DeepMind's AlphaZero plays chess like a tornado in the junkyard

[In situ]

Hello Strathos.

They may appear to be random, but I think it may be a case of our ignorance in understanding this deeper quantum world. There is far too much that we do not
know, string theory for example proposes the idea of multiple universes. This immense complexity of our universe(s) does seem to exceed the limits of human understanding.

I do not even accept the fundamental axioms of mathematics.

I know the game you are trying to play here. What point is to have a discussion with you if you wants to role back everything to first principles? Do you want to reinvent the wheel of knowledge and rediscover what we already know? Then mine, and others, life are to short to do this. So, please, create your own thread and discuss those issues there since peoples does not have time with your "I know nothing" nonsense.

 

[In situ]

For me it is a book about God, and how a person can have a relationship with him and have a full life, presented in a lot of different ways.

I have to agree that naturalism, while good at describing how the world works, lacks quite a bit in describing how we should act in the world. Btw, you might also be interested in listening to Jordan Peterson Biblical series lectures.

I know this is OT, but I am curious. What is your thought on other religions and their scriptures? Do you think they have something to add of value as well?

 

[Tom 1]

I have to agree that naturalism, while good at describing how the world works, lacks quite a bit in describing how we should act in the world. Btw, you might also be interested in listing to Jordan Peterson Biblical series lectures:

I know this is OT, but I am curious. What is your thought on other religions and their scriptures? Do you think they have something to add of value as well?

I’ll take a look at that. Your question about other scriptures could turn into a long post lol. What I think is clear is that the conception of who God is, and how he wants us to be, is only superficially similar across different faiths, despite the common ‘all religions are the same’ idea. That is something that can be seen clearly, like comparing fictional characters in 2 different settings, e.g Beowulf vs Gardner’s Grendel. To my mind God is presented in other texts as man might conceive of God.

 

[In situ]

I do not even accept the fundamental axioms of mathematics.

Very cute, but if you want to participate in this discussion you need to accept some basic common accepted axioms. If you do not, then you are in effect trying to derail this thread to your own discussion about which axiom should or should not be accepted. I understood this from you very first post you made and that is why I refuse to "debate" you. Like I said; make your own thread....

 

[In situ]

What I think is clear is that the conception of who God is, and how he wants us to be, is only superficially similar across different faiths, despite the common ‘all religions are the same’ idea.

What is your take on that many religions and myths claims, including Christianity, the origin of the universe is from some form of chaos?

 

[Tom 1]

What is your take on that many religions and myths claims, including Christianity, the origin of the universe is from some form of chaos?

I’ll read it and get back to you with an opinion. The problem is I don’t have a wide enough knowledge of the physical sciences in which to seat an opinion of this kind of thing effectively. I am better at the ‘what does the bible say’ kind of questions. There are layers of meaning in the Genesis creation story, but I don’t see any intent in there to explain how the universe works on a physical level.

 

[In situ]

Yes, just asking for confirmation, or to see if there is an alternative view. Shortcut to doing research I don´t really have time for.

Fair enough.

Like I pointed out, the way you formulated the question the answer has already been assumed. But that is not the way a scientist would ask such questions. They would first ask nature what nature can do and from there draw conclusion whether or not it is possible if any prebiotc condition could had taken place which then later could give raise to life. The current state of knowledge and hypothesis suggests several possibilities which not has been ruled out yet. As it looks like right now, abiogenesis is a possibility, but exactly how it took place is not know, and we might never know. We might end up with several plausible scenarios which cannot be ruled out.

Imo a scientific minded theist should not bet on a deity playing around with the prebiotic conditions on Earth but rather a deity which sat up the universe already in the laws of nature.

 

[In situ]

I’ll read it and get back to you with an opinion. The problem is I don’t have a wide enough knowledge of the physical sciences in which to seat an opinion of this kind of thing effectively.

