Is you're life random or scripted?

Keith300

Czarcasm wrote: »

I hadn't expected to get a hard on reading that, but there you go- an example of a random external control over our physical self.

I think some people will choose to exercise their free will more than others, and overcome the challenges presented by external controls over their physical selves, so in that respect at least, yes, an individual has control over their own life.

There's always ways around everything, it just takes enough determination to examine the alternatives.

I think you missed the point of his post. In essence, free will is an illusion. We are essentially an extremely complex line of dominos, the course we are on can't be changed. If you think you changed it all you did was stick to the course.

kneemos

Keith300 wrote: »

I think you missed the point of his post. In essence, free will is an illusion. We are essentially an extremely complex line of dominos, the course we are on can't be changed. If you think you changed it all you did was stick to the course.

What about external influences then?Say somebody invents a cure for your heart condition how could that be included in the line of dominoes.

sbsquarepants

The general consensus (afaik) is that there is no such thing as a universal moment called "now" Each person experiences a different now, depending on how they are moving relative to each other. Some peoples now is my past, others my future - the diffferences are too small to notice in everyday life but they are there. (And have been verified by experiment, ie the 2 atomic clocks experiment) For someone to experience my future as their now, my future must already exist before i experience it - therefore it's predetermined.
By the way, i have trouble believing this stuff myself, but the science seems to suggest it's right!
Google, the illusion of time and the block universe theory.

Czarcasm

Keith300 wrote: »

I think you missed the point of his post. In essence, free will is an illusion. We are essentially an extremely complex line of dominos, the course we are on can't be changed. If you think you changed it all you did was stick to the course.

Ohh no, I didn't miss the point of seamus' post, in fact it was that it was so eloquently phrased that had me... well, yeah, but no I agree with seamus in that the bigger the picture, the harder it is to spot the changes, like those sub atomic particles that appear to be appearing at random (we just haven't found an explanation for WHY they appear yet IMO - anything humans can't explain "random, or aliens"), we wouldn't notice them normally, but in our own lives, a lot closer to home, we notice things a lot more apparent.

I hear it said a lot that free will is an illusion. That implies that there is some intended force behind nature (I personally don't think there is!), but the reason why some might see it as an illusion, is because where they see control, I see challenges that a person can overcome when they are determined enough.

Life is about perception, because everyone's "reality" is going to be different depending on how their lens are adjusted.

sbsquarepants

Czarcasm wrote: »

I hear it said a lot that free will is an illusion. That implies that there is some intended force behind nature (I personally don't think there is!), but the reason why some might see it as an illusion, is because where they see control, I see challenges that a person can overcome when they are determined enough.

I came across this thought experiment before.
You meet an all knowing being or computer or something like that. They know every single bit of knowledge in the entire universe and they can therefore use it to predict the future (it's all dominoes after all)
You're determined to prove them wrong, so you set them a simple challenge - predict which hand you'll hold up in the air next.
They make their prediction. Lets say they say right hand.
What is stopping you from raising your left? Does anyone really think it couldn't be done?

Czarcasm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I came across this thought experiment before.
You meet an all knowing being or computer or something like that. They know every single bit of knowledge in the entire universe and they can therefore use it to predict the future (it's all dominoes after all)
You're determined to prove them wrong, so you set them a simple challenge - predict which hand you'll hold up in the air next.
They make their prediction. Lets say they say right hand.
What is stopping you from raising your left? Does anyone really think it couldn't be done?

You're screwed if his name's Derren Brown!

kneemos

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I came across this thought experiment before.
You meet an all knowing being or computer or something like that. They know every single bit of knowledge in the entire universe and they can therefore use it to predict the future (it's all dominoes after all)
You're determined to prove them wrong, so you set them a simple challenge - predict which hand you'll hold up in the air next.
They make their prediction. Lets say they say right hand.
What is stopping you from raising your left? Does anyone really think it couldn't be done?

Oh God.

Pumpkinseeds

Jesus, if my life is scripted I hope it takes a turn for the better, I'm fecking sick of it now. I'd like to try happy, healthy and wealthy for a change.

Tiddlypeeps

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I came across this thought experiment before.
You meet an all knowing being or computer or something like that. They know every single bit of knowledge in the entire universe and they can therefore use it to predict the future (it's all dominoes after all)
You're determined to prove them wrong, so you set them a simple challenge - predict which hand you'll hold up in the air next.
They make their prediction. Lets say they say right hand.
What is stopping you from raising your left? Does anyone really think it couldn't be done?

