Robots vs Humans

[methylatedghosts]

Robots are programmed. People aren't

Can't remember who said that or in which thread, but I wonder, are people really not programmed?

I would say that we are programmed to some degree by our upbringing and the society we live in. Not in the same sense as a robot, obviously, but still, there is some sort of programming there.

The thought processes of everyone, (if not, most) begin in early childhood by watching how mum and dad react and respond to the world. Some of these processes continue through to adult life, and to death - because they are the ones that seem to work for them.

In a robot one can alter the programming, just like one can alter their own habits. It might take some work, but it happens.

My question is, how much are people programmed?
Are we all programmed to the same degree, or are some people "more programmed" than others?

----------------
I'm not talking about free will. Please can we leave God and destiny etc out of the equation?

[upallnite]

Can a person be programmed?
Any DI at Paris Island will tell you, yes.

[Bugmaster]

Yar !

I'd say that people are 100% programmed. We are just running a very complex program. That's what makes us different from rocks; their program basically consists of just the "halt" instruction :-)

[Antigone]

If we were 100% programed life would be boring...and to some degrees very frightening! I believe we all are born with 'Maps' (a map of physical traits, personality, disposition, likes and dislikes, etc). But just like road maps we do not have to follow just one route, and we can always change our destination!

Even genes do not fully dictate what our physical appearance will be. If someone has genes which would make them of more than average height they could be short as an adult if they didn't eat well during childhood.

We can always change our behavior and even our thoughts if they do not help us. Some religions call this free will.

Being 100% programmed also states we would be 100% predictable (or at least close to 100% predictable). But we all know that isn't true. I can barely predict what I am going to do!!
Also, what would it mean for murderers if this became the prevailing thought?? "oh, he or she is programmed to do that ... it isn't their fault"
or how about people who cheat on their spouse, "well, hun, you see, I am programmed to have sex with other women/men. It ain't my fault!"

Sure, there are things we are "born with" but they do NOT dictate what we do, unlike a programmed systems.

[Bugmaster]

If we were 100% programed life would be boring... Being 100% programmed also states we would be 100% predictable (or at least close to 100% predictable).

Only if the program is boring and predictable. But our programming is a lot better than that. In fact, we can even create programs that, while not as unpredictable as us, can still produce some fairly unpredictable results; this is a good thing, because we can use these programs to grow antennae for NASA, analyze genes, fight us in computer games, etc. Note that these are just the useful unpredictable programs; we can also create unpredictable programs that are chaotic.

Ultimately, how would you tell the difference between an incredibly complex program, and a human being ?

But we all know that isn't true. I can barely predict what I am going to do!!

Actually, I can predict what you will do, with a great degree of certainty. You will probably reply to this post, with some sort of a counterargument prepared. That very day, you will get up in the morning, have breakfast, then go to work or school, etc... Some of your actions may be unique, but most of them are not. If you were completely unpredictable, then we couldn't even have this conversation, because I couldn't even imagine how you'd react to my words at all.

Also, what would it mean for murderers if this became the prevailing thought?? "oh, he or she is programmed to do that ... it isn't their fault"

You're saying, essentially, "if we were programmed, it would make me sad, therefore we're not programmed". This is the fallacy of wishful thinking. There are lots of things that make me sad, but that doesn't mean they aren't true.

[skepticFromTX]

We, like every living thing, all have the same program.
It consists of a single instruction:

IF: this is a novel situation, just follow your instincts
ELSE: whatever you did the last time, do it again.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Bugmaster

You're saying, essentially, "if we were programmed, it would make me sad, therefore we're not programmed". This is the fallacy of wishful thinking. There are lots of things that make me sad, but that doesn't mean they aren't true.

You've hit a bit of a nerve for me here. I have read more than once theists say something along the lines that if there were no god life would be meaningless, or without purpose or some such. And my response to that would be of the same form as your response to Antigone. Just because a result is unpalatable don't make it not true. Actually I find it pretty easy to live without God so for me it is a non problem However, there is one irrational belief I don't want to give up on. That is Free Will.

I think a 100% materialist will be committed to causation and can not admit free will. A 100% materialist will be a programmabilist. (Made up word for someone who thinks we reduce to progammes). However there are some problems here I'd like to draw out.

