don't become convinced because you choose to be convinced. You become convinced because you reason a certain way, and the argument agrees with your manner of reasoning. And as I've tried to argue, the manner by which you reason comes about by a deterministic process. This process includes choice, but I don't believe choice and determinism are incompatible. I do, however, believe that the use of words "free choice" are a little fuzzy, and whatever it may be, if it is to exist, a purely deterministic being can have it too. I don't think free choice contradicts determinism, it contradicts itself, in a way. Or, perhaps, it is not a term that should be used in an objective context, only in a subjective, small-scale context where, for one, we don't question things like why we like what we like. The hypnotism example is irrelevant. Whether the person believes he's a chicken or not doesn't matter. Assume he does, so what? Being convinced is different from being hypnotized, but being convinced doesn't require something that a deterministic being can't have.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

dreamweaver
Web we Weave

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 2034

Posted 12/17/04 - 09:38 AM:	#27
AKG wrote: The hypnotism example is irrelevant. Whether the person believes he's a chicken or not doesn't matter. Assume he does, so what? Being convinced is different from being hypnotized, but being convinced doesn't require something that a deterministic being can't have. You keep saying that, but I can't see in the slightest how it's irrelevant. In both cases, the person is clearly "forced" to believe something. Now, when the person is hypnotised, and outright declares that he's a chicken, and -- for all we know -- he really does at the time, would it really be alright to say that he, himself actually believes it (if we were to know that he was hypnotised), or is he just expressing what the hypnotist wants him too. I personally wouldn't think it proper to say that he believes it. If someone asks me why, I realised that my immediate answer -- the first one that came to mind -- was, quite simply, that it's because he was forced to believe it. Whether this is a valid response or not we can discuss (and is still questionable), but one thing's for sure -- that, I believe, would be the same immediate response for a lot of people.
Dos moi pou sto kai kino taen gaen. ~ Archimedes

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 4324

Posted 12/19/04 - 03:47 PM:	#28
AKG wrote: Again, why cannot someone be convinced in a deterministic universe? You don't become convinced because you choose to be convinced. Why not? To "become convinced of" X is to accept it as true. Truth, as Socrastein and I agreed, is conformity of proposition to fact. In other words, you are addressing the issue of validity. Surely a deterministic system can ascertain the validity of a syllogism or not, by following simple (algorithmic) rules. But no deterministic system can ascertain the soundness of an argument, because that rests on a judgment of the premises, and this judgment does not follow algorithmic rules. The question is how can anyone judge the soundness of premises in a deterministic universe. At the bottom of it, there is a choice; the choice to accept sense-data as true, the choice to accept "common sense" (in the technical, Aristotelian-Kantian meaning) as true, etc.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 12/21/04 - 09:56 PM:	#29
Mariner wrote: In other words, you are addressing the issue of validity. Surely a deterministic system can ascertain the validity of a syllogism or not, by following simple (algorithmic) rules. But no deterministic system can ascertain the soundness of an argument, because that rests on a judgment of the premises, and this judgment does not follow algorithmic rules. That's false. Judgment can follow algorithmic rules. Why shouldn't it? The question is how can anyone judge the soundness of premises in a deterministic universe. At the bottom of it, there is a choice; the choice to accept sense-data as true, the choice to accept "common sense" (in the technical, Aristotelian-Kantian meaning) as true, etc. I don't choose to accept sense data. What the heck would that even mean? I receive sense data, whether I like it or not. A machine can receive sense-data just as any person could. At any rate, a machine can choose just as you can. Do you choose to accept common sense for no reason? If so, then I don't think it should really be called a choice, and I don't think some choice made for no reason can be used as the basis of assessing soundness. Whatever reason you accept things for, a machine can accept things for the same reason. After all, you don't choose the reasons that lead you to choose common sense.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 12/21/04 - 09:59 PM:	#30
dreamweaver wrote: You keep saying that, but I can't see in the slightest how it's irrelevant. In both cases, the person is clearly "forced" to believe something. Now, when the person is hypnotised, and outright declares that he's a chicken, and -- for all we know -- he really does at the time, would it really be alright to say that he, himself actually believes it (if we were to know that he was hypnotised), or is he just expressing what the hypnotist wants him too. I personally wouldn't think it proper to say that he believes it. If someone asks me why, I realised that my immediate answer -- the first one that came to mind -- was, quite simply, that it's because he was forced to believe it. Whether this is a valid response or not we can discuss (and is still questionable), but one thing's for sure -- that, I believe, would be the same immediate response for a lot of people. What does this have to do with what I said? You are convinced of a person's argument. A machine can also be convinced by an argument. Whatever the basis for your decisions was, the machine can also have as a basis for its decision.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 4324

