Will quantum computing allow the game of chess to be solved? Basically in the future will computers with the use of quantum technology ever calculate every possible move in the game of chess?

They first have to make a quantum computer work reliably first. The Earths own magnetic field could affect the way it tries to work. Todays tereflop computers can beat the worlds best players so it is actually being done today with todays technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_%28chess_computer%29

Computers solve error-thang, complexshish.

Did you know due to random fluctuations, the average computer is busied with about 5-8% error handling. Most interesting subject. Needs adjusting, with a simulation. Way some tend to "tweak", beyond belief.

Some, I estimate (excluding total FAIL, Buy me another...), run around 65% or roughly 2/3rds errors. What with them there pokes and all...

So, as to answer your question, I guess one would be NEAT to look at...

Kindly get the diff. b/w Homeopathi & Unani.

Did she TICley. Pathology meets Uno. My, God.

This requies an understanding of chess (duh!!).
I have one.

Computers and chess...
something that no doubt will be 'solved' easily within a matter of years; I immagine.

;-)

This requies an understanding of chess (duh!!).
I have one.

Computers and chess...
something that no doubt will be 'solved' easily within a matter of years; I immagine.
;-)

Check it out, it has already been solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_%28chess_computer%29

Couldn't find it; do not have time however... Are you saying that, the entire chess puzzle has an open analysis view ?

;-)

Couldn't find it; do not have time however... Are you saying that, the entire chess puzzle has an open analysis view ?

;-)

If by that you mean can a computer anaylize the best moves to make in order to win the game then yes.

Nah. That is what the thread starter (maybe) could be talking about (see my first post)... Kasparove had lost this doesn't mean that he isn't better or able to beat it. Infact I think he won aganist it one time; Kasparov is great.
No chess machine has got that far yet.
I'm sure someone still has their high level computer set on the 1 move; analysing every possible move at this second.

;-)

What is the processing speed of a quantum computer? If for the sake of simplification we say there are ten available choices for every move and there are eighty moves in a game (40W and 40B), that makes 10**80 games to analyze in order to "solve" the "puzzle" the way they solved the puzzle of checkers ("draughts" to you Brits). That's a lot of zeroes. I don't think we've got a prefix in the peta-exa-yotta-zetta series for that one yet.

The next challenge after that will be go. The number of choices on any move is pretty close to 361 minus the number of stones already played, and there are typically 200-250 stones on a completed board plus the prisoners.

That will be a challenge, and it explains why go software lags so far behind chess software.

Even quantum computers can't calculate an infinite number of moves.

Even quantum computers can't calculate an infinite number of moves.

There are not an infinite number of board confugurations in chess. It is theoretically possible to plot to every possibily move from start to finish. Stated differently, you can plot out an extended form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensive_form_game) for the game of chess. All that you need to do is to note that any "branch" that leads you to a board configuration you have already seen before can be disregarded, as then it is simply duplicative.

Read up on Zermelo's theorem (an early work of game theory, in which he argued that one player or the other always has a single strategy that guarantees him at least a draw—and maybe a win—in games like chess where all the information about the game is provided at the start). In fact, here's (http://books.google.com/books?id=HkAwexYQww4C&pg=RA4-PA48&lpg=RA4-PA48&dq=Zermelo's+theorem+chess&source=web&ots=yJza-EAzmk&sig=8HzgZ7LfcoOR-6nU2znbG7l24lY&hl=en) a Google Books result that explains it.

Who said there a finish? Sorry it was a joke meant to point out that calculating all moves is based on the assumption of a limited number of turns.

The problem with brute force crunching to find all possible moves all possible turns ahead of time is that it would be simpler to just try to determine the strategy of the opponent, counter it and imply a strategy beyond the opponents ability to counter, when they get computers to do then the battle for AI being smart then man will be won, brute force AI is not very smart.

Of course a game of chess could in theory go on forever, but eventually you would wind up with a board configuration back that was identical to that you found yourself in earlier in the game. Assuming both players have are using the extended form of the game as their strategic guide, that game is a draw, because they will just keep going forever, endlessly repeating itself.