Scenario A - Deterministic causation with no Free Will
Take two segments of time. T1 and T2, and two brain event: Event1 occurs at T1, Event2 occurs at T2, and we have a theory that states Event 1 caused Event 2. That theory being a set of rules that are our programme.

Scenario B - No- causation with Free Will
Take two segments of time. T1 and T2, and two brain events: Event1 occurs at T1, Event" occurs at T2. However due to Free Will there were a multitude of possible events E^n that could have followed E1. However the final result was E2.
(When writing E^n I mean to imply some large but finite number.Not necessarily infinite).

As I see it is that Scenario A is certainly a robot, whilst scenario B would not be a robot. The problem is that as empirical scientists how do we tell a robot from a non robot, if we are interpreting E1 and E2 through the theoretical lense of causality? It seems we will always see a robot following some putative programme. But if scenario B, were the case then we shall find that our best theory/programme systematically fails to predict some percentage of E2 type events. A failure rate that could easily be masked by saying the brain is just very complicated and we don't understand all its programming yet.

Pertinently, even if our theories grow ever more accurate, only when they predict human behavior 100% would Free Will be completely disproved. That event seems very unlikely, so as materialist we might deem it safe to assume we do not have Free will. But that cannot be an empirical judgment; because all we have to study are E1 and E2. As uninterpreted phenomena they say nothing about causality or Free Will. That imputation arrives with out causal theory. Hence as materialists we would be making an a priori judgment. This we might also deem safe because as 100% materialists we can find no room for Free Will within our causal theories. But then we arrive at that judgement through 100% certainty in causality. Which given the above analysis entails a 100% certainty in our causal theories. But where do we get that sense of certainty from. That E2 follows E1? But E1 and E2 are empirical phenomena for which we are presuming causality. So is not the assumption that we are progammes drawn from circular self supporting reasoning?

Anyway - lets suppose we arrive at a state of affairs whereby our best theory never surpasses 95% accuracy at predicting human behavior. Is it safe from a logical point of view to assume we are 100% progammable?

Ok. Maybe that question only leaves room for a a Free Will of the Gaps (not God this time). However, the problem for Free Williests like me, is that by definition if E^n can follow E1, then we have no theoretical means to prove Free Will, because we cannot make testable predictions; other than our best theory will never predict human behavior 100%. And given the complexity of behavior and the brain this might be an expectation even if we do not have Fee will. Thus there does not seem to be a means for Free Williests to break into the circular reasoning of Progammabilists.

[methylatedghosts]

Ok, getting some nice replies.

My stance is that we are 100% programmed (or close to it). Everything one does is the result of a reaction/response program that, in the very basic sense, maximises pleasure and decreases pain.

Some parts of your programming can be altered, or added to, like debugging a computer program.

Some parts of the programming cannot be changed, because it is essential to our existence.

Society and upbringing provides much of the programming that we develop as we grow older.

This is not to say that the programs are predictable or unpredictable, or that they are boring. A computer game is a program, and isn't always predictable, and is generally fun!

[Bugmaster]

Actually I find it pretty easy to live without God so for me it is a non problem However, there is one irrational belief I don't want to give up on. That is Free Will.

I personally think that free will is a bit of a red herring. It's a concept that sounds nice, but doesn't have any real meaning.

Let's discuss three separate situations (to expand on the two you have presented):

A: Free will does not exist. Everything we humans do is deterministic. Thus, logically speaking, any human's actions can be predicted in full. However, in practice, human societies are so complex that predicting someone's actions, even using all available processing power, will take longer than the lifetime of the Sun.

B: Free will does not exist. However, there's a certain element of randomness to human actions. Given a "50-50" split decision, a human mentally "flips a coin", and picks one choice over the other one (this "coin" could be quantum in nature, if you'd like). Thus, human actions cannot be predicted accurately.

C: Free will exists. You can never fully predict a human being's actions, because of his free will.

Let's say that you're trying to decide which situation is true: A, B, or C. How would you do so ? I ask because I think that, if you can't, in principle, decide which situation is true, then you might as well invoke Occam's Razor and discard the unnecessary entity (i.e., free will).