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 12/22/04 - 12:46 PM:	#31
AKG wrote: That's false. Judgment can follow algorithmic rules. Why shouldn't it? Why, give an example then . "That's false" is hardly a refutation of the problem at hand (how first premises can't be derived deductively), which is as old as philosophy. I don't choose to accept sense data. What the heck would that even mean? I receive sense data, whether I like it or not. A machine can receive sense-data just as any person could. At any rate, a machine can choose just as you can. Do you choose to accept common sense for no reason? If so, then I don't think it should really be called a choice, and I don't think some choice made for no reason can be used as the basis of assessing soundness. Whatever reason you accept things for, a machine can accept things for the same reason. After all, you don't choose the reasons that lead you to choose common sense. Of course you can choose to believe your senses or not. (You seem to be arguing just for the sake of argument -- it would be better if you addressed the points instead of just saying "no"). I didn't say that you can choose to receive sense-data, I said that you can choose to accept it or not. (And of course you can stop receiving sense-data if you wish, close your eyes to check on that). You can easily believe that everything is designed to fool you, the "inverted Cartesian assumption". It's called "paranoia". You can program a machine to accept all sources of data, but it can't ever be programmed to judge its own program and decide whether to accept it or not. Which is what humans do. (You seem still to be misled by the assumption that if something is not deterministic, it is chosen "for no reason". An argument to bolster that assumption of yours would be welcomed too).
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

archonemis
Zen Mechanoid

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 26, 2004
Location: A nice little enclave in the southwest corner of L.A. with beautiful trees, indifferent women and studio exec.s that I like to call HELL
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 66

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 12/27/04 - 11:59 AM:	#32
AKG wrote: I had "believe" in quotation marks for a reason. Mariner has essentially stated that beliefs must be freely chosen. I disagree. However, if that were the case, then it would make sense to say that determinism cannot be believed, but in fact it really can be believed, it might simply be believed in a different sense than the sense in which free beings believe. How would you differentiate between a being that has free will and one that does?
Hellbent on mayonaise.

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 01/03/05 - 09:49 PM:	#33
Mariner wrote: Why, give an example then . "That's false" is hardly a refutation of the problem at hand (how first premises can't be derived deductively), which is as old as philosophy. What does judgment of premises have to do with freedom, will, or determinism? Also, I think you are confusing the use of an algorithm with deductive reasoning. I can give you an algorithm to tie your shoe or bake a cake. A simple premise: "the apple is 5m away from the table." You use an algorithm to determine the soundness of this premise, and we can have a robot implement an algorithm to determine the soundness of this premise as well. Of course you can choose to believe your senses or not. (You seem to be arguing just for the sake of argument -- it would be better if you addressed the points instead of just saying "no"). I didn't say that you can choose to receive sense-data, I said that you can choose to accept it or not. (And of course you can stop receiving sense-data if you wish, close your eyes to check on that). You can easily believe that everything is designed to fool you, the "inverted Cartesian assumption". It's called "paranoia". You can program a machine to accept all sources of data, but it can't ever be programmed to judge its own program and decide whether to accept it or not. Which is what humans do. Why can't machines do the same thing? What is it that allows us to judge our senses that a machine can't have, and why? Also, we do judge our senses, but it's not as though we are programmed to accept sense data and by our "freedom" we are able to question it. Perhaps are brains/minds are developed such that we have the capacity to question sense data. You can choose to accept sense data, and so can a machine. Whatever reasons you base your decision to deny certain sense data on can possibly be developed into an algorithm which a machine can learn. (You seem still to be misled by the assumption that if something is not deterministic, it is chosen "for no reason". An argument to bolster that assumption of yours would be welcomed too). No, only that something done for no reason is not really a choice.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 01/03/05 - 09:53 PM:	#34
archonemis wrote: How would you differentiate between a being that has free will and one that does? I think "free will" is essentially contradictory, so a being with free will is a contradiction, one without free will is not. A being with free will would be ultimately responsible for his or her actions/choices. For one, I suppose the being would have to be responsible for its own existence, which is impossible, unless it were some being that always existed, and we'd be talking about something like God at this point: perhaps not contradictory, but impossible to make sense of in this context.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 4324