Zermelo's theorem really shows that, assuming each player knows the extended form of the game and makes no mistakes, one player either has an insurmountable advantage over the other or both players will always either draw or keep playing forever.

Let's say that computers calculated it out and the second-mover had that advantage. If Player 2 had the extended form memorized or available, then he/she/it could never lose the game. The best player 1 could ever get would be a draw or a game that never ends, and at worst he loses. There would be no ploy or gambit that Player 1 could devise that player 2 could not negate. On the other hand, player 2 might have winning strategies, but could never do worse than a draw.

Ah, I didn't think of it that way, well a game can be won with brute force if it has a limited number of moves possible, (but not reality) then the question should be how many moves does chest have possible?

All that you need to do is to note that any "branch" that leads you to a board configuration you have already seen before can be disregarded, as then it is simply duplicative.Not so fast. If the same position is reached three times, the game is a draw. Theoretically in just the right circumstances this could be used by a disadvantaged player to force a draw.Of course a game of chess could in theory go on forever. . . .A new rule is gaining acceptance: If fifty moves are made without a capture or a pawn move (making it impossible to repeat any previous position), the game is a draw.. . . . but eventually you would wind up with a board configuration back that was identical to that you found yourself in earlier in the game. Assuming both players have are using the extended form of the game as their strategic guide, that game is a draw, because they will just keep going forever, endlessly repeating itself.As noted, if it happens one more time the game is ruled a draw.

Makes you wonder what would happen should you let 2 quantum computers play eachother. Stalemate?

Makes you wonder what would happen should you let 2 quantum computers play each other. Stalemate?That depends on something we don't know yet. Is chess a game in which, given perfect play, the first player has a forced win? The second player? Or is it a draw? Or is it a forced win but it would exceed the fifty moves allowed by 21st century tournament rules?

The quantum computers might be able to figure that out.

Not so fast. If the same position is reached three times, the game is a draw.

I was unaware of that rule. Tough one to keep accurate track of. "Dude, I think we have the same board configuration 74,321 moves ago, and then again 452,837 moves before that!"

That depends on something we don't know yet. Is chess a game in which, given perfect play, the first player has a forced win? The second player? Or is it a draw? Or is it a forced win but it would exceed the fifty moves allowed by 21st century tournament rules?

The quantum computers might be able to figure that out.

If two quantum computers played each other it is theroatically a draw.

Assuming that these quantum computers can play perfectly there'd be little mistakes as to the outcomes of the opening; the opening used; the form used.

Chess is mostly theory now which is sad however I feel that this theory is mostly irrelevant to the individual that would take that advice.

If two quantum computers played each other it is theroatically a draw.

That is the natural intuition, but without knowing the whole extensive form of the game there is no real way to prove it. There are sequential two-person zero sum games of perfect information (which chess is) that give a definite win to Player 1 or Player 2 despite the fact that the games take a long time.

To take something simple enough to explain without match or diagrams, a sequential game of Chicken provides a first mover advantage. If you are player 1 and go first, you can choose to rush forward or swerve. If you rush forward, player 2 is left with a choice of rushing forward (causing a crash and killing you both) or swerving (letting you "win" but preserving player 2's life). Assuming player 2 is rational, he'll swerve, so player 1 always wins.

In a sequential version of Rock-Paper-Scissors, there's a second mover advantage.

In chess, it may seem that you can always reorient the board to force a draw, but seeing that you are doing that, it is possible that your opponent's next move can then always reorient it again towards a win. Which result will ultimately pertain can be complex and surprising.

Edit: As a side note, I was hoping to find the extended form of the game "Connect Four" as that is a "strongly solved game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_board_games)" where it has been proven that the player who goes first has an unbeatable advantage if he plays it right. Sadly, my google-fu failed me, likely because the extended form fills a small book.

This "small book" wouldn't be needed in chess.

Chess theory is pretty well solved already; it is a matter of fitting it all together (finishing it).

I was unaware of that rule. Tough one to keep accurate track of. "Dude, I think we have the same board configuration 74,321 moves ago, and then again 452,837 moves before that!"The fifty-move rule takes care of that. However, I was wrong about it being ruled a draw. One player must request it, or the game goes on indefinitely. A Karpov-Kasparov game in 1991 went 52 moves without a capture or a pawn move. Finally two moves later (move 114) Kasparov made a move that created an obvious stalemate and both players agreed to a draw.