It is not a science question, but I am asking for your personal opinion about the fact that many religion sugets the origin of the universe came from a chaos. I find it quite faschinting since physics seams to suggest the basic foundation on which our reality relay is pure chaos. In fact so chaotic that that neither existence or none existence "exists" there, but only potentials. I.e. it is so choatic you cannot even talk about existence and make sense of it.

I am better at the ‘what does the bible say’ kind of questions. There are layers of meaning in the Genesis creation story, but I don’t see any intent in there to explain how the universe works on a physical level.

This is why I recommend Jordan Peterson's Biblical series. Jordan is a professor in clinical psychology a the University of Toronto/Canada and he attempts, starting from Genesis, to defend the moral values in the Bible based on science.

 

[Tom 1]

It is not a science question, but I am asking for your personal opinion about the fact that many religion sugets the origin of the universe came from a chaos. I find it quite faschinting since physics seams to suggest the basic foundation on which our reality relay is pure chaos. In fact so chaotic that that neither existence or none existence "exists" there, but only potentials. I.e. it is so choatic you cannot even talk about existence and make sense of it.



This is why I recommend Jordan Peterson's Biblical series. Jordan is a professor in clinical psychology a the University of Toronto/Canada and he attempts, starting from Genesis, to defend the moral values in the Bible based on science.

Ah ok. Psychology is more my thing, should be interesting. There are difficulties in ‘dividing up’ what is meant by different passages in Genesis, i.e the idea of God bringing order from chaos is thought to be a polemic or at least a contrast against other beliefs in the ANE, like The Mesopotamian deities who were a pretty chaotic lot and believed to be part of the created order

 

[durangodawood]

No really, these techniques runs back to Donald Hebb's classical publication of Organization of Behavior in 1949 and Rosenblatt's work on the perceptron .

If it wasn't for Marvin Minsky showed 2-layer percetron network could not solve none linear problems, which much later was shown could be fixed with a 3rd hidden layer, AI research would not had lost ~20-30 years of research time.

Only being able to solve linear problem does not have much application value and thus not many researchers cared to look into it. Research on neural network died over a night due to a single publication.

Yes. Really. The new ideas I'm talking about are the chess tactics AZ has used that have surprised chess experts.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, that is a better way of putting it, naturalistic. What I was getting at is what is the cause of life - in the general biblical view, God created and sustains life. How this actually happened is what I´m curious about. In the view that doesn´t account for there being a God (which is what I meant by atheistic), what is the explanation. That seems to be that when certain conditions are reached and certain elements are present then life will arise.

Yes, to both. I believe that God created and sustains life. I also believe that when certain conditions are reached and certain elements are present then life will arise--because that's how He does it.

 

[durangodawood]

Define "thinking".

I thought someone would ask this.

My current sense of it is thinking is any process that produces an intellectual output. IMO its reasonable to accuse a calculator of thinking in a very very primitive sense.

On this topic I can see us getting into a long string of define this and define that, because our notions of mind seem to be somewhat intuitive and ungrounded.

 

[afishamongmany]

Hello again In situ,
The thing I find most fascinating about this thread is the dogged determination a fellow human-being has in wanting to convince other members of his species that a lump of chalk is the same thing as a lump of cheese.
I'll respond to your responses first (your words in red) then in a second post I'll do my best to say why chalk and cheese are not the same.

afishamongmany said: ↑
AlphaZero didn't "create a design" it was given the rules of a game and according to the given rules of its program it 'learnt' to play the game.
Rules in chess tells what you can do. However, the rules does not tell you how to act or even win. It is the latter AlphaZero discovered by itself with random searches.


The instructions (rules) of the computers program tell the computer how to compute to win. All discoveries and decisions made will be as a result of those given rules.

There are similar rules in nature that evolution must follow. They are called the Laws of Nature. To be able to do anything you need rules. Without rules, or assumptions, you degenerate to chaos. The rules of chess are the "law of nature" given to AlphaZero in order for it to be able to achieve something. In this case, play chess because you do not want it to plat tic-tac-toe when it is supposed to play chess.