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/04/05 - 03:49 AM:	#35
AKG wrote: What does judgment of premises have to do with freedom, will, or determinism? Also, I think you are confusing the use of an algorithm with deductive reasoning. I can give you an algorithm to tie your shoe or bake a cake. A simple premise: "the apple is 5m away from the table." You use an algorithm to determine the soundness of this premise, and we can have a robot implement an algorithm to determine the soundness of this premise as well. Yet, algorithms can't be used to determine first premises without circularity. You have to feed to the algorithm what is "apple", "meters", "5", "from", etc. etc. You can write an algorithm to detect apples, but if you try to write an algorithm to identify apples, you'll have to feed it with sizes and colors and shapes, etc. etc. Endless regress. At one point, there must be a non-algorithmic step that says "X is Y", that defines stuff. Why can't machines do the same thing? What is it that allows us to judge our senses that a machine can't have, and why? That is my point . Surely, something is going on, something that is not an algorithm (for an algorithm can't do it). That an algorithm can't do it is, as I said, one of the most established things in philosophy, as old as Aristotle. If you want to attempt to disprove it, fine. Only, you haven't done it yet -- and if you do, you will merely change the definition of algorithm. Whatever reasons you base your decision to deny certain sense data on can possibly be developed into an algorithm which a machine can learn. That is a purely faith-based statement (and one that runs counter to logic). The fact, whether it is accepted by anyone or not, is that algorithms can't derive first premises. That is contained in the definition of algorithm. No, only that something done for no reason is not really a choice. Well, I agree with that. Yet, choices are done for a reason, even though they are not deterministic, and not random.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 01/04/05 - 11:25 AM:	#36
Mariner wrote: Yet, algorithms can't be used to determine first premises without circularity. You have to feed to the algorithm what is "apple", "meters", "5", "from", etc. etc. You can write an algorithm to detect apples, but if you try to write an algorithm to identify apples, you'll have to feed it with sizes and colors and shapes, etc. etc. Endless regress. At one point, there must be a non-algorithmic step that says "X is Y", that defines stuff. Okay. Why must it be non-algorithmic though? Primitive humans assigned certain grunts to certain referrants. Whatever causal process led humans to evolve such that they assigned grunts to obects like apples can be true for a machine as well. And I don't choose or define what "apple" and "meter" and "5" will mean. I was taught these things, and so can a machine be taught. That is my point . Surely, something is going on, something that is not an algorithm (for an algorithm can't do it). That an algorithm can't do it is, as I said, one of the most established things in philosophy, as old as Aristotle. If you want to attempt to disprove it, fine. Only, you haven't done it yet -- and if you do, you will merely change the definition of algorithm. Can't do what? I asked a question, asking essentially, "What is it that an algorithm/machine can't do?" and you seem to be responding, "Yes, a machine can't do it." That is a purely faith-based statement (and one that runs counter to logic). The fact, whether it is accepted by anyone or not, is that algorithms can't derive first premises. That is contained in the definition of algorithm. I don't know if I mentioned it, but it seems you're confusing "algorithm" with "deductive process." Algorithms can't "derive" first premises because first premises aren't "derived." They are normally either defined or observed. A machine can both define and observe.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 4324