I was also wrong about it being a recent and controversial rule: it was first documented by Ruy López in 1561. In the 20th century it was adjusted for certain endgames that were known to require more than 50 moves to complete (e.g., two knights versus one pawn), but those exceptions were eventually removed. Since 1992 the FIDE rule has been that after fifty or more moves with no capture or pawn move, either player may demand a draw on his move.

It strikes me as a bit bureaucratic. If I can win the game with a rook and a bishop against a rook, but it will take 59 moves instead of 50 (this is the true number), why is it fair chess to allow my opponent to demand a draw nine moves before an obvious defeat?

There is no reason to suppose that a quantum computer could cope with the game of chess at all. I am reasonably sure that quantum computers cannot be used for certain types of probems. They are not equivalent to a faster Von Neuman computer with more memory & disk storage.

For all practical purposes, the answer to the following question is no.Are you saying that, the entire chess puzzle has an open analysis view ?Current chess programs use brute force methods, not true logical analysis. Therefore the best current programs do not provide a complete analysis. They might lose when theorhetically they have a winning postion. More likely:They might beat a human playing who has a winning position, but does not make the correct moves.

Even if a computer could do a complete analysis of the game (not at all likely), a human could probably not use the results, nor be certain the the program had no bugs. The best you could do is allow the computer to play the game for you. Would you like to have a decision tree requiring a million tons of paper? Would you like to play the game following such a decsion tree on a computer screen?

I doubt that if-then-else like logic could be programmed for the game of chess. The current programs use a position evaluation algorithm and mini-max logic to choose moves.

I seldom play chess but wonder if it is known whether or not white (first to move) has in principle a possibility of forcing a win. I.e. is it within modern computational capacity to play all possible games? I doubt it is. Would it be possible to do that with a "quantum computer"? -I also doubt it as it seems to me all a quantum computer could do would be consider all possible moves in parallel permited with the current board configuration. It could then consider all possible responses to each in parallel, and their responses, etc. but some where there must be huge storage (and some "indexing system" for it) to keep track of this exploding data set or an imperfect evaluation system to terminante the explosive growth of possibilities.

I have a friend who is very good at chess - plays with others in contest on internet etc. has at least 25 books on the subjects etc. He is strongly of the opinion IBM cheated with "big blue" i.e. that yes it evaluated lots of positions but that a human, very skilled, help in the selection of the chosen move. He points out that Big blue was retired immediately after the match and never was its code given out. During the match some irregularities happened. - I forget what they were. It was even suggested during the match that it was not just "big blue" alone.

Anyone know any more on this? or is my friend just part of (or victim of) some anti-IBM conspiracy set/group? Any opinions, more facts? more details?

Billy T: I have a fair knowledge of the basic methodology used for Deep Blue, which I think it the correct name rather than Big Blue. I hope the following describes it well enough to make sense. Mini-max strategy is simple when you grok it, but not easy to describe to another person. At least I have had trouble explaining it to intelligent people who probably understood it in spite of my poor description rather than because my description was so clear and precise.

After much experimentation and consultation with master chess players various position evaluating algorithms were developed. Such an algorithm assigns a numerical value to a given configuration of chess pieces. A simple example of such an algorithm would be the following.Assign a value to each piece suggestive of its usefulness. Then multiply the value assigned by the number of squares the piece can move to without resulting in an unfavorable exchange of material. Add up the products for both black & white. Then subtract to obtain a single numeric value.The above at least suggests which player has an advantage in a given position. Far more sophisticated algorithms have been developed for use by Deep Blue.

I believe there are at least three algorithms used.One for use immediately after the opening.
One for use in the middle game.
One for use in the end game.Known openings are used for the early moves and special case algorithms are used for various end games.

Given the above, the following illustrates the strategy for one move and a counter move by the opponent (This is called one ply).Build a 2D matrix with each cell containing the value derived by the current position evaluation algorithm. Each row corresponds to a possible move by Deep Blue. Each cell in a row corresponds to a possible replying move by the opponent.

