Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Peter Olcott is a Liar !!!
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 22:30:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <486a9f99378d53bc4a44f12b9c3b6097789c23df@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v6bnt2$3rj8n$3@dont-email.me>
 <v6brfj$3skuk$2@dont-email.me> <v6c3vh$3ttem$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6c539$3u2mj$1@dont-email.me>
 <64b6a48b13e3b0739d79df538dca3e8d52c86f43@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cbe2$3v83p$1@dont-email.me>
 <bb01a6bddbf7ee29eee73cdcd7ddd4d0732218c1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cboo$3v83p$2@dont-email.me>
 <83dab358cd413bbb48dd3791890d1b526b019e40@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cdk5$3viun$1@dont-email.me>
 <c320c5c5458ccce375c8dc694316c1c031332095@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cehc$3viun$2@dont-email.me>
 <ba1adc0f48c6d2930356b072815d6e17d9ccc9ad@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cfv7$13k$1@dont-email.me>
 <024d687a8f7fb00a6ff0ba883ccae61ba70003db@i2pn2.org>
 <v6chbl$13k$3@dont-email.me>
 <8a0dbc38d05e8cafcb53a1ddbc3605983b67e051@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ciqt$d3v$1@dont-email.me>
 <5c04052a3d139ac587f72bec322cc04efdb07c32@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cju3$kfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <c1e33e8d17881ae66899ec78d7efddfba2562f35@i2pn2.org>
 <v6clg1$mkt$1@dont-email.me>
 <8b091927da50f703dd9d207d52d92ab97ec2493c@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ctre$5on8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 02:30:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2381981"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6ctre$5on8$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4074
Lines: 52

On 7/6/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/6/24 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> (a) You determine that you need groceries
>>> (b) You report this need
>>> (c) then you go to the store to buy them
>>>
>>> (a) HHH determines that it needs to abort DDD
>>> (b) HHH reports this this need (as text before the action)
>>> (c) then HHH aborts DDD
>>>
>>
>> And I, being willful, am not FORCED to do that sequence. 
> 
> *Sure you are. This cannot work*
>  >> (c) then you go to the store to buy them
>  >> (b) You report this need
>  >> (a) You determine that you need groceries
> 
> 

Sure I can, I can decide to go to the store just because I feel like it.

While there, I can remember things I might have needed.

When I get home, I might notice some things I need to remember for next 
time I go to the store.


None of this matter though, as what we were talking about is that the 
programm HHH doesn't have any choices, it just runs through the 
instructions of the code to compute the answer it is programmed to do.

Yes, in one sense the term "decider" is a bit of a misnomer if you try 
to think about it anthropomorphically. The program doesn't "think" about 
what it is doing and "weigh" the evidence to make a decision. All that 
work was done by the programmer who made the program. The program is 
just an automaton doing exactly as it was programmed, Maybe we can think 
of it doing some "artificial thought" (artificial as it isn't really 
thought, just a mechinized action that sort of mimics it)

They are called deciders, because, if they work right, we can feed in 
inputs and they will spit out the decision of whether that input meets 
the programmed condition. Of course, we need to be sure the decider was 
programmed correctly to trust it.

Or, just as humans can make a wrong decision if our logic or inputs are 
good enough, the programatic decider can make wrong decisions if theur 
programming is wrong.

And, it turns out, there are tasks that just can not be correctly 
programmed to handle all possible inputs, like halting.