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 01/04/05 - 11:34 AM:	#37
AKG wrote: I don't know if I mentioned it, but it seems you're confusing "algorithm" with "deductive process." Algorithms can't "derive" first premises because first premises aren't "derived." They are normally either defined or observed. A machine can both define and observe. I'm not confusing them, but I'm pointing out a trait that belongs to both of them. You realize that deductive processes can't derive first premises. Neither can algorithms. "A machine can define and observe", iff it is not algorithmical. If it is algorithmical, then the definitions are not made by the machine, but by the programmer. If you want to claim that "since we are machines and we derive first premises, machines can derive first premises" -- which seems to be your claim -- then it should be quite clear that you are begging the question. "Since we are machines?" Says who? In any way, we know that logically, algorithms can't derive first premises. You seem to have two options left (if you don't prefer to ditch logic) -- you can say that we are algorithmic machines, but then you have to explain the programming (and natural selection can't do it, for it is... an algorithmic process). Or you can say that we are not algorithmic machines, but machines of some other sort, and that therefore it is possible to build machines of that other sort that can derive first premises. It is a tenable hypothesis. What must be admitted (logically) is that the option of believing that we are "algorithmic machines which can derive first premises" is not a tenable hypothesis. It is self-contradictory. If you want to pursue this further, please post a definition of algorithm -- any definition that you like -- and you'll see that it can't derive first premises, just as deductive processes can't (and no wonder, since they are so clearly related).
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 01/04/05 - 11:48 AM:	#38
Mariner wrote: I'm not confusing them, but I'm pointing out a trait that belongs to both of them. You realize that deductive processes can't derive first premises. Neither can algorithms. "A machine can define and observe", iff it is not algorithmical. If it is algorithmical, then the definitions are not made by the machine, but by the programmer. If you want to claim that "since we are machines and we derive first premises, machines can derive first premises" -- which seems to be your claim -- then it should be quite clear that you are begging the question. "Since we are machines?" Says who? In any way, we know that logically, algorithms can't derive first premises. You seem to have two options left (if you don't prefer to ditch logic) -- you can say that we are algorithmic machines, but then you have to explain the programming (and natural selection can't do it, for it is... an algorithmic process). Or you can say that we are not algorithmic machines, but machines of some other sort, and that therefore it is possible to build machines of that other sort that can derive first premises. It is a tenable hypothesis. What must be admitted (logically) is that the option of believing that we are "algorithmic machines which can derive first premises" is not a tenable hypothesis. It is self-contradictory. If you want to pursue this further, please post a definition of algorithm -- any definition that you like -- and you'll see that it can't derive first premises, just as deductive processes can't (and no wonder, since they are so clearly related). You certainly are confusing them, or, if not, seeing too strong a relation between the two. Why is it that a machine cannot observe if it is algorithmic? Animals receive sensory data, their brains process it, and they respond. Certainly, they observe. Whether they experience qualia is a different, totally irrelevant issue. Again, there is little choice involved in learning language. We learn language and definitions before we are able to critically analyze or choose. We learn in a machinistic fashion, somewhat. As for algorithm, you better go ahead and define it, because it seems you think an algorithm is something it's not. Deduction and deductive logic is truth-preserving. It is meant to derive truths from truths, and not come up with truths in the first place. The process of deduction is algorithmic, in that it happens in a procedural, step-by-step fashion. An algorithm is something that solves a problem, normally (if not always, depending on how you want to define it) in a step-by-step fashion. Observing, defining, and judging soundness can be done in a step-by-step fashion, just as logical deduction can. Logical deduction can't create new truths without existing ones, observing (synthetic truths), defining (analytic truths), and judging soundness can.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2180

