All of Ganapati's Comments + Replies

Ganapati-30

Sorry for the delay in replying. No, I don't have any objection to the reading of the counterfactual. However I fail to connect it to the question I posed.

In a determined universe, the future is completely determined whether any conscious entity in it can predict it or not. No actions, considerations, beliefs of any entity have any more significance on the future than those of another simply because they cannot alter it.

Determinism, like solipsism, is a logically consistent system of belief. It cannot be proven wrong anymore than solpsism can be, since the... (read more)

RobinZ100

In a determined universe, the future is completely determined whether any conscious entity in it can predict it or not. No actions, considerations, beliefs of any entity have any more significance on the future than those of another simply because they cannot alter it. [emphasis added]

Wrong. If Alice orders the fettucini in world A, she gets fettucini, but if Alice' orders eggplant in world A, she gets eggplant. The future is not fixed in advance - it is a function of the present, and your acts in the present create the future.

There's an old Nozick quot... (read more)

1RobinZ
I'm sorry, do you have an objection to the reading of "counterfactual" elaborated in this thread?
Ganapati-40

Actually you brought in the counterfactual argument to attempt to explain the significance (or "purpose") of an approach called consequentialism (as opposed to others) in a determined universe.

5RobinZ
Allow me the privilege of stating my own intentions.
Ganapati-10

A deterministic universe can contain a correct implementation of a calculator that returns 2+2=4 or an incorrect one that returns 2+2=5.

Sure it can. But it is possible to declare one of them as valid only because you are outside of both and you have a notion of what the result should be.

But to avoid the confusion over the use of words I will restate what I said earlier slightly differently.

In a deterministic universe, neither of a pair of opposites like valid/invalid, right/wrong, true/false etc has more significance than the other. Everything just is. ... (read more)

2cousin_it
I thought about your argument a bit and I think I understand it better now. Let's unpack it. First off, if a deterministic world contains a (deterministic) agent that believes the world is deterministic, that agent's belief is correct. So no need to be outside the world to define "correctness". Another matter is verifying the correctness of beliefs if you're within the world. You seem to argue that a verifier can't trust its own conclusion if it knows itself to be a deterministic program. This is debatable - it depends on how you define "trust" - but let's provisionally accept this. From this you somehow conclude that the world and your mind must be in fact non-deterministic. To me this doesn't follow. Could you explain?
0[anonymous]
I'm kind of confused about your argument. Sometimes I get a glimpse of sense in it, but then I notice some corollary that looks just ridiculously wrong and snap back out. Are you saying that the validity of the statement 2+2=4 depends on whether we live in a deterministic universe? That's a rather extreme form of belief relativism; how in the world can anyone hope to convince you that anything is true?
1[anonymous]
So your argument against determinism is that certain things in your brain appear to have "significance" to you, but in a deterministic world that would be impossible? Does this restatement suffice as a reductio ad absurdum, or do I need to dismantle it further?
Ganapati-20

If delusions presented only survival dsiadvantages and no advantages, you are right. However, that need not be the case.

The delusion about an afterlife can co-exist with correct cognition in matters affecting immediate survival and when it does, it can enhance survival chances. So evolution doesn't automatically lead to/enhance correct cognition. I am not saying correctness plays no role, but isn't the sole deciding factor, at least not in the case of evolutionary selection.

Ganapati-10

Just to clarify, in a deterministic universe, there are no "invalid" or "wrong" things. Everything just is. Every belief and action is just as valid as any other because that is exactly how each of them has been determined to be.

6cousin_it
No, this belief of yours is wrong. A deterministic universe can contain a correct implementation of a calculator that returns 2+2=4 or an incorrect one that returns 2+2=5.

Large useless brain consumes a lot of energy, which means more dangerous hunting and faster consumption of supplies when food is insufficient. The relation to survival is straightforward.

Peacock tails reduce their survival chances. Even so peacocks are around. As long as the organism survives until it is capable of procreation, any survival disadvantages don't pose an evolutionary disadvantage.

Sounds like a group selection to me. And not much in accordance with observation.

