Games are a way to “overcome the crow”. In situations where there are multiple major actors, and where each of them has a range of options, it is hard to think through the ultimate outcome. To do so requires thinking “what would X do”, then “what would Y do”, the “what would Z do”…and by that time one has lost the first thought. It is hard to keep it all in focus. Games allow each player to focus his mind on one particular actor and keep those motivations top and primary. This process can sometimes reveal possible outcomes that would not be as easy to reach if each game-player tried to solve the problem on his own.
Apart from the military, management schools sometimes use games. People will take on roles of different market-participants and see where things go.
Obviously, just because a game ends one way does not mean reality will do so. The game – as such – is not reasoning. It is a tool that can throw up ideas and possibilities: it can provide material input to reasoning.
Some computer-simulations are analogous. Facing a situation where we can model the behavior of small part of a system well, and can model individual reactions to external events interaction by interaction, we may not have a clean set of equations that can give us a picture of the aggregated outcome. Computer simulations allow us to model at a scale we are comfortable with, and then let the computer show us how things will unravel under various assumptions.
[Computer simulation] [g]ames are a way to “overcome the crow” - an interesting way to contemplate it.
Computers allow us to model our current grasp of descriptive law. Descriptive law is derived from patterns we have observed and concretized, in short, causal law..
While the game - as such - is not reasoning, the lines of code are based on our current understanding of causal law.
Causal law comes in two distinct realms; matter and spirit. The patterns produced by the material world are distinct from the patterns produced by consciousness.
The objects of material world produce the single output available based on a multi-variable input.
The objects of consciousness always have two or more outputs available based on the multi-variable input.
While the computer may show us how things will unravel under various assumptions, the unraveling itself is computed from the various assumptions used in the program.
Computer simulations are derived from ‘if/then’ calculations, where ‘then’ is never a truly random event. Random ‘then’ outcomes cannot be pre-coded into computer programs because programmers are necessarily deterministic. In short, computer modeling may be entertaining and thought provoking, but cannot be relied on to be predictive of reality.
While the computer may show us how things will unravel under various assumptions, the unraveling itself is computed from the various assumptions used in the program.
In Objectivist terms I take this to mean, "Is the choice to think or not a random event?’
Apparently so for most of the population…
However I believe free-will is actually the ability to choose from that which is possible. One can certainly plan to act according to future givens, even to allow for alternate plans of actions, e.g. Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, etc… But how does one plan for random events? At the moment an action is required, one can only choose to act according to what’s possible to do, which includes doing nothing or flipping a coin, but the choice itself (free-will) isn’t random because it’s decisive.
As for most of the population, thinking it is so does not make it so.
So if free-will, or the choice to think or not is not a random event, what is the “random event” referring to? Is a “random event” supposed to be a-causal?
As for most of the population, thinking it is so does not make it so.
My response was meant to be taken sarcastically that most people choose not to think, so it appears a random event when it happens…
So if free-will, or the choice to think or not is not a random event, what is the “random event” referring to? Is a “random event” supposed to be a-causal?
By random event, I mean being apparently without cause, i.e. chaotic, or unanticipated. Free-will isn’t random because the action is determined by the actor. It could only be random if the actor’s action was something other than intended, e.g. I attempt to raise my right arm, and my left arm rises instead.
Then what is being described as,a “random event” is a pattern which has not yet been recognized and formalized causally, which would make it extremely difficult to add as a reliable subroutine within a computer program.
Given that, the material side of the computer program is limited by our current knowledge.
The aspects of dealing with consciousness still faces the hurdle of how to deal with two or more outputs available to the multi-variable input.
This area lies at the crux of why artificial intelligence will not surpass human intelligence. At best, a computer program might be able to highlight a pattern we have not yet discovered based on known pattern recognition methods which can be coded for programmatically.
Then what is being described as,a “random event” is a pattern which has not yet been recognized and formalized causally, which would make it extremely difficult to add as a reliable subroutine within a computer program.
Not just difficult, but impossible due to the fact that random input tends to crash computer programs.
Given that, the material side of the computer program is limited by our current knowledge…
… and biases.
This area lies at the crux of why artificial intelligence will not surpass human intelligence. At best, a computer program might be able to highlight a pattern we have not yet discovered based on known pattern recognition methods which can be coded for programmatically.
Yes, I agree. We could learn more from ET’s than AI’s
Computer simulations are derived from ‘if/then’ calculations, where ‘then’ is never a truly random event.
Computers can explore multiple “thens” without losing focus the way a human mind would. In human-team games, this is addressed by repeating the game a few times, with key participants told to act differently at certain key points of choice. Humans have a harder time reasoning in so-called “fat tail” situations. A person can iterate, testing various assumptions, just the way a game-team or a computer does, but the more the decision-points, the harder this gets.
In short, computer modeling may be entertaining and thought provoking, but cannot be relied on to be predictive of reality.
Assumptions in - assumptions out
You could state this premise the other way too: computers can be just as good as humans at making predictions. Brilliance in – brilliance out.