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/04/05 - 11:29 PM:	#39
At one point, there must be a non-algorithmic step that says "X is Y", that defines stuff. Well humans seem to be born with an inherent understanding of causality, an inherent understanding of "form" for lack of a better word - what I mean by that is they can see their mother amidst any background images and identify her separately - and we are born with the ability to associate, which is sort of tied into our cause and effect programming - what I mean by association is that when we're little we cry and parents come and soothe us, and once this happens enough times then we associate crying with a soothing mother and thus cry whenever we feel lonely or need attention or what have you. We obviously don't choose these abilities, but they are programmed into us. So, we need simply program machines with the same thing, and we've already given machines the ability to identify shapes and objects and what not as separate from other inputs, we've given them the ability to make associations, and I'm not sure if we have given recognition of cause and effect to machines, but I would imagine we have, and if we haven't we will soon. Anway, give a machine these three initial "programs" and start from there and build up and you have an aritificial intelligence capable of all the same things humans are. Oh, and of course give the machine sensory just like babies have, almost forgot that one even though its pretty much a given. So, hold up an apple in front of your robot and mention the word "apple" enough and it will learn to associate the object and the word. Do the same with any assortment of words and the machine will learn language no differently than an infant would. Once you've given it the correct associations, then its capable of perfectly understanding that the apple is 5 meters from the table. You give the machine the same programming that humans are born with and it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to think that it can take these base abilities and with them do increasingly complicated things, like understand propositions. If you disagree, tell me what we humans have specifically that is different than what the robot would have, and of course why that robot couldn't have the same thing. Please, why don't you actually base your argument on supporting your own proposition by building it up rather than simply tearing ours down. You're debating like a politician
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 4324

Posted 01/05/05 - 04:09 AM:	#40
Socrastein wrote: Please, why don't you actually base your argument on supporting your own proposition by building it up rather than simply tearing ours down. Why, the reason is rather obvious. I have no idea of the answer to your question, "what is it that makes us differents from robots". Which doesn't make your position any less wrong, if there is contradiction. One can show that a theory is wrong without having to defend any particular counter-theory. Let's see the possible counter-theories: a) yet unknown (non-algorithmic) natural process b) miracle c) alien intervention (which only takes the problem to a further step) I am unimaginative. I see only those three. If the answer is (a), or (c) (which includes (a)), then we might be able to build robots that can derive first premises by themselves. If (b), then we will not be able to do that. Since we haven't done it yet, robotics can't really help us, can it? What does that have to do with the error of assuming that algorithmic processess can derive first premises -- or what you call "the initial programs", which come to the same thing -- I have no idea. I also have no idea why you think you are solving the problem of "how are humans endowed with a mechanism that can derive first premises" by saying that "humans are endowed with a mechanism that can derive first premises"... At least you guys should be attempting a naturalistic explanation for this. Something that would go further than "natural selection did it", because I can give several reasons why it didn't -- the main one, of course, being that natural selection is algorithmic. Also, "NS did it" is equivalent to "God did it", if you don't add an explanation of the process underneath it . You're debating like a politician. Which is better than "debating by assertion" . Or than not debating at all. I still have an argument that has not been contradicted. By the way, and just as leakage from the "Meaning" thread -- "You are debating like a politician" is an ad hominem . "You are not debating", and "you are debating by assertion", are not ad hominems. Just so you know .
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Machiveli
savage butter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Total Topics: 114
Total Posts: 1178

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/05/05 - 04:53 AM:	#41
What do you mean by "derive first premises"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Everything that exists is born for no reason, carries on living through weakness, and dies by accident" -Sartre

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 4324

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 01/05/05 - 05:06 AM:	#42
Machiveli wrote: What do you mean by "derive first premises" Perhaps the verb is wrongly used. I mean acquiring the conceptual tools necessary for conceptualization (and this phrasing already shows the problem of circularity). These tools would be something like this (I don't know if it is exhaustive): 1. Laws of logic 2. Concept of causality 3. (Aristotelian) Common sense (concepts of space, time, quantity, etc.) Perhaps there is something else. What distinguishes them from other kinds of premises is that they don't arise from any kind of reasoning, conscious or unconscious.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 01/05/05 - 08:29 PM:	#43
I'd like to bring up a few things. We were trying to determine whether a deterministic universe can have truth. Some propositions are true "on their own," and some after having been logically derived from true premises. Now, whether a machine can determine the soundness of a premise is not directly related to whether it can produce a true statement. However, a machine must be able to understand the meaning of its proposition for the proposition to be meaningful, and it must be meaningful to be true. The ability for a machine to have propositions mean something to it has nothing to do with whether the machine is deterministic or not, however. Now, to the current issue. Can a (deterministic) machine judge soundness? Why the heck not? All Mariner has asserted (and not argued) is that machines are algorithmic, and algorithms can't judge soundness. A deductive process cannot judge soundness, and deduction is performed algorithmically, but algorithms aren't only deductive processes. An algorithm is any step-by-step process to solve a problem. I suppose it makes sense to say that machine behaves by algorithms, since it is deterministic, which means that its actions follow in a step-by-step process. But the problem of judging soundness is not something inherently unsolvable by an algorithm. However, I am still at a total loss as to why some non-algorithmic process is required to judge soundness, and nowhere have you (Mariner) said why (other than, if we don't agree with you, we contradict logic).
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2180

