- Oct 6, 2008
- Basic Beliefs
The bit either leads to the next event or it doesn't therefore, correcting myself, information comes through the logic system. Either zero or 'zero' are compared depending on which exists in the logic reference library.I bolded the part that indicates you are not really understanding what choice is in the context.Your reply made sense. It wasn't responsive, but, it makes logical sense. That there are two possibilities is only one criterion for choice making. The other is that the chooser understands both options. You are going to be hard-pressed, you actually state the circuit does not know, to demonstrate that a circuit construction is known to the circuit. As I see it a bit comes through and the circuit operates. If it has a context zero there will be one result if it has context "zero" there will be another result. It will do the same thing every time in the same context. Seems pretty deterministic to me. You still need to define choice operationally. "Unknown of the core" isn't an operational statement.So the most basic form is the JNZ instruction:So choice is behavior. Define it precisely in material terms. Here's the definition. Choice: an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities. Your job is to supply the materiality, the operations. My sense is you'll have trouble with 'choice', 'decision', and 'faced'. Oh yeah, you'll probably have problems operationalizing behavior a well. This exercise request is legit since we are discussing determinism. The point I'm making is self-reference and words not materially defined don't fit within determinism. You need to specify what is the material basis for a mind for instance. Otherwise I'll just continue my freelance irritations to your non-operable anchored tech exercises.
Jump of not zero. One possibility is that the context, unknown of the core, contains zero, and the PC executes jump. One possibility is that the context contains "zero" and the PC executes an increment.
These are both real possibilities for the architecture to encounter. One will happen, one will not and this choice will be made on the basis of the contents of a register.
We have observed that the rules of the system will allow a differential behavior on a singular element.
Nowhere do I demand this for choice. You have shoehorned "understanding" in as if that is necessary to choice. It is not.
Understanding is a requirement for "intelligence" or "intelligent choice", but not for choice in general.
I did in fact make a typo, if is zero or "not zero", but you are not the sort to give charity to opposing viewpoints for the sake of understanding, else we would not be here.
AS it stands, the bit does not "come through" it is "looked at". A event happens, and as a part of that event something changes so the circuit looks at more information before doing a thing.
that something does the same thing in the same context makes it deterministic. That something does different things in different contexts means that those contexts generate differential choice within the system. That the system's choice is blind or reasoned doesn't matter to the fact a choosing operation happened.
these choices can be massive or complex. What is important is the consistency of the state machine that generates displays choice behavior.
Both must be available since the logic system operates in both cases depending on which context the logic library provides. Since the context can be "zero" the comparator must be very large or the system would lock-up. It probably would be simpler to provide two logic systems for the task. Setting that aside I'm going with what you describe.
And it comes back to 'choice' the definition of which I provided.
Choice: an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
First I would argue the logic system isn't faced with a decision. It merely reacts one way depending on which context is provided. What looks like a choice isn't. There is no possibility of choice. There is only one possibility for each context. The fact that the logic can process both contexts is irrelevant since it is only processing one context at a time.
If both contexts were simultaneously available at the comparator I might be reacting differently but they aren't. With textual handwaving you are trying to make a point which you are not making.
That an element can provide either this or that data output is not an element processing both elements differentially. There is an either context A or context B operation.
A choice would be what a trained observer does when there isn't sufficient information to reliably distinguish between signal present or absent but one makes a choice regardless. Sufficient and insufficient information are available simultaneously. And even that is determined by a suite of existing conditions surrounding the decision space which can be resolved by a more sensitive detector.
I'd hate to think that we make choices simply by accessing wrong information (accessing inappropriate context).