Has everything been predestined since the dawn of time?

[Shadow Wolf]

It is possible, but I really doubt it is the whole of our existence.

Computers can play chess better than we can - at least, to say otherwise would be a form of dualism.

I wouldn't quite say they "play" chess as they are scripted to perform certain moves based on formulae and calculations that are within the parameters of it's programming. And because of this, it can make no mistakes and will never have to actually evaluate a move because it is programmed to know(I am referring to the programs wrote to compete with world champions, not the chess games found on most computers). I would say a computer performs chess better than we play it, as we have to actually carefully consider our moves, weigh the future possibilities of our moves, and we are capable of making mistakes.

 

[gseeker]

Not really. Every time a computer 'plays' chess, it's really a human doing it. Either a human is playing another human and the computer is little more than the chess board, or a computer is playing a computer, in which case its a complex animation created by a human to look like chess, or it's a human playing a computer which is really a human playing chess by themselves.

Ah, but aren't we all nothing but organic computers? And just like computers we are programmed in our responses from the beginning.

 

[Awoon]

So I was thinking today, isn't everything predestined? You start with a persons environment and childhood, how you are raised determines your future thought process and reactions to outside stimuli, and your genetic makeup determines the intellectual reasoning you use to react. The same applies to your parents and their parents so on and so forth to the first generation. So what would be a good argument that not everything, every action and reaction aren't predestined? If everything is predestined then we have no free will, its just an illusion, a self delusion.

Dont you remember the "script" you got in the "Green Room?"

 

[Sir Doom]

Ah, but aren't we all nothing but organic computers? And just like computers we are programmed in our responses from the beginning.

Programmed by?

 

[Absolute Zero]

Programmed by?

Will by the Architict ala Matrix creator.....

 

[bulmabriefs144]

You ever have deja vu? You're basically seeing something that's already happened. Your brain has what's called foretelling dreams (it helps if you practice remembering dreams), that sort of loop ahead in time, since time isn't 100% linear.

Now let's say in advance "this situation feels familiar." Fiddle around in your head and you'll probably be able to remember small details are what is going to have happened (weird tense, but yea, it's already happened in the future). Knowing this, you can make small changes. You probably can't affect other people's decisions without extreme trouble (they can't generally see these threads, and are motivated by their own desires), but you could for instance, just not decide to go to a party. In which case, there are some events with a bounce-back (I had deja vu all the time, before my life became so depressing I quit caring) that says for instance if you skip the party, a girl you were supposed to meet there but was late, will meet you at like a grocery store, think it's a coincidence, and ask you "Wanna go to the party?" (And probably not give up if you're rude to her) This was actually a good aversion, even though it seems you still didn't avoid going to the party. See if you can guess why (hint: she's cute).

 

[PolyHedral]

Not really. Every time a computer 'plays' chess, it's really a human doing it. Either a human is playing another human and the computer is little more than the chess board, or a computer is playing a computer, in which case its a complex animation created by a human to look like chess, or it's a human playing a computer which is really a human playing chess by themselves.

You seem to be under the impression that because the computer can do it, the programmer can. That's nonsense. The computer has far larger capacity to think than I, or any other human, does, and can learn in different ways than we can. The two combine to result in a machine that can learn specific things far faster and better than we can. The computer must be playing chess - because no other being possesses, or indeed could possess its skill.

After all, when I play chess, it's not my teacher doing it, is it?

I wouldn't quite say they "play" chess as they are scripted to perform certain moves based on formulae and calculations that are within the parameters of it's programming.

And we don't? Remember, just because we can't see the code doesn't mean its not there.

And because of this, it can make no mistakes and will never have to actually evaluate a move because it is programmed to know(I am referring to the programs wrote to compete with world champions, not the chess games found on most computers).

Lol.
The number of positions in chess is larger than the complete sum of human knowledge, by a factor of 100 or so. It's thousands of times larger than the content of the entire Internet, and unthinkably larger than any library, digital or physical. It's impossible for it not to be evaluating moves - we do not have the space to pre-store them.

I would say a computer performs chess better than we play it, as we have to actually carefully consider our moves, weigh the future possibilities of our moves, and we are capable of making mistakes.

Computers do all of these things. Since the game has not been formally solved, they can even make mistakes.

Programmed by?