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 01/05/05 - 09:30 PM:	#44
Mariner wrote: One can show that a theory is wrong without having to defend any particular counter-theory. Of course one can, I know that very well - in fact, that's exactly what I said more or less in reference to your preferred mode of debate, so you needn't point it out. The thing is, what is the point of debating in such a way? In a very general sense you are doing nothing but destroying, while we try to create. I try to think of ways to explain a problem, think of ways in which this or that might work, and you just sit back and say "Nope, nope, that's all wrong" and when I say "Well then what would you suggest?" all you have to say is "I don't have to suggest anything, but you're still wrong." Honestly, are we searching for truth here or are we searching for ways to beat other people down? You seem to prefer the latter for whatever reason, and I would really love to see you actually put forward some arguments that might help us get closer to the truth. I think you take the whole "The best defense is a good offense" saying to the extreme. And saying you debate like a politician isn't ad hominem at all - it can only be a fallacy if I use it to argue for or against a position. I didn't say your wrong because you debate the way you do, or that I'm right. It was a side note pointing out the fact that in debate you do nothing but destroy the other party, rather than construct your own ideas. Just so you know
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 4324

Posted 01/06/05 - 03:31 AM:	#45
AKG wrote: I'd like to bring up a few things. We were trying to determine whether a deterministic universe can have truth. Some propositions are true "on their own," and some after having been logically derived from true premises. Now, whether a machine can determine the soundness of a premise is not directly related to whether it can produce a true statement. However, a machine must be able to understand the meaning of its proposition for the proposition to be meaningful, and it must be meaningful to be true. The ability for a machine to have propositions mean something to it has nothing to do with whether the machine is deterministic or not, however. Machines can produce meaningful sentences, if they can understand (not merely "follow" -- everything "follows" the laws of logic) the laws of logic (which are necessary for meaning). Not otherwise. If we program a machine to randomly build sentences that are correct in grammar and syntax, it is not producing meaningful sentences. Now, to the current issue. Can a (deterministic) machine judge soundness? Why the heck not? All Mariner has asserted (and not argued) is that machines are algorithmic, and algorithms can't judge soundness. "And not argued" is a complaint similar to saying that I have not established gravity in a lecture about physics. I am not saying that non-algorithmic machines (whatever that is -- perhaps us) can't derive first premises; I am saying that algorithmic machines can't. This is a result of their being algorithmic. It is contained in the definition of algorithm -- in any current definition of algorithm. Pick one and you'll see. (Why don't you do it, I don't know). You guys seem way too worried about who is saying what instead of focusing on what is being said. If you focused on the argument instead of the people, you would try to falsify my claims instead of complaining about them A deductive process cannot judge soundness, and deduction is performed algorithmically, but algorithms aren't only deductive processes. An algorithm is any step-by-step process to solve a problem. I suppose it makes sense to say that machine behaves by algorithms, since it is deterministic, which means that its actions follow in a step-by-step process. But the problem of judging soundness is not something inherently unsolvable by an algorithm. Yes, it is. I am asserting it . But it should be easy to disprove it if I'm wrong -- pick any definition of algorithm and show us how it would derive the soundness of the premise. You are asserting that stones fly from the ground. I am asserting gravity. Bad asserter! However, I am still at a total loss as to why some non-algorithmic process is required to judge soundness, and nowhere have you (Mariner) said why (other than, if we don't agree with you, we contradict logic). You are at a total loss because you have, yet, to consider the claim itself, instead of who is claiming it, and how he is claiming it. When you decide to do it, give me a call. Socrastein wrote: Mariner wrote: One can show that a theory is wrong without having to defend any particular counter-theory. Of course one can, I know that very well Then why the complaint? You are debating like your picture of a politician... if my line of reasoning is valid, then address it. Don't complain about my style; it is nonsense. If my line of reasoning is not valid, then show why. That's how argument goes, whether or not you (and AKG) like it. You two can either go on, delightfully unaware of the series of contradictions in your views, or you can think about them. I can't force you to address the claims. I did my best -- I showed the problem. If you prefer to ignore it in order to maintain your worldviews, fine. Only, don't complain later that theists have faith-based systems that are not consistent with reason . (If you want my opinion, your shifting of the ground of the debate -- here and in the Meaning thread -- to irrelevant matters of debating style show that you are beginning to get restless about the arguments on your side. And that is good. Whether it will result in anything, I don't know; I know that debate itself can't help. You'll have to think about it.)
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Machiveli
savage butter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Total Topics: 114
Total Posts: 1178