Furthermore, I'd argue that it's definitely possible to predict a human being's actions; in part, this is what makes conversations possible. I expect you to make an intelligent reply to my comment, and I can even anticipate some of your counterarguments; if, instead, you keept replying with something random like "the eagle dances with the butterfilies", I couldn't communicate with you at all. In fact, our ability to predict human behavior improves all the time, as psychology, sociology, and neurobiology become more advanced. This is, at the very least, tentative evidence that human behavior might be predictable, and thus situation A is true.

Note that, above, I used "free will" to mean "unpredictable behavior". I realize that this viewpoint might be a bit limited, but I can't imagine what else "free will" might mean :-(

Thus there does not seem to be a means for Free Williests to break into the circular reasoning of Progammabilists.

Ok, so what explanatory power does free will have, then ? In other words, how is saying, "humans have free will" any better than saying, "humans have invisible smurfoblins that don't do anything" ? I don't mean to sound harsh, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Bugmaster

A: Free will does not exist. Everything we humans do is deterministic. Thus, logically speaking, any human's actions can be predicted in full. However, in practice, human societies are so complex that predicting someone's actions, even using all available processing power, will take longer than the lifetime of the Sun.

B: Free will does not exist. However, there's a certain element of randomness to human actions. Given a "50-50" split decision, a human mentally "flips a coin", and picks one choice over the other one (this "coin" could be quantum in nature, if you'd like). Thus, human actions cannot be predicted accurately.

C: Free will exists. You can never fully predict a human being's actions, because of his free will.

Let's say that you're trying to decide which situation is true: A, B, or C. How would you do so ? I ask because I think that, if you can't, in principle, decide which situation is true, then you might as well invoke Occam's Razor and discard the unnecessary entity (i.e., free will).

Scenario A would be more pertinent I feel if computing time was longer than the lifetime of the universe. Lets call that Strong scenario A. If there was no way to calculate people's behavior even in principle then we we would have no way of distinguishing a universe containing only deterministic behavior from one that contained free will. If this was the case we could apply Occam's razor equally to Free will or determinism. We would not know which idea to jettison. Unless of course one already has a philosophical prejudice.

However even if some finite calculation were possible it would be devalued if the predication arrived post behavior. Nonetheless - even if it took the lifetime of the sun to calculate what Harry will do next tuesday morning, if the post-predictions are always correct, then I'd say Free will would be falsified; and for an hypothesis to be falsified (at least in principle) is an important criteria towards gaining that hypothesis scientific status.

At first glance scenario B looks plausible, I think there is a problem here. There well could be human actions whose final instantiation are balanced on a knife edge - but how sharp is that knife edge, and how is the balance weighted. I suspect the 50/50 split is in practice I feel just an abstraction. If Harry has two programmes running and is torn 51/49 over a choice, then in a deterministic universe he will always go with the 51 choice. Similarly he will pluck for the 50.5, 50.4...50.03......50.00000001, etc. Ok it might be that we are only approximate robots, whereby our programme rounds up to the nearest 3 decimal places. Whichever way I think 50/50 choices will fall somewhere between pretty rare and astronomically rare.

The next quibble with scenario B is the choice mechanism for real 50/50 choices when/if they occur. A lucky dip on the lottery generates random numbers, but they aren't really random, it is just a complex algorithm. So as long as you have access to the rules of the algorithm then again the eventual behavior will be predictable. The same point counts against the decision mechanism. Is it really a non random mechanism?

On reflection I think Scenario B does not escape the determinism of scenario A.

That brings us to scenario C. If scenario C were true then that lifetime of the sun calculation will never successfully predict Harry's actions next tuesday morning. Admittedly his is a weak prediction, because when the negative result comes in we might reach the conclusion that a better predictive programme needs to be run - rather than oops determinism has been falsified. So for Free Will to be a strong hypothesis it needs to saying something else I feel. Hmmm. Well I think that was one of my points. If we do have Free will, by definition we will not be able to make any strong predictions.

Note that, above, I used "free will" to mean "unpredictable behavior". I realize that this viewpoint might be a bit limited, but I can't imagine what else "free will" might mean

I have to fess up. I am a bit preoccupied by Free Will. And though I hate Metaphysics it might all boil down to having to bite that bullet. Anyway - you might want to avoid going here Random Rambling about Experience and Free Will