Is it possible that someday a supercomputer can predict all of your choices that you will make from the time you are born until the time you die based on your genetic code and DNA?
Indeed, for a “Will” or decision-taking routine to be “free”, it must be able to override those possible decisions, which are “causality-determined”. In Goertzel´s Webmind the discriminating faculty is the AttentionBroker routine). In the AWWWARENet, the AttentionBroker presents its conclusions, what course of action is to be taken as being the most rational, as having the highest probability of success, to the I.I.I (Identity,Initiative and Illusion generating routine). In as far as the system has an “override” function, the system appears to be endowed with a faculty of “choice” to an outside observer of the system.
The need for a random-picking faculty arises, when the AttentionBroker present the I.I.I-routine with more than one equally likely options i.e. options with identical priorities.
The issue becomes more poignant, when due to a scarcity of resources or time imposed resource constraints not all options can be carried out simultaneously or worse are mutually exclusive i.e. some must be sacrificed at the expense of others.
Which one to choose if they have all equally preferable numerical outcomes of a resultant vector of the pros and cons and the only differences are to be found on a qualitative level?
It goes without saying, that the advantage-disadvantage summing includes attributing preferential weighting of long term advantages over short term disadvantages.
A rational/causal decision for the system will try to optimise the chances for survival of the system in the long term; short term repairable damage can then be tolerated as a temporary sacrifice.
That is to say predict how they will interact, and all the events that could possibly occur? Theoretically, and here is where we get into a bit of philosophy, the answer is probably yes. Now that’s certainly going to bother a good number of people who believe in free will, and it bothers me even bringing up the topic. You see I believe in freedom and liberty, and I intend to live my life as if I am free. But am I? Are you?
Let’s start with an extreme example of “choice”, which should not be influenced by “peripheral perceptions”. In the film “Sophie’s choice” there is a scene where Sophie (played by Meryl Streep) is forced to choose one of her children, the other will be killed. Not choosing will result in both children being killed. A parent who loves his children alike and refrains from favouritism might have the following thoughts:
- It is better if one of my children survives than none.
- As these sadistic monsters kill people anyway, there is no good reason to give in to this non-choice as they will very probably kill both children in the end anyway.
- If I do choose one of them, I may buy some time for one of them generating a chance for escape and survival.
- If I do choose one of them I commit a sin: It is immoral to make this decision forced upon by blackmail; One should never give in to that, I’d rather safe my ass in the after world.
- If I do not choose one of them I commit a sin: It is immoral to condemn both death.
- I should choose the most helpless one/the one with the best survival chances.
Thoughts 1,3 and 6 belong to the realm of Necessity (N) and Energy (E) and aim for the “least damage” result. Thoughts 2,4 and 5 belong to the realm of Morality (M). Is the choice being made again the result of a summation vector of N,E and M? Is one’s choice faculty predestined by the idiosyncratic resultant N,E,M vector?
Is “gut feeling” and “feeling like it” a form of aligning your decision as much as possible to your N,E,M vector or is there a way to escape from algorithmic pattern based calculation considerations?
I have missed Jon lately and I wanted to share these great memories with him. So I wrote a note on the back of that picture about how much fun that night was and mailed it to him. I think receiving that picture really made his day and let him know that he was still on my mind.
I also send picture postcards of my daughter Lily. We have relatives who love seeing pictures of her. I print out pictures of her on my photo printer and write a note on the back of the picture for them.
Does that mean we should?
After all, there could be some serious benefits if we can predict such things, and we would be able to prevent terrorism, and violent acts. We could use this to protect the American people, and prevent or reduce crime. However if we do this, what will we give up? Will we give up our freedom and liberty in the process? Will we dismiss free will as an underlining principle which guides our system of laws and society?
I have the picture of my choice in seconds. I have also scanned my grandmother’s old photos into my computer so now I can surprise my family with pictures that they haven’t seen in years.
The possibilities for these postcards are endless, anyone can make them. If you have a picture that someone will like then you have a picture postcard. Just write a letter on the back with the fond memories that you have about the picture and it will surly brighten up someone’s day. One stamp, one picture, one story, priceless memories.
Sinji Mikami presents the following posts
Put the equity in your home to work for you with a Home Equity Line of Credit.
Pros And Cons Of Home Equity Loans And Home Equity Line of Credit
What Are The Advantages Of A Home Equity Line Of Credit (HELOC)
Leave a Reply