Of course neither way of stating it gets to the truth and relevance of games. They are both methodologies or mechanisms. Consider an everyday mechanism: someone says that they were confused about something, so they decided to write down their thoughts and organize them… and voila! things became more clear to them! It’s a mechanism. However, if the premises you put into it are Kantian or religious, etc. the outcome may be a stronger Kantianism or a stronger religious conviction. Just like the process of “writing it down”, games can act as a “multiplier” of assumptions. And, yes, they’re a multiplier of positives and negatives; so the analogy to a multiplier holds up well.
You could state this premise the other way too: computers can be just as good as humans at making predictions. Brilliance in – brilliance out.
I disagree. Computers will never be just as good as humans, because innovation in response to random events cannot be pre-coded, i.e. innovative programmers cannot code programs to innovate. Programs select (perhaps even by random sequencing) from a predetermined menu of response to stimulus scenarios.
Innovation in =/= innovation out.
Of course neither way of stating it gets to the truth and relevance of games. They are both methodologies or mechanisms. Consider an everyday mechanism: someone says that they were confused about something, so they decided to write down their thoughts and organize them… and voila! things became more clear to them! It’s a mechanism. However, if the premises you put into it are Kantian or religious, etc. the outcome may be a stronger Kantianism or a stronger religious conviction. Just like the process of “writing it down”, games can act as a “multiplier” of assumptions. And, yes, they’re a multiplier of positives and negatives; so the analogy to a multiplier holds up well.
I think the kind of clarity you’re describing follows an epiphany, rather than organized review. Processing history is useful, but limited to a set of givens, and as you point out, the results are skewed by biases. For example, a truly skilled emergency responder relies on training (programming) and innovation to scenarios that are off the chart… the “Miracle on the Hudson” comes to mind… The truth and relevance of games is that they are entertaining and thought provoking; adequate for training rote responses to given situations, but incomplete and potentially obstructive for dealing with the really interesting stuff that occurs in reality.
You’ll agree that this is completely arbitrary unless one asks “good at what”. Computers are good at some things that humans are not good at. I’m really not sure what point you’re addressing… perhaps some type of strawman you have in mind, that nobody here is arguing for in the first place.
No, no strawman… I’m just pointing out that computer programming, gaming and modeling is limited to processing and returning givens. Computers may be faster than humans at calculations, but better? I think innovation trumps software in any measure of merit.
I think innovation trumps software in any measure of merit.
Innovation is not some type of randomly occurring process, and creativity is not as different from regular thinking as pop culture would have us believe. That is why there methods and mechanisms that can spark thoughts that we would then label “creativity”.
Innovation is not some type of randomly occurring process, and creativity is not as different from regular thinking as pop culture would have us believe. That is why there methods and mechanisms that can spark thoughts that we would then label “creativity”.
Isn’t it? Can innovation and creativity be predicted then?? I think catalysts may promote innovation, prepare the soil so to speak, but there’s no certainty that creativity results from predetermined methods and mechanisms. That sounds too deterministic to me. Can you provide some examples of this being the case??
Isn’t it? Can innovation and creativity be predicted then?? I think catalysts may promote innovation, prepare the soil so to speak, but there’s no certainty that creativity results from predetermined methods and mechanisms. That sounds too deterministic to me. Can you provide some examples of this being the case??
We’re really straying from the topic here. I’m not sure what you mean by “random” or by “deterministic”. I’m not even sure what you mean by innovation and creativity. Fleming famously saw some stuff growing on a petri dish that he’d kept out (supposedly by mistake). This finally led to antibiotics. Is this what you’re referring to as random, as opposed to writing a poem or painting a picture or designing an Iphone?
Perhaps you can start a separate thread that provides some context, defines terms and shows examples, and that can be a starting point for a discussion. Meanwhile, there’s a book on this topic that I’d strongly recommend: The Mind’s best Work - by David N. Perkins. It is full of experiments and discussion on the topic of creativity and how it differs (or does not differ from regular thinking.
I described what I meant by “random” in the 7th post, but mostly I’ve been responding to the predictive accuracy of computer models, which I consider to be dubious. It’s not my intention to stray from topic or to create straw men, so I’ll let it go at that. Computer modeling and role playing are of interest to me, and that’s why I entered this discussion…
From the military perspective, war games are extremely useful for two reasons:
They allow players on both sides to act with some degree of freedom. This exposes alternative courses of action (both friendly and enemy) that may be missed by a purely thought-experiment style brainstorming session.
They expose flaws or potential breakdowns in execution of plans (e.g. You plan to have 2 helicopters, but 1 breaks down - or, A certain unit misses communications involving a change of plan, etc.) This allows you to make improvements in training, preparations, etc.
No, no strawman… I’m just pointing out that computer programming, gaming and modeling is limited to processing and returning givens. Computers may be faster than humans at calculations, but better? I think innovation trumps software in any measure of merit.
Innovation is neither random, nor a magical process that creates something out of nothing. Innovation is solving a new problem using a deterministic method: Logic.
That’s all. The human mind is an instrument that can be used to do that. Maybe because it can also be used for other things, people tend to confuse which method leads to innovation and which doesn’t, hence your insistence that computers could never “innovate”.
But in fact innovation (the right solutions to the problems present in reality) are not random or subject to human choice. They are determined by the nature of reality, which is not random or subject to human choice, and the method that leads to those solutions is also determined by the nature of reality, and is not random or subject to choice.