You need to give more thought to your too facile paralleling of 'the laws of nature' and the programming of a computer. It's not the rules of chess that govern the computer it's the whole given code.

afishamongmany said: ↑
Playing chess is not in the same universe as assembling a Boeing 747 and assembling a Boeing 747 is not in the same universe as creating creation.

The argument in shortform is like this:
1) The junkyard tornado is analogous to the creationists claim that evolution is not viable.

A tornado is not a metaphor I would use. The workings of the theory of evolution seem to me more like a super slow mud slide in which Victor Frankenstein is forever experimenting.

2) AlphaZero's ability to play chess is analogues to evolution (see post #136).

1. No it's not, chalk and cheese. Your analogies in post 136 are, again, too facile, too stretched.

3) If AlphaZero can play chess, then evolution must be viable.
4) 3) contradicts 1)

1. See above.
   5) Therefore there must exists significant differences
   6) What are the differences which prevent evolution from being viable?
   Differences between?, your phrasing in 5) and 6) is unclear, but taking it as differences between the theory of evolution and a computer program I will address that in a following post, God willing.
   
   To which of these points do you have an objection?
   See above.
   
   afishamongmany said: ↑

I've taught people to play chess but assembling Boeing 747s?
Almost everyone answering 6) has responded with telos as the difference. This answer assumes evolution must be a natural process. Therefore creationists are right and evolution does not work. However, anyone can claim theistic evolution works, therefore creationism is wrong. However, this is not the claim creationist makes. Creationists claims evolution does not work at all. Therefore the telos answer must be irrelevant as an answer.

Some one like Speedwell can probably represent what 'theistic evolution' means far better than I can. If it means God supervised 'the process', choosing and fast tracking the necessary mutations I would at least see that as a dog with one leg (not a pretty sight) but if it means the God went BANG! and was then just a spectator, then no, no legs.

Go well
><>

 

[durangodawood]

...(your words in red)...

fyi, your red is barely distinguishable from the regular black

 

[Speedwell]

Some one like Speedwell can probably represent what 'theistic evolution' means far better than I can. If it means God supervised 'the process', choosing and fast tracking the necessary mutations I would at least see that as a dog with one leg (not a pretty sight) but if it means the God went BANG! and was then just a spectator, then no, no legs.

Go well
><>

What some one like Speedwell wants to know is why you think those are the only two possibilities for 'theistic evolution.' Do you really think that God can only act in His universe through one dimension of causality?

 

[Chesterton]

Sure, that makes sense.

But making a machine for creating intellectual achievements is really quite something, dont you think? It could open doors to amazing places.... or places we'd rather not go.

The bulldozer is basically a manpower-multiplier. More of the same. But a machine for intellectual feats could do things we cant even imagine... like the way AZ's style of play has taken chess experts totally by surprise.

And this is merely the absolute infancy of intellectual machinery.

The word "intellect" implies reasoning. As you said about having to define things in this thread: is AZ reasoning? I don't believe so, because I believe reasoning is, almost by definition, something more than matter obeying laws which it has no choice about. AZ didn't actually choose one course of action over another, it simply followed directions to "achieve" an outcome which was determined by human intelligence (after all, humans invented chess, and invented what it means to "win" at chess).

But I guess people who are determinists would disagree, and say that AZ is doing the exact same thing human brains do.

 

[Speedwell]

The word "intellect" implies reasoning. As you said about having to define things in this thread: is AZ reasoning? I don't believe so, because I believe reasoning is, almost by definition, something more than matter obeying laws which it has no choice about. AZ didn't actually choose one course of action over another, it simply followed directions to "achieve" an outcome which was determined by human intelligence (after all, humans invented chess, and invented what it means to "win" at chess).

But I guess people who are determinists would disagree, and say that AZ is doing the exact same thing human brains do.

That may be, but as neither In situ nor I are determinists, it's not possible to say.