Evolution and chemistry. The natural forces of the universe dictate that the machines that are "us" evolve to become more suited to survival in our environments - and in that process, we try out many different programs.

 

[Sir Doom]

You seem to be under the impression that because the computer can do it, the programmer can. That's nonsense.

That is nonsense. Luckily, I'm not really under that impression at all. I'm under the impression that the computer is a tool built specifically by humans to enhance our ability to accomplish specific tasks. Just like when a screwdriver screws in a screw its really a human using a screwdriver to screw in a screw, when a computer plays chess its really a human using a computer to play chess.

The computer has far larger capacity to think than I, or any other human, does, ...

A computer can only 'think' about 1 thing per processing core at any given time. I believe 8 cores is the max on the market at the moment, but I could be wrong. That's 8 things. You can do a few more than that, I assure you.

Consider this: How long does it take you to go from wanting to think about a picture and picturing it? How long does it take a computer from when you tell it to look at a picture and it actually brings it up? I wonder why the computer is slower...

and can learn in different ways than we can. The two combine to result in a machine that can learn specific things far faster and better than we can.

I'm sorry but computers do not learn. They follow instructions. Run a bad line of code 6 billion times and see if the computer learns how to run it. Or you could just manually fix the code because you are the one that needs to learn, not the computer.

The computer must be playing chess - because no other being possesses, or indeed could possess its skill.

That's a bit of a stretch. I assume we'll start sticking chips in our brains at least within 500 years. Then all bets are off...

So, chess can be reduced to mathematics, which is where computers typically come in handy (they actually ONLY do mathematics no matter what it looks like to us on the screen). Basically, its not that surprising that computers are faster at math than we are. That's kind of why we built them. Wait... that's exactly why we built them...

They say in chess you must be able to think 4 moves ahead. Well, the reality is if you could you'd think all the way to the end of the game then that's what you would do. The way computers store information is basically like the computer is looking at every single possible endgame before the first move is made. That includes the losing ones. It isn't that a computer is better than you at chess, its just that you can't do math faster than it can.

After all, when I play chess, it's not my teacher doing it, is it?

That depends, are you playing against your chess teacher? If so, then yes it is your teacher doing it. And you.

Also, if your teacher isn't playing against you, are you playing chess on a computer that your teacher programmed? If so then also yes, she is doing it. And you, as well.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A good explanation, however, what is the proof that anything is random? For example, if you decided to walk next to a cliff and a rock fell on your head and killed you would that be considered random chance even though the weather over a period of time caused the erosion that caused the rock to fall, weather that from the beginning of time operates in a pattern that is anything but random. Or the choice that was made to walk next to a cliff that was based again upon environment, genetics, and upbringing. So I guess it isn't how you define predestination but rather how you define random chance that matters.

Victim of circumstance.

 

[PolyHedral]

That is nonsense. Luckily, I'm not really under that impression at all. I'm under the impression that the computer is a tool built specifically by humans to enhance our ability to accomplish specific tasks. Just like when a screwdriver screws in a screw its really a human using a screwdriver to screw in a screw, when a computer plays chess its really a human using a computer to play chess.

But the human probably can't follow what the computer is doing, predict what it will do, nor emulate it. In the case of a computer interacting with the real world, e.g. a robot, there's no theoretical reason it can't behave exactly as autonomously as a real animal.
These things are not purely tools. They're thinking machines, which can be autonomous if and when the situation requires.

A computer can only 'think' about 1 thing per processing core at any given time. I believe 8 cores is the max on the market at the moment, but I could be wrong. That's 8 things. You can do a few more than that, I assure you.

I have something along the lines of 100 million "cores."

Consider this: How long does it take you to go from wanting to think about a picture and picturing it? How long does it take a computer from when you tell it to look at a picture and it actually brings it up? I wonder why the computer is slower...

It takes me a few tens to hundreds of milliseconds. If you optimized for speed, and it was a relatively small image, the computer could give it to you in single digit milliseconds or less.

I'm sorry but computers do not learn. They follow instructions.

The instructions can, and are sometimes, self-modifying. They react to past experience and account for it. Is that not the definition of learning?

So, chess can be reduced to mathematics, which is where computers typically come in handy (they actually ONLY do mathematics no matter what it looks like to us on the screen).

Literally everything in the universe can be reduced to mathematics. Human decision making relies on doing statistics unconsciously, for instance. Some vastly complex set of mathematics dictates exactly how everything in the entire universe operates.