Search each row for the worst possible position as indicated by the value assigned to each cell in that row.

Some row has the worst case which is best for Deep Blue when compared to all the worst cases for other rows.

Choose the row with the best worst case. Id est: Choose the row containing the maximum of the minimum values from each row.The above assumes that the opponent will always choose the best possible move in any given position. If he does not, so much the better. This is called mini-max strategy: Choose the maximum from among all the minimum values.

I think that Deep Blue generates a matrix of values resulting from considering all possible positions after at least 6-7 plies and might do it for ten or more plies. Assuming analysis of possibilities after ten plies, I think there is special case logic to stop after less than ten or continue beyond ten plies. For example:If a move results in the check of the opposing King and the opponent has only 1-2 allowable counter moves, the line might be followed beyond ten plies (perhaps there is an inevitable check mate).



If a ply results in the loss of significant material, that line is not analyzed further.Note that the above is a brute force number crunching methodology which would not be considered AI by most people.

BTW: It reminds me of what Jack Nicklaus (I think it was he) said about golf.You do not win becsause of how good your best shots are. You win when all of your worst shots result in playable lies.Id est: Try to have the best possible worst shots (mini-max) rather than the best possible best shots.

You do not win becsause of how good your best shots are. You win when all of your worst shots result in playable lies.I always teach this important principle to beginners in go, and certainly it applies to chess as well. You are only as strong as your weakest move. People spend too much time "improving" the parts of their game that they really enjoy and understand, and then they lose their games because of one or two blunders.

Consistency is far more important than brilliance.

to Dinosaur: Thanks for the details on Deep Blue, but my real questions were:

(1) Is there support for my chess friend's claims that Deep Blue helped a human in the loop?

(2) Is it possible now, in principle, to know if either white or black has a path to a guarenteed win, or only to a draw? This is more a question about current computers and storage capacity I think, than chess. I guessed it is not, even with "quantum computers."

Is it possible now, in principle, to know if either white or black has a path to a guaranteed win, or only to a draw? This is more a question about current computers and storage capacity I think, than chess. I guessed it is not, even with "quantum computers."Why don't you look into the old research on checkers ("draughts" in British English")? "Checkers as a puzzle," rather than a game, was solved about twenty years ago and computers play perfect games. I'm sure the same principles that were followed by those software designers will be used for chess software.

BTW I have no idea which side has a forced win. If it were a forced draw it would be newsworthy enough that we would probably have heard about it by now.

Billy T:I think that it is possible in principle to know whether chess is a forced win, loss, or draw for White. In practice, I do not think this issue will ever be resoved. I think there is a theorem relating to complete information games which might be applicable to chess. This theorem might not be applicable to chess, which allows for a draw. I am pretty certain that it is applicable to any complete information game which cannot end in a draw.

Prior to about 1890 or so, it was believed possible in principle to determine the exact details of the future and the past of our universe. At that time they believed that the details of the future and past of the universe could be calculated given the position, mass, & velocity of every particle in the universe. However, nobody expected that it could be done in practice.

I think that chess presents an anolgous problem. In principle, yes; In practice, no. I suppose that two future versions of programs like Deep Blue might result in strong evidence. Suppose that hundreds of games between two future computers always resulted in the same result: A win, loss, or draw for White? This would be strong evidence, but not a proof.

After each game with a grand master like Kasporov, Deep Blue programmers analyzed the game & sometimes tinkered with the software prior to the next game if they had time to do so.

Once they had a good basic program, further development was based on analysis of games against top level players.

I do not believe that a human was actively involved during the play of any game between Deep Blue & Kasporov or any other opponent. The Deep blue staff did not include any player that was as good as either Deep Blue or Kasporov. Some Grandmasters (I think Spasky was one) were consulted and got involved with the development of Deep Blue, but I do not think any grand master was a regular member of the staff. although some grand masters were consulted during the development of the software.

I think the program was tinkered with once or twice during the Kasporov match, but I am not sure of this. The tinkering (if any) was done between games. At the time of the Kasporov match, Deep Blue was formidable enough that I wonder how it could be improved in the short time between games.