I am more inclined towards the gene selection theory, not group selection. A... (read more)

1prase
Peacock tail survival disadvantage isn't limited to post-reproduction period. In order to explain the existence of the tails, it must be shown that their positive effect is greater than the negative. I don't dispute that (probably large) part of the human brain's capacity is used in the peacock-tail manner as a signal of fitness. What I say is only that having two brains of same energetic demands, the one with more correct cognition is in advantage; their signalling value is the same, so any peacock mechanism shouldn't favour the deluded one. This doesn't constitute proof of the correctness of human cognition, perhaps (almost certainly) some parts of our brain's design is wrong in a way that no single mutation can repair, like the blind spot on human retina. But the evolutionary argument for correctness can't be dismissed as irrelevant.
Ganapati-40

The elaborate hypothetical is the equivalent of saying what if the programming of Alice had been altered in the minor way, that nobody notices, to order eggplant parmesan instead of fettucini alfredo which her earlier programming would have made her to order? Since there is no agent external to the world that can do it, there is no possibility of that happening. Or it could mean that any minor changes from the predetermined program are possible in a deterministic universe as long as nobody notices them, which would imply an incompletely determined universe.

5RobinZ
... Ganapati, the counterfactual does not happen. That's what "counterfactual" means - something which is contrary to fact. However, the laws of nature in a deterministic universe are specified well enough to calculate the future from the present, and therefore should be specified well enough to calculate the future* from some modified present*, even if no such present* occurs. The answer to "what would happen if I added a glider here to this frame of a Conway's Life game?" has a defined answer, even though no such glider will be present in the original world.

Forming and holding any belief is costly. The time and energy you spend forming delusions can be used elsewhere.

Perhaps. But do not see why that should present an evolutionary disadvantage if they do not impact survival and procreation. On the contrary it could present an evolutionary adavantage. A species that deluded itself inot believing that its has been the chosen species, might actually work energetically towards establshing its hegemony and gain an evolutionary advantage.

An example would be helpful. I don't know what evidence you are speaking a

... (read more)
2prase
Large useless brain consumes a lot of energy, which means more dangerous hunting and faster consumption of supplies when food is insufficient. The relation to survival is straightforward. Sounds like a group selection to me. And not much in accordance with observation. Although I don't believe the Jews believe in their chosenness on genetical grounds, even if they did, they aren't much sucessful after all. Depends on interpretation of "required". If it means that practically one cannot derive useful statements about trilobites from Schrödinger equation, then yes, I agree. If it means that laws of evolution are logically independent laws which we would need to keep even if we overcome all computational and data-storage difficulties, then I disagree. I expect you meant the first interpretation, given your last paragraph.

I program computers successfully too :-)

Ganapati-30

Sure. So consequentialism is the name for the process that happens in every programmed entity, making it useless to distinguish between two different approaches.

if, counterfactually, you did something else, ...

How could it happen? Each component of the system is programmed to react in a predetermined way to the inputs it receives from the rest of the system. The the inputs are predetermined as is the processing algorithm. How can you or I do anything that we have not been preprogrammed to do?

Consdier an isolated system with no biological agents involved. It may contain preprogrammed computers. Would you or would you not expect the future evolution of the system to be completely determined. If you would expect i... (read more)

3RobinZ
I said "counterfactual". Let me use an archetypal example of a free-will hypothetical and query your response: I'm off to the market, now - I'll post the followup in a moment.

Are you claiming that the human species will last a million years or more and not become extinct before then? What are the grounds for such a claim?

Or we could pick a partciular species of dinaosaur that survived for a few million years and compare to humans.

Do you expect any changes to the analysis if we did that?

Ganapati-40

I said that of two almost identical species with same quantity of cognition (measured by brain size or better its energy consumption or number of distinct beliefs held) which differ only in quality of cognition (i.e. correspondence of beliefs and reality), the one which is easy deluded is in a clear disadvantage.

Unless the delusions are related to survival and procreation, don't see how they would present any evolutionary disadvantage.

Well, what I know about nature indicates that any physical system evolves in time respecting rigid deterministic physi

... (read more)
1prase
Forming and holding any belief is costly. The time and energy you spend forming delusions can be used elsewhere. An example would be helpful. I don't know what evidence you are speaking about. What is the difference between respecting physical laws and not violating them? Physical laws (and I am speaking mainly about the microscopical ones) determine the time evolution uniquely. Once you know the initial state in all detail, the future is logically fixed, there is no freedom for additional laws. That of course doesn't mean that the predictions of future are practically feasible or even easy. Consequentialism doesn't require either. The choices needn't be principially unpredictable to be meaningful.
1CarlShulman
This post is relevant.

I didn't read them in one day and not all of them either.

I 'stubled upon' this article on the night of June 1 (GMT + 5.30) and did a bit of research on the site looking to check if my question had been previously raised and answered. In the process I did end up reading a few articles and sequences.

