Towards Implementing Free-Will--论文代写范文精选

从内部一致来看，在寻求实现的目标是不可预知的。完全实现这一愿景是必要的，在其他几个方面，开放式的战略发展,进化过程，设施预测策略的结果,这一过程的定位在社会竞争。下面的essay代写范文进行详述。

Abstract 
Some practical criteria for free-will are suggested where free-will is a matter of degree. It is argued that these are more appropriate than some extremely idealised conceptions. Thus although the paper takes lessons from philosophy it avoids idealistic approaches as irrelevant. A mechanism for allowing an agent to meet these criteria is suggested: that of facilitating the gradual emergence of free-will in the brain via an internal evolutionary process. This meets the requirement that not only must the choice of action be free but also choice in the method of choice, and choice in the method of choice of the method of choice etc. This is directly analogous to the emergence of life from non-life. 

Such an emergence of indeterminism with respect to the conditions of the agent fits well with the ‘Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis’ which posits that our intelligence evolved (at least partially) to enable us to deal with social complexity and modelling ‘arms races’. There is a clear evolutionary advantage in being internally coherent in seeking to fulfil ones goals and unpredictable by ones peers. To fully achieve this vision several other aspects of cognition are necessary: open-ended strategy development; the meta-evolution of the evolutionary process; the facility to anticipate the results of strategies; and the situating of this process in a society of competitive peers. Finally the requirement that reports of the deliberations that lead to actions need to be socially acceptable leads to the suggestion that the language that the strategies are developed within be subject to a normative process in parallel with the development of free-will. An appendix outlines a philosophical position in support of my position.

Introduction 
To paraphrase the von Neuman quote above: anyone who considers computational methods of implementing free-will is, of course, in a state of sin. By simply suggesting that free-will could be implemented I will already have offended the intellectual sensibilities of several groups of people: I will have offended “hard” determinists by suggesting that free-will is possible; I will have offended those who think that free-will is a uniquely human characteristic; and I will have offended those who see free-will as something that is simply beyond design. I have some sympathy for the later two groups - at the moment a human being is the only system that clearly exhibits this facility; and, as will be explained, I do think that free-will can not be directly designed into an entity.

Despite almost everybody agreeing that it is fundamentally impossible, arithmetic methods of producing random numbers have become, by far, the most widely used method. These methods (used correctly) are efficient and reliable. We rely on their effective randomness in many cryptographic techniques which, in turn, are relied upon in electronic commerce and the like. Maybe it is time to let the evidence take precedence over assumptive theory - if theory disagrees with practical evidence it is the theory that should change. What was assumed to be a state of sin can turn out to be inspired.this paper I will outline a practical architecture that, I argue, could result in a computational entity with free-will. 

I will start by rejecting extremely idealised conceptions of free-will and suggest instead a more practical set of properties. Then, in section 3, I will put forward the central idea of the paper which is to allow free-will to evolve in a brain during its lifetime. The following 4 sections (4, 5, 6 and 7) consider other necessary aspects of the architecture: open-ended development; the co-evolution of strategies against competitive peers; the meta-evolution of the evolutionary process itself; and the necessity of being able to anticipate the consequences of candidate actions. Section 8 then looks at some societal aspects that might allow the development of a framework of acceptable rationality within which free-will can operate. I summarise the suggested architecture in section 9 and finally conclude in section 10. For those who feel philosophically short-changed by this paper there is a Philosophical appendix which briefly outlines my position in these terms.

Conceptions of free-will 
It is inevitable that in any implementation process one will move from an idealised to a realised conception of what one implements. Thus here I am not so interested with artificial or idealised conceptions of free-will, determinism, randomness etc. but with more practical concerns. For if a certain conception of free-will makes no practical difference then it is irrelevant to a discussion about implementation (and quite possibly to everything else as well). For if it is impossible to tell whether an entity has a certain property and that entity can do all the things without that property as with it, how can it be relevant in practice? From this practical perspective, free-will is something that a normal adult human has but an newly fertilised human embryo hasn't. It means that an agent is free to choose according to its will, that is to say that sometimes it is its deliberations on how to achieve its goals that determine its actions and not just its circumstances (including past circumstances).