Posted 01/06/05 - 04:24 AM:	#46
Machines can produce meaningful sentences, if they can understand (not merely "follow" -- everything "follows" the laws of logic) the laws of logic (which are necessary for meaning). Not otherwise. If we program a machine to randomly build sentences that are correct in grammar and syntax, it is not producing meaningful sentences. I'm not sure that this is true. It seems akin to saying "A chinese room can not produce meaningful chinese. Because the person in the room does not understand the symbols." Yet the whole point of the chinese room is that to an outside observer it is indistinguishable from a room containing a real chinese speaker. Remember we are not asking about conciousness we are asking can such a process produce meaningful sentances.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Everything that exists is born for no reason, carries on living through weakness, and dies by accident" -Sartre

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 4324

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/06/05 - 08:13 AM:	#47
Machiveli wrote: I'm not sure that this is true. It seems akin to saying "A chinese room can not produce meaningful chinese. Because the person in the room does not understand the symbols." Yet the whole point of the chinese room is that to an outside observer it is indistinguishable from a room containing a real chinese speaker. Remember we are not asking about conciousness we are asking can such a process produce meaningful sentances. "The person in the room" is not analogous to the machine in my quote; what is analogous to it is the Chinese room itself. In order for the Chinese room to produce meaningful Chinese, "it" must understand the laws of logic (and other first premises). It is not necessary for all of it to understand the laws of logic (any more than it is necessary that our mouths should understand the laws of logic). But some part of it must understand them, otherwise the sentences won't be meaningful (even if they would be meaningful if a proper speaker said it, if they are apparently meaningful). A meaningful sentence is one in which the symbols correspond to what the speaker intends to say. Therefore, the speaker must intend to say something, else the sentence is never meaningful. It goes back to the matter of intentionality, in the end. The "machine that produces random but correct English sentences" is not saying anything meaningful. You can easily get a dictionary, switch the definitions around randomly, and produce a dictionary in which the meaning of "table" is given as "a member of the Felidae family". Is this a meaningful dictionary? There are correct words there, and correct meanings there... but they don't fit. This is not the main problem itself between Determinism and Truth; it is but the beginning of the problem . The logical impossibility of purely algorithmic processes of deriving first premises results in the fact that if the world is composed of purely algorithmic processes, then there is no truth (for truth -- correspondence between proposition and fact -- depends on those first premises. Just as meaning depends on them).
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 01/06/05 - 12:56 PM:	#48
Mariner, you seem to be taking this too personally. You have asserted that algorithmic machines can't "derive" first premises. I have defined "algorithm" if you read my posts. It is a step-by-step process which solves a problem. I have written at length that deduction is a step-by-step process that does not solve the problem of establishing first priniciples, but still see no reason why a different algorithm can't. You've asserted post after post that algorithms, by definition, can't solve that problem. I've continually asked why, and you've not responded appropriately. You've simply restated your position, claimed that we are contradicting logic, that we aren't analyzing our positions, we're focused on the wrong thing, we're ignoring your (non-existent) line of reasoning, etc. Your last post addressed to Socrastein and myself has many words but is entirely devoid of relevant content. This is why I think you're taking it too personally, as your posts focus on who debates like what, and you ignore the fact that up until now, you have given no reason why an algorithm cannot derive first premises. I defined "algorithm" in the post right after you asked that I do it, and every post that followed, but you've just been placing the focus elsewhere, and worrying too much about the accusations that you're debating like a politician or asserting without arguing, rather than giving us reason to believe you're doing otherwise. In your defense, I disagree with Socrastein to some degree. I think we should be just as eager to learn that our theories are wrong as we should be to learn that others' theories are right. When we come up with arguments of our own, we want to know that they stand the test of rigour, that they stand against the strong arguments of others. Even if Mariner comes up with another theory, it would still have to then be tested against the strongest arguments we can come up with. Then we'd have two theories to test, and that can get messy. The process of trying to tear another's arguments down is not "overly politician-like", it is essential and desirable.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Machiveli
savage butter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Total Topics: 114
Total Posts: 1178