I can't wrap my head around a simulation that could predict a persons reaction to seeing the output of the simulation. It gets stuck in a loop, the output has to keep feeding back into the input and it would go on forever, I don't think it is possible.

sbsquarepants

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I can't wrap my head around a simulation that could predict a persons reaction to seeing the output of the simulation. It gets stuck in a loop, the output has to keep feeding back into the input and it would go on forever, I don't think it is possible.

I don't think it's possible either. I'm not pitching building this thing to dragons den or anything!:D
It's just meant to get you thinking if everything is all just very complicated dominoes, or there is in fact free will. Is every action dependent on a string of preceeding actions, or can you begin a whole new chain at will.

Czarcasm

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I can't wrap my head around a simulation that could predict a persons reaction to seeing the output of the simulation. It gets stuck in a loop, the output has to keep feeding back into the input and it would go on forever, I don't think it is possible.

It's a concept they use in Artificial Intelligence programming all the time, but even AI is a closed system. Probably the example most people are familiar with is "Big Blue", the IBM computer that beat Kasparov (Grand Master chess player at the time, best in the world basically). Any game of chess, because it's 32 pieces with limited scope of movement and promotion, on a 64 square board, will have a predictable outcome of permutations. Computers are great at analysing pattern based prediction, but not so good at coping when something goes wrong (it's been suggested since that a computer glitch was how BB actually won the game, which is kinda funny!), so, depending on the variables input into the program, calculating the outcome of a given scenario will be easier to determine- the more variables, the more data the program can predict more accurately (Remember how a glitch helped the computer win? That wasn't supposed to happen, but fortunately for IBM it did!).

So basically how that relates to your example is- if something changes in the input that the original design was never intended to handle, the program is working with a new set of data that it doesn't know how to handle, so the output can change dramatically, or not at all, depending on how much of an influence this new input of data has on the programs calculations.

Keith300

kneemos wrote: »

What about external influences then?Say somebody invents a cure for your heart condition how could that be included in the line of dominoes.

That's part if the overall set of domino noes. Someone was always going to cure your heart condition.

diomed

Limited by the womb lottery. If you are born poor it is unlikely you will end up at the top levels of society.

readyletsgo

kneemos wrote: »

Is there any evidence that the course of you're life is preordained rather than random?thought I heard some scientists were leaning in the preordained direction.

I have no idea why this annoys me so much but as Ross says to Racheal in Friends....

You're is YOU ARE!
Your is YOUR!

Example: Is your life random or scripted?

Argh.

Phew

mitosis

kneemos wrote: »

Is there any evidence that the course of you're life is preordained rather than random?thought I heard some scientists were leaning in the preordained direction.

Certainly reads as random.

Shenshen

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I came across this thought experiment before.
You meet an all knowing being or computer or something like that. They know every single bit of knowledge in the entire universe and they can therefore use it to predict the future (it's all dominoes after all)
You're determined to prove them wrong, so you set them a simple challenge - predict which hand you'll hold up in the air next.
They make their prediction. Lets say they say right hand.
What is stopping you from raising your left? Does anyone really think it couldn't be done?

Do you not think this computer/robot/whatever might not have the smarts to say "The other one"?

Czarcasm

diomed wrote: »

Limited by the womb lottery. If you are born poor it is unlikely you will end up at the top levels of society.

And yet, there are the few that do! I don't think it's a lottery, I think it's dependent on how the person views their circumstances and whether they want to change them or not.

Czarcasm

Shenshen wrote: »

Do you not think this computer/robot/whatever might not have the smarts to say "The other one"?

Only if that's a variable that has been programmed in, which requires better input. And that's why computers, as efficient as they are, they're really not very creative, so they'll never be able to surpass humans -

Creativity beats logic hands down every time.

Tiddlypeeps

Czarcasm wrote: »

So basically how that relates to your example is- if something changes in the input that the original design was never intended to handle, the program is working with a new set of data that it doesn't know how to handle, so the output can change dramatically, or not at all, depending on how much of an influence this new input of data has on the programs calculations.

When you feed in the new input, it creates a new output which will then effect the viewers reaction meaning the simulation needs to be fed this new input This goes round and round.