I think that it is possible in principle to know whether chess is a forced win, loss, or draw for White. In practice, I do not think this issue will ever be resolved.I don't think we can predict the power of future computers. "Chess as a puzzle" may some day be solved, just like checkers was.I think there is a theorem relating to complete information games which might be applicable to chess. This theorem might not be applicable to chess, which allows for a draw. I am pretty certain that it is applicable to any complete information game which cannot end in a draw.I'd have to say that it's not much of a theorem if it can't handle the possiblity of a draw. Go is a scoring game and the scores are deliberately offset by a half point at the beginning to eliminate that problem. But many important games are not like that.After each game with a grand master like Kasparov, Deep Blue programmers analyzed the game & sometimes tinkered with the software prior to the next game if they had time to do so.That's fair. Carbon players learn from each game they play so silicon players must be given the same right. We not only learn more about the game, but we learn (perhaps a lot) more about the particular opponent.The Deep blue staff did not include any player that was as good as either Deep Blue or Kasporov. Some Grandmasters (I think Spassky was one) were consulted and got involved with the development of Deep Blue, but I do not think any grand master was a regular member of the staff. although some grand masters were consulted during the development of the software.That's fair too. Carbon and silicon competitors don't play the game the same way, so there's got to be a limit to the usefulness of the advice one can give to the other. By now I'm sure a software master is far more valuable to the project than a chess master.I think the program was tinkered with once or twice during the Kasporov match, but I am not sure of this. The tinkering (if any) was done between games. At the time of the Kasporov match, Deep Blue was formidable enough that I wonder how it could be improved in the short time between games.As a chess player for 55 years and an IT project manager for 30, it's inconceivable to me that anybody could identify, plan, engineer, test, and reliably implement improvements to this type of software in such a short timeframe. Programmers are famous for saying, "I'll just make one change to one line of code and I guarantee this software will be perfect," and it's our job to make sure those cowboys are never given the password to the software library firewall.

Billy T:I think that it is possible in principle to know whether chess is a forced win, loss, or draw for White. In practice, I do not think this issue will ever be resolved. ...

Prior to about 1890 or so, it was believed possible in principle to determine the exact details of the future and the past of our universe. At that time they believed that the details of the future and past of the universe could be calculated given the position, mass, & velocity of every particle in the universe. However, nobody expected that it could be done in practice....I tend to agree with your first paragraph partially reproduce above. My friend thinks that Deep Blue offered several ranked moves in each reply and which was "Deep Blue's" response was human selected, more to make sure that no "stupid accident" happened. I do not know how the Deep Blue move was actually communicated to the chess board. I suspect that some human, who knew the ranked list made by Deep blue, actually made it with his hand. (He could have used "choice two" etc.)

There clearly is some “psychology” in that level of chess – i.e. trying to "rattle your opponent" in many ways, some as simple as a well timed cough or unexpected smile.

As far as second Paragraph here is the first from my essay on free will (and my Real-Time simulation model of how perception really works), IMH(crackpot)O:

"... Before the advent of Quantum Mechanics, the future appeared to La Place to be exactly determined by the past state of the universe, even if it was clearly unpredictable. Chaos theory and measurement errors plus ignorance about small asteroid orbits, rupture stresses in tectonic faults or vascular systems, etc. makes La Place’s future unpredictable, perhaps fatally so in only a few seconds for some individuals. Quantum Mechanics destroyed La Place’s deterministic world. Thus, thanks to QM, a “probabilistic will” is at least possible. I.e. we can have the illusion of making “choices” that are actually made by the chance results of QM; however, Genuine Free Will, GFW, i.e. real choices made by one’s self, still appears to be impossible without some violation the physical laws that govern molecular interactions in our complex neuro-physiological processes. ..."

As you tell me about Laplace's POV in 2nd paragraph I quoted, perhaps you have never read my essay at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52

If you have not, please try to find time to and comment -you often have a good point or two to make.

There clearly is some “psychology” in that level of chess – i.e. trying to "rattle your opponent" in many ways, some as simple as a well timed cough or unexpected smile.The 1972 Fischer-Spassky world championship match turned into a frelling circus over that. They actually dismantled Fischer's "special chair" to make sure it didn't contain a device to scramble Spassky's brainwaves!