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 01/06/05 - 05:00 PM:	#49
The logical impossibility of purely algorithmic processes of deriving first premises results in the fact that if the world is composed of purely algorithmic processes, then there is no truth Perhaps its us not understanding rather than you not saying - but you realy need to make the above something other than circular. 1)truth is imposible in a deterministic world 2)why? 1)because the world would consist of purely algorithmic processes and in such a world there is no truth. 2)why? 1)because purely algorithmic processes cannot derive first premises 2)why ? 1)because in world consisting of purely algorithmic processes there is no truth GoTo start --------------------------- I was thinking about the phrase "derive first premises" It seems to me that in general we.. Infer premises from observation. Assume first premises Are hard wired by our genes to assume premices I wonder if you can give any other ways. ---------------------------- Finaly I have an intuition about your belief that I wonder if you would confirm. I'm led by a couple of curious statements you made firstly "The person in the room" is not analogous to the machine in my quote; what is analogous to it is the Chinese room itself. Seems odd in the context of your belief how can you consider a room containing an agent which might as well be a robot to be capable of producing meaningful chinese by following instructions. Such a room is an algorithm and you have denied the ability of algorithms to make meaningful statements. secondly your use of the word "purely" thirdly You seem to be concentrating on "initial premices" i.e. those that we have had to assume to live and discuss meaningfuly i.e. logic, causality ect.. My intuition is .. I think you would have not too much of a problem with the idea that an algorithmic process with these premices encoded designed by us or by "the great programmer" can reach truth.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Everything that exists is born for no reason, carries on living through weakness, and dies by accident" -Sartre

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 01/06/05 - 07:38 PM:	#50
Machiveli wrote: I was thinking about the phrase "derive first premises" It seems to me that in general we.. Infer premises from observation. Assume first premises Are hard wired by our genes to assume premices I wonder if you can give any other ways. Yes, and for some reason, an algorithm cannot be designed to assume or infer, and the hardwiring of our genes is ultimately non-deterministic. In truth, I agree that the hardwiring of our genes is ultimately non-deterministic. A purely deterministic universe would give rise to infinite causal regress, which seems to be problematic. However, if we think of time as being an infinite expanse, then I suppose infinite causal regress is not problematic, just weird. But we're not trying to debate the problems with determinism. We have to approach this problem in context. If we ignore everything that happened before the apperance of Homo Sapiens, it's not hard to imagine that everything relevant that happened thereafter happened deterministically, and so whatever is hard-wired into our genes is a result of deterministic processes. Such a room is an algorithm and you have denied the ability of algorithms to make meaningful statements. I assume there is something meaningful here and the ellipsis is throwing me off, but are you sure you meant to say that the room is an algorithm? Machiveli wrote: My intuition is .. I think you would have not too much of a problem with the idea that an algorithmic process with these premices encoded designed by us or by "the great programmer" can reach truth. The only problem there is that if we or "the great programmer" are not deterministic beings, then you've only shown that a deterministic being in a non-deterministic universe can produce truth. Mariner would argue that it can only do so because a non-deterministic being designed it, and so non-determinism remains an essential property of the universe if there is to be truth in it. I think it's more accurate to say that this is a debate about whether truths can be uttered in a deterministic universe. Truths themselves don't exist in our universe, and they are independent of whether or not there exists any being who can utter them. I differentiate between truth and true utterances, true beliefs, etc. Truth is essentially formless, truth is simply that which is, and true utterances are those truths expressed in the form of spoken language.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.