They say in chess you must be able to think 4 moves ahead. Well, the reality is if you could you'd think all the way to the end of the game then that's what you would do. The way computers store information is basically like the computer is looking at every single possible endgame before the first move is made. That includes the losing ones. It isn't that a computer is better than you at chess, its just that you can't do math faster than it can.

Except that's impossible for lack of both space and time. The computer must - and does - use a guess concerning which moves of are good and bad which does not involve looking forward until the end of the game.

That depends, are you playing against your chess teacher? If so, then yes it is your teacher doing it. And you.

Also, if your teacher isn't playing against you, are you playing chess on a computer that your teacher programmed? If so then also yes, she is doing it. And you, as well.

IOW, I'm only playing against my teacher when they're involved, ergo, I'm actually an autonomous agent. Computers are similarly autonomous.

 

[Sir Doom]

But the human probably can't follow what the computer is doing, predict what it will do, nor emulate it.

So because I can't personally witness every molecule impacting its neighbors within a turning screw, the screwdriver is now screwing it in instead of me.

Also, I bet you can in fact predict what a computer will do. Because they will ALWAYS do what they've been programmed to do and absolutely nothing else. So, if you know what it's programmed to do, then you can predict what it will do because it will do nothing else.

Emulating a computer is easy as putting a box on your head and saying beep boop beep. Unless you mean something different when you say emulation.

In the case of a computer interacting with the real world, e.g. a robot, there's no theoretical reason it can't behave exactly as autonomously as a real animal.

If you could somehow compile every single action that a human being could make in every single situation that a human could be in you could theoretically program it into a robot and that would be really, really, really, really close to an actual autonomous being. But you can't do that because that is infinite data.

These things are not purely tools. They're thinking machines, which can be autonomous if and when the situation requires.

No, they cannot. They are nothing but tools. They do not think. They can be automated, but they are not autonomous. Not ever.

I have something along the lines of 100 million "cores."

Exactly. So what were you saying about 'thinking capacity' again?

It takes me a few tens to hundreds of milliseconds. If you optimized for speed, and it was a relatively small image, the computer could give it to you in single digit milliseconds or less.

:thud:

The instructions can, and are sometimes, self-modifying. They react to past experience and account for it. Is that not the definition of learning?

Please show me a computer doing this. I've never seen it. I can't wait to see your self-coding computer. By the way, here is your Nobel.

Literally everything in the universe can be reduced to mathematics. Human decision making relies on doing statistics unconsciously, for instance. Some vastly complex set of mathematics dictates exactly how everything in the entire universe operates.

It's really the other way around. Some vastly complex things in the universe dictate how we do math. Math is manipulation. It's a language and nothing more. Computers make math faster. That's why we built them.

Except that's impossible for lack of both space and time. The computer must - and does - use a guess concerning which moves of are good and bad which does not involve looking forward until the end of the game.

Picking a random number out of a series is not the same as guessing. I wonder who decides what the series consists of...

IOW, I'm only playing against my teacher when they're involved, ergo, I'm actually an autonomous agent. Computers are similarly autonomous.

No. Computers are not autonomous. They do absolutely nothing at all without a human designing, building, programming, and at the very least initiating if not completely controlling them. They are a tool. A glorified desk lamp in most cases. You are playing your teacher because THEY are an agent. The computer is not. It is not acting of its own accord. It is acting by the express will of a human in EVERY case.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

So I was thinking today, isn't everything predestined? You start with a persons environment and childhood, how you are raised determines your future thought process and reactions to outside stimuli, and your genetic makeup determines the intellectual reasoning you use to react. The same applies to your parents and their parents so on and so forth to the first generation. So what would be a good argument that not everything, every action and reaction aren't predestined? If everything is predestined then we have no free will, its just an illusion, a self delusion.

I dont think so, because many people choose not follow their parents or they choose to get out of their environment to a different environment.

I say the concept of "Choice" is in it self a marker for some sort of freedom of will.

I dont think we have "absolute" free will, because of the limitations in our environment and how we are raised, but we still have a choice "Limited Free will" (and many people make them) to overcome our environment and forget how we were raised.

We still have a choice within our environment to evolve and to make our environment suit our needs.

Free will is not a illusion, but "Absolute" free will is impossible.