If the cognition was totally incorrect, leading to beliefs unrelated to the outside world, it would be only a waste of energy to maintain such cognitive capacity. Correct beliefs about certain things (like locations of food and predators) are without doubt great evolutionary advantage.

Not sure what kind of cognitive capacity the dinosaurs held, but that they roamed around for millions of years and then became extinct seems to indicate that evolution itself doesn't care much about cognitive capacity beyond a point (that you already mentioned)

Can you ex

... (read more)
1Thomas
I don't think one should compare humans and dinos. Maybe mammals and dinos or something like that. Many dinosaurs went extinct during the era, our ancestors where many different "species". Successful enough, that we are still around. As were some dinos which gave birds to Earth. Just a side note,
2prase
At least they probably hadn't a deceptive cognitive capacity. That is, they had few beliefs, but that few were more or less correct. I am not saying that an intelligent species is universally better at survival than a dumb species. I said that of two almost identical species with same quantity of cognition (measured by brain size or better its energy consumption or number of distinct beliefs held) which differ only in quality of cognition (i.e. correspondence of beliefs and reality), the one which is easy deluded is in a clear disadvantage. Well, what I know about nature indicates that any physical system evolves in time respecting rigid deterministic physical laws. There is no strong evidence that living creatures form an exception. Therefore I conclude that consciousness must be physically and therefore bilogically determined. I don't expect to recognise "deterministic creatures" from "non-determinist creatures", I simply expect the latter can't exist in this world. Or maybe I even can't imagine what could it possibly mean for consciousness to be not biologically determined. From my point of view, it could mean either a very bizarre form of dualism (consciousness is separated from the material world, but by chance it reflects correctly what happens in the material world), or it could mean that the natural laws aren't entirely deterministic. But I don't call the latter possibility "free will", I call it "randomness". Your line of thought reminds me of a class of apologetics which claim that if we have evolved by random chance, then there is no guarantee that our cognition is correct, and if our cognition is flawed, we are not able to recognise that we have evolved by random chance; therefore, holding a position that we have evolved by random chance is incoherent and God must have been involved in the process. I think this class of arguments is called "presuppositionalist", but I may be wrong. Whatever is the name, the argument is a fallacy. That our cognition is
2Jack
Huh? Presumably if the dinosaurs had the cognitive capacity and the opposable thumbs to develop rocket ships and divert incoming asteroids they would have survived. They died out because they weren't smart enough.
Ganapati-40

My program didn't know in advance what options it would be presented with, but it was programmed to select the option that makes the most sense, e.g. the determinist worldview rather than the mystical one.

You couldn't possibly know that! Someone programmed to pick the mystical worldview would feel exactly the same and would have been programmed not to recognise his/her own programming too :-)

Like a program that receives an array as input and finds the maximum element in it, the output is "predetermined", but it's still useful.

Of course the... (read more)

4cousin_it
If my common sense is invalid and just my imagination, then how in the world do I manage to program computers successfully? That seems to be the most objective test there is, unless you believe all computers are in a conspiracy to deceive humans.

Of course! Since all the choices of all the actors are predetermined, so is the future. So what exactly would be the "purpose" of acting as if the future were not already determined and we can choose an optimising function based the possible consequences of different actions?

2RobinZ
In a deterministic universe, the future is logically implied by the present - but you're in the present. The future isn't fated - if, counterfactually, you did something else, then the laws of physics would imply very different events as a consequence - and it isn't predictable - even ignoring computational limits, if you make any error, even on an unmeasurable level, in guessing the current state, your prediction will quickly diverge from reality - it's just logically consistent.
8Vladimir_Nesov
Since the consequences are determined by your algorithm, whatever your algorithm will do, will actually happen. Thus, the algorithm can contemplate what would be the consequences of alternative choices and make the choice it likes most. The consideration of alternatives is part of the decision-making algorithm, which gives it the property of consistently picking goal-optimizing decisions. Only these goal-optimizing decisions actually get made, but the process of considering alternatives is how they get computed.

Do your choices have causes? Do those causes have causes?

Determinism doesn't have to mean epiphenomenalism. Metaphysically, epiphenomenalism - the belief that consciousness has no causal power - is a lot like belief in true free will - consciousness as an uncaused cause - in that it places consciousness half outside the chain of cause and effect, rather than wholly within it. (But subjectively they can be very different.)