Your example of big blue isn't the really related. A computer deciding it's next move in a chess game works out as many permutations of the possible future moves available and picks the next move based on a weighting which is based on probability. It's guessing, but doing so in a way that covers itself from as many angles as possible. That simulation runs for every turn, in any given turn the input isn't changing so it's not the same.

I don't believe it is possible to have a simulation accurately predict a persons actions when that person is aware of the outcome of the simulation before they act.

If you wanted to compare it to a chess game it would be like big blue telling the opponent what moves it's planning to make and still expecting to accurately predict it's opponents moves.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Only if that's a variable that has been programmed in, which requires better input. And that's why computers, as efficient as they are, they're really not very creative, so they'll never be able to surpass humans -

Creativity beats logic hands down every time.

I disagree with this premiss. Computers have already been programmed to be creative. The only thing missing at the moment is more processing power. A computer program was written that composes music in the style of Mozart, brand new music that wasn't written by the programmer, the computer created it. People who write music do so based on a set of rules they learned mixed with influence from existing music, how is what the computer program does any different?

kneemos

readyletsgo wrote: »

I have no idea why this annoys me so much but as Ross says to Racheal in Friends....

You're is YOU ARE!
Your is YOUR!

Example: Is your life random or scripted?

Argh.

Phew

Only a couple of weeks till school opens and back to work.Hang in there.

mitosis

kneemos wrote: »

Only a couple of weeks till school opens and back to work. See you there.

Heh heh :pac:

Czarcasm

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I disagree with this premiss. Computers have already been programmed to be creative. The only thing missing at the moment is more processing power. A computer program was written that composes music in the style of Mozart, brand new music that wasn't written by the programmer, the computer created it.

There are better people than I that would be able to articulate properly the chess analogy, I know what's in my head, but putting it into words that I hope other people would get the idea, that's the hard part for me because I don't have the language ability.

But just given your example above- the computer program was written by a person, to compose music, in the style of Mozart. I had a quick google as it sounds like fascinating stuff -

Iamus is fed with specific information setting out, for example, which instruments have to be composed for and the desired duration.

The activity is controlled by an algorithm inspired by biological processes.

Just as human genomes mutated over time to create a multitude of unique people, Iamus alters and rearranges its source material to create complex pieces of music. The only restrictions placed on its output are determined by what can be realistically played by a musician and their instrument.

"It evolves the composition inside the machine," says Francisco Vico.

"Then a human selects from the set of compositions that Iamus provides."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20889644


So what the computer has basically done, is analysed the input, spotted a pattern, then created an output based on the input, which forms the next input for a new pattern. The computer hasn't done this by itself, it had to be instructed to do it and how to go about it.

Personally speaking? As much as I love computers, I love music and literature even more, and though I haven't a creative bone in my body, I hope it never catches on.

The computer is basically reproducing sound patterns. I wouldn't call it creating music, because the human element that creates music involves far more than just logic and 1's and 0's.

You're going to facepalm hard on this one, but the best comparison I can think of for the above and where it could lead to was an episode of Star Trek Voyager in which the doctor, a hologram, is programmed with some sentience, and some singing ability, becomes popular, starts to believe his own hype, then people want more, so they just create a new and more upgraded model- the doctor gets shafted basically:

Voyager encounters a slightly more technologically advanced race of people called the Qomar-- a race of people who measure at a maximum of 5 feet, who are minorly injured from a reaction to Voyager's engines. They appear to have enormous egos and dislike the Doctor simply for being a holographic entity. The Qomar become enthralled, after having initially dismissed him as a simple hologram, with the Doctor's ability to sing since they never conceived the concept of music. When the Doctor explains how music is used and how many others on the ship can use it naturally, the Qomar invite the crew to their homesystem--previously restricted to outsiders-- to solely learn more of music. The Voyager crew discover thousands of subspace channels encypted in many ways, and tons of traffic just above the homeworld. The Qomar decide to transmit his singing planet-wide, and make him a star. This accentuates his vanity, making him unpopular with his friends on Voyager. He asks to leave so he can pursue his music career on the planet. This causes more anger, as the crew believes they need his medical skills. The Doctor protests, even preparing Paris to take over his position. However, the aliens replace him with an upgraded singing hologram capable of a greater vocal range. The Doctor's hopes for a new life are dashed. In the end, the Doctor realizes they simply wanted him for his singing, not who he is as a sentient entity. The Voyager crew welcome him back.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuoso_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)