Fischer won and became the first American to hold the title, but his eccentricity overwhelmed both his career and the game. After elevating chess to such an exalted level that he was featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated, he forfeited the title to Anatoly Karpov in 1975 without ever playing a single game to defend it.

He emerged from seclusion in 1992 and challenged Spassky--no longer a serious contender but still a popular figure--to a rematch. He won it for a purse of five million dollars. FIDE denied his demand that this be billed as a world championship match for the sensible reason that Garry Kasparov was now the world champion.

Due to the crazy politics of the Perestroika era, Fischer's high-profile appearance in Yugoslavia for this match resulted in a U.S. arrest warrant, which he spat on in front of the cameras. He died in well-funded but eccentric exile in Iceland in January of this year at age 64.

...frelling circus ...Never saw a "frelling circus." If not a typo, I am sure they exist. An expert on language like you can not be challenged, but my dictionary does not have "frelling." What does it mean? (I will add it in the margin ;) :D)

Makes you wonder what would happen should you let 2 quantum computers play eachother. Stalemate?

Yes, that is because there is no winning strategy unless other party makes the mistake. Since no one will make any mistakes...the best you hope for is draw.

It is like an irrestible force moving an unmovable object....

Yes, that is because there is no winning strategy unless other party makes the mistake. ...There is no reason to say that. Perhaps there exists a path to a guaranteed win for white, first to move.

There is no reason to say that. Perhaps there exists a path to a guaranteed win for white, first to move.


There is no such proof....

There is no such proof....I do not need proof to only note a currenly unknown POSSIBILITY why your unqualified declarative statment may be false.

For example, if one were to declare, without qualifications: "No enirely liquid planets exist." I do not need proof to observe, as I did, "There is no reason to say that."

Especially when I continue on citing why your statement may be false. Such
"There could be one somewhere in the universe." or "There could be a path to a guaranteed win by white"

The burden of proof is on the one making an unqualified declarative statement, not the one illustrating conditions under which it could be false. I.e. I do no need to tell where that liquid planet is, or give the guaranteed win path. I merely note they may exist. Until YOU HAVE PROOF they do not, there is no reason to make your unqualified statement, claiming or implying they do not exist.

The following indicates one who knows a bit about software development.Programmers are famous for saying, "I'll just make one change to one line of code and I guarantee this software will be perfect," and it's our job to make sure those cowboys are never given the password to the software library firewall.Early in my career, I was one of those cowboys.

I have often seen remarks similar to the following.I don't think we can predict the power of future computers.They remind me of remarks like500 years ago, you would be called crazy if you described TV or telephones.The implication is that there is no limit to the power of computers nor to human knowledge.

There are definite limits to the power of computers. The computations required to solve some problems grow either exponentially or like a factorial. Computing power is subject to diminishing returns rather than exponential growth. I do not think that Moores’s theorem is still applicable. Furthermore, people often believe that this theorem relates to computing power when it actually relates to the density of solid state devices. Computing power has not come close to doubling every 18 months.

Comparing our current knowledge with that of 500 years ago and suggesting an analogous growth in the next 500 years has no basis in reality. Except for cosmology, there have been little, if anything, new in theoretical physics in the past 70 years or so. Chemistry has had no new theoretical developments for perhaps 100 years or more. We have had a lot of new technology (Id est: applications of theory), but very little new at the theoretical level compared to the advances starting with Newton, who was probably the first theoretical physicist.

BTW: Quantum theory suggests limitations to what our brains can comprehend, even if there are still some discoveries to be made in theoretical physics.

The following does not seem fair.I'd have to say that it's not much of a theorem if it can't handle the possibility of a draw.For example, there is a simple game called Chomp which by its definition must result in a winner in a finite number of plays. There is a simple proof that there must be a winning strategy for the first player. The game has never been completely analyzed and might defy any attempt to determine the winning strategy for all possible starting configurations. While understanding the proof for Chomp is a no-brainer, proofs for other games which can result in a draw are generally very difficult to devise or understand.

Another example of simple conditions causing problems for proofs: There are some theorems which were easily proven for a torus, but which were extremely difficult to prove for a sphere because of the problems with coordinates systems at the North & South poles. Analogous problems occur with Mobius strips & Klein bottles, for which you cannot specify a unique direction for a perpendicular.