 

[durangodawood]

The word "intellect" implies reasoning. As you said about having to define things in this thread: is AZ reasoning? I don't believe so, because I believe reasoning is, almost by definition, something more than matter obeying laws which it has no choice about. AZ didn't actually choose one course of action over another, it simply followed directions to "achieve" an outcome which was determined by human intelligence (after all, humans invented chess, and invented what it means to "win" at chess).

But I guess people who are determinists would disagree, and say that AZ is doing the exact same thing human brains do.

I dont think thats "by definition" at all. I think what youre describing is a tenet of faith that you are imposing on the discussion. If you look at definitions of "thinking", "reasoning", etc, you'll find a chain of circular references with no solid backstop in any entity that starts its own causal chains of events. That last part is where faith comes in.

If you ask me, "reasoning" is processing statements according to observations and logical rules. That can be done by both human minds and by machines (or machine minds, if you will).

 

[In situ]

Thanks for your response. This is what I am most curious about - in the atheistic worldview,

I got so triggered by your use of the word "athetist" that I missed your actual questions. Here comes the answer:

where does this drive to survive come from? Is it just built into living organisms somehow?

The short answer is; if it did not exists then there would be no life around. In essence we talk about selection in operation. Selection is nothing else than continue building on "everything which succeeds to reproduce". However this is tautological answer and does not address the actual question. But it is a start because it make us able to postulate that such drive exists; i.e. it is self-evident it exists.

Now to the question 'why' such drive exist in living systems.

This is an extremely complex question to give a short answer to and requires a lot of pre-knowledge to understand why the answer given is as it is. I don't know where you sit on the ladder of knowledge so it is hard for me to know exactly how to answer.

But we can start by asking a simpler question: where does the drive come from to make a stone role down a hill or the rain to fall? From a naturalistic standpoint, this drive is built into the laws of nature. These are things that just happens because the law of nature are dictating them to happen.

Most people will accept this answer with no second thought. However this answer might seams like an unsatisfactory answer to many people when it comes to complex things as living being, and it is, because it is not trivial how meaning and purpose can arise from natural laws, not even such things as truths or free will.

If you now think about a cell and ask what drives it to divide, then you get the same answer; the laws of physics and chemistry.

Okay, you might say, but what drives complex living beings such as mammals? The answer is intention. But where do intention comes from? This is where it gets complicated, but the answer is; from goal seeking behaviors in active agents. The question then becomes, can natural law produce these kind of agents? The answer to that question is; yes and it came by with the invention a nervous system by evolution. The laws of nature allow nerves cells to exists, and since the laws of nature allows them to exist, then evolution was able to discover them. Neurons can in turn process information and the capacity to process information opens up the gate to evolve goal seeking agents with intention.

So the short answer is: the "drive" is built, or designed, into living systems by evolution.

See post #198 for further explanations.

Before inert (or whatever state it was thought to be in) matter transmuted into living matter was that drive to survive potential in the matter?

It is unclear to me what you mean with "living matter", as far as physics concerns there is no difference between the matter in a stone v.s. a cell. And according to biology, there is no such thing as "living matter". Cell are living things and is defined as the smallest unit of life. Therefore you cannot go from non-life to life directly. That would be magic. Instead there are stages, many stages. These stages are know as prebiotic chemistry, i.e. the chemistry before life started, and has it own active research field known as abiogenesis.

Are there are a few different ideas about this?

See post #227.

Notice, that none of what I wrote here neither include nor exclude telos in the laws of nature. I.e. science is neutral on the question whether a deity exist or not. So it is perfectly fine to believe all this and still believe a god exists, and that is, among many other things, why it is wrong to call the naturalistic laws "atheistic".

The only purpose of the label "atheistic" in this context is to create a polarization and conflict between science and religion when the conflict in fact only is about certain precious held beliefs about the deity but not about its existence. So do not use that label unless your intention is to sustain the conflict.

 

[In situ]

The phenomenon we call "life" is an emergent property of organic chemical complexity, not something imposed on matter.

The "emergent property" is called "evolution" and "not something imposed on matter" means in this context "is implied by natural laws". Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems almost as you are afraid to use a direct phrasing of meaning.