course, many aspects of traditional philosophical analyses of free-will are relevant if one avoids the pitfalls of extreme idealisation. For example the points listed below come from philosophy, but are formulated with practical concerns in mind: 
(A) The process of deliberation leading to a choice of action has to be free in the sense that it is not constrained to a particular “script” - this means that there is also some choice in that deliberation, as well as choice in how to make that choice, and choice in how to make the choice in how to make that choice etc.; 
(B) In some circumstances, if others with whom the entity is competing are able to effectively predict its actions they may well exploit this in order to constrain its choice to its detriment - thus it can be important that actions are not predictable by others; 
(C) In order for an entity’s will to be effective it has to be able to perform some processing that tends to result in actions that (as far as it can tell) furthers its goals - in particular it needs to be able to consider the likely consequences of different possible strategies and choose amongst them with a view to furthering its goals;
(D) It must be possible that sometimes it might have taken a different action to those actually taken - that is, given indistinguishable circumstances, it would not simply repeat past decisions (even if it did not recall them). 
(E) In order to have an entity’s decisions allowed by a society of peers it is often necessary that it is able to give an account of its reasons for actions that impinge upon that society, reasons that would be deemed acceptably rational - for those that are not reliably rational can pose a danger to the rest and hence may be prevented from taking certain actions. 

These are the criteria I will take to guide my thoughts about implementation rather than abstract issues of theoretical determination and the like. They seem to capture the more important aspects of free-will - the aspects of free-will that make it worth having [3]. This is a similar approach to that of Aaron Sloman’s [13], except that it focuses more upon a single issue: how can we develop an agent whose decisions are determined by its deliberations and not completely constrained by its circumstances. He is right to point out that an entity’s decisions can be constrained in different ways and is dependent upon the capabilities and structure of the entity. However the multiplicity of factors does not dissolve the central issue which is concrete and testable; for any entity placed in the same circumstances one can measure the extent to which entity acts in the same way and (with humans) collect indirect evidence (by interview) to see the extent to which the actions correlated with the prior deliberations.

Evolving free-will in a brain 
The basic idea I am proposing, is to provide, in a constructed brain, an environment which is conducive to the evolution of free-will in that brain. In this evolutionary process practical indeterminacy emerges first in infinitesimal amounts and then develops into full-blown adult free-will by degrees. This evolution happens in parallel to the development of rationality in the individuality, so that the result is a will which is internally coherent in furthering its goals but yet not determined by its circumstances. 

Those who insist that free-will requires prior free-will (arguing that otherwise the choice process would also be determined) can follow the chain of causation (and indeterminism) backwards until it slowly diminishes down a limit of nothing (determinism). In this model the gradual emergence of free-will in the brain is analogous to the emergence of life - it can start from infinitesimal amounts and evolve up from there. This requires that free-will can come in different degrees - that circumstances can constrain behaviour to different extents from totally (determinism) to partially (some degree of indetermination). The artificiality of an all-or-nothing division into having it or not makes as little sense with free-will as it does with life, especially if one is discussing mechanisms for its appearance (as must occur somewhere between the newly fertilised embryo and the adult human. 

As Douglas Hofstadter said [8]: Perhaps the problem is the seeming need that people have of making black-and-white cutoffs when it comes to certain mysterious phenomena, such as life and consciousness. People seem to want there to be an absolute threshold between the living and the nonliving, and between the thinking and the “merely mechanical,”… Thus a situation where free-will evolves in increasing effectiveness during the development of the brain satisfies the first of my criteria. Not only can the actions be free, but also the deliberation that resulted in those actions be free and the process to develop those deliberations be free etc. The fact that the chain of free-will disappears back into the internal evolutionary process can be expressed as a closure property.selective advantage that this feature confers – 4 – upon us (as a species) is primarily that of external unpredictability (combined with an internal rationality). That is in a competitive environment, if an opponent can predict what you will do then that opponent would have a distinct advantage over you. Such competition in a social setting has been posited as one of the evolutionary selective factors that promoted intelligence in our species [2]. Unpredictability can be evolved has been shown by Jannink [10]. He developed a simulation with two separate populations which were co-evolved.(论文代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。(论文代写)
更多论文代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有论文代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X(论文代写)