I don't equate determinism with epiphenomenalism, but that even when it acts as a cause, it is completely determined meaning the appar... (read more)

4prase
That's true. And there is no problem within it. If the cognition was totally incorrect, leading to beliefs unrelated to the outside world, it would be only a waste of energy to maintain such cognitive capacity. Correct beliefs about certain things (like locations of food and predators) are without doubt great evolutionary advantage. Yes, but it is a very weak evidence (more so, if current models are correct). The claim stated that there was at least some capacity for correct cognition, not that the cognition is perfect. Can you explain the meaning? What are the former and what are the latter beings?
Ganapati-10

In other words, the 'choices' you make are not really choices, but already predetermined, You didn't really choose to be a determinist, you were programmed to select it, once you encountered it.

3Vladimir_Nesov
The only way that choices can be made is by being predetermined (by your decision-making algorithm). Paraphrasing the familiar wordplay, choices that are not predetermined refer to decisions that cannot be made, while the real choices, that can actually be made, are predetermined.
4cousin_it
Yep, kind of. But your view of determinism is too depressing :-) My program didn't know in advance what options it would be presented with, but it was programmed to select the option that makes the most sense, e.g. the determinist worldview rather than the mystical one. Like a program that receives an array as input and finds the maximum element in it, the output is "predetermined", but it's still useful. Likewise, the worldview I chose was "predetermined", but that doesn't mean my choice is somehow "wrong" or "invalid", as long as my inner program actually implements valid common sense.

Thanks! I read the links and sequences.

-4Jack
Not in one day you didn't.

I used the word choice, but 'free will' do as well.

Was your response to my question biologically determined or was it a matter of conscious choice?

Whether there is going to be another response to this comment of mine or not, would it have been completely determined biologically or would it be a matter of conscious choice by some?

If all human actions are determined biologically the 'choice' is only an apparent one, like a tossed up coin having a 'choice' of turning up heads or tails. Whether someone is a determinist or not should itself have been determined biologically including all discussions of this nature!

Morendil100

Was your response to my question biologically determined or was it a matter of conscious choice?

The correct answer to this is "both" (and it is a false dichotomy). My consciousness is a property of a certain collection of matter which can be most compactly described by reference to the regularities we call "biology". Choosing to answer (or not to answer) is the result of a decision procedure arising out of the matter residing (to a rough approximation) in my braincase.

The difference between me and a coin is that a coin is a largely h... (read more)

5Mitchell_Porter
Do your choices have causes? Do those causes have causes? Determinism doesn't have to mean epiphenomenalism. Metaphysically, epiphenomenalism - the belief that consciousness has no causal power - is a lot like belief in true free will - consciousness as an uncaused cause - in that it places consciousness half outside the chain of cause and effect, rather than wholly within it. (But subjectively they can be very different.) Increase in consciousness increases the extent to which the causes of one's choices and actions are themselves conscious in origin rather than unconscious. This may be experienced as liberation from cause and effect, but really it's just liberation from unconscious causes. Choices do have causes, whether or not you're aware of them. This is a point which throws many people, but again, it comes from an insufficiently broad concept of causality. Reason itself has causes and operates as a cause. We can agree, surely, that absurdly wrong beliefs have a cause; we can understand why a person raised in a cult may believe its dogmas. Correct beliefs also have a cause. Simple Darwinian survival ensures that any conscious species that has been around for hundreds of thousands of years must have at least some capacity for correct cognition, however that is achieved. Nonetheless, despite this limited evolutionary gift, it may be true that we are deterministically doomed to fundamental error or ignorance in certain matters. Since the relationship of consciousness, knowledge, and reality is not exactly clear, it's hard to be sure.
4cousin_it
Yep, your view is confused. The optimizing function is implemented in your biology, which is implemented in physics.

It was an interesting read. I am a little confused about one aspect, though, that is determinist consequentialism.

From what I read, it appears a determinist consequentialist believes it is 'biology all the way down' meaning all actions are completely determined biologically. So where does choice enter the equation, including the optimising function for the choice, the consequences?

Or are there some things that are not biologically determined, like whether to approve someone else's actions or not, while actions physically impacting others are themsleves com... (read more)

3RobinZ
P.S. Welcome to Less Wrong! Besides posts linked from the "free will" Wiki page - particularly How An Algorithm Feels From Inside - you may be interested in browsing the various Sequences. The introductory sequence on Map and Territory) is a good place to start. Edit: You may also try browsing the backlinks from posts you like - that's how I originally read through EY's archive.
4RobinZ
I think you might be confused on the matter of free will - it's not obvious that there is any conflict between determinism and choice.