I can remember proofs in differential geometry & topology whose hypotheses excluded surfaces with ambiguous coordinate points (North pole on sphere)) or the lack of an orientable perpendicular (one-sided surfaces). Intuitively, such conditions do not seem to cause problems for a good proof.

Never saw a "frelling circus." If not a typo, I am sure they exist. An expert on language like you can not be challenged, but my dictionary does not have "frelling." What does it mean? (I will add it in the margin)It's from "Farscape." The characters heard each other speak their own languages through the translator microbes implanted in their brains. So we heard what Crichton the sole human heard, an arbitrary English translation suitable for an alien Empire. Oh yeah, and suitable for a PG-rated TV show. "Drenn" was the faux-alien version of the S-word, and "Frelling" was the F-word.

Farscape rocks!

Billy T: Your Essay on free will is interesting & informative. I agree with your views on mammalian visual systems. In particular, I agree with your view of the processing required to successfully catch a ball or hit a moving target.

I am not convinced that your arguments provide a strong argument for free will, but do not want to argue against them. It is a subject I have not spent a lot of time pondering.

I would not call the perceptual image generated by our brains a simulation, but that is merely a bit of verbal quibbling. Whatever one calls the process, you seem to have described the essence of it.

Consistent with your essay, I agree there is strong evidence that our visual system does not have the processing power to create the accurate visual images which it seems to provide to our conscious mind. Consider viewing brick walls.I live in an apartment complex with quite a few 3-story brick buildings. When I go out my back entrance, I can see the walls of three buildings.

My conscious mind seems to be viewing an image precise enough for me to actually count the individual bricks in any wall I face. Furthermore, the preciseness of the image is retained if I quickly turn to look at a different wall. The images seem to be created in real time.

I doubt that the retina of my eye has as much information as that of the image I think I see. Even if the retina can collect all that data, I doubt that the band width of the optic nerve and the processing power of my brain is sufficient to create the image in real time from the incoming data.

I strongly suspect that a similarly precise image cannot be constructed by the visual system of a very young child or the system of a primitive person who has spent all of his life in a jungle environment. I am sure that much of the apparent preciseness is due to the memory of other brick walls.I think it has been established by researchers that the required data is collected at slightly different times and processed to create consistent perceptual images, which seem to be equivalent to those provided by a projector showing a Hollywood production.

20 or so years ago, there was an SciAm article describing experiments with perception which included the following.A motion picture was shown to many viewers. It included what appeared to be a flock of birds flying from right to left in the background. There were various more interesting activities in the foreground. The flock of birds was missing for several seconds. Even when instructed to pay attention to the birds and shown the film several times, most viewers did not notice that the birds disappeared for a few seconds, insisting that they saw them fly continuously across the background.


The following was recorded on an audio tape when Ronald Reagan was governor of California.Governor (cough) gave a typical anti-welfare speech yesterday at Sacramento.The name Reagan was not heard due to a cough by the speaker. Almost all who heard the tape insisted that they heard the name Reagan and placed the cough elsewhere. Since the clue to the name came at the end of the sentence, this experiment indicates that perceived speech is almost half a second out of synch with real time, although we are not aware of this offset. It also indicates that we do not really hear what we think we hear when processing verbal input. We probably could not readily understand people with strong accents in the absence of processing which makes changes to the actual input sounds.The above provide evidence of processing unknown to the conscious mind which provides perceptions consistent with reality, but not necessarily consistent with the actual data provided by our senses.

I am a bit schizoid about free will. Emotionally, I would like to believe that I really make decisions. Intellectually, I am not convinced that my decisions are based on my mental processes. I do not believe in a deterministic universe, so I consider free will a possibility, but suspect that quantum capriciousness might be more responsible for my decisions than my emotions and intellect.

I have made some bad mistakes trusting family members, costing me much money, but I consider myself happy & successful. I like to attribute my good life to my making basically good decisions. Compared to alcoholics, day dreamers, lazy people, instant gratification personalities, et cetera, I have a good life in spite of not being affluent any more. Those who I view as worse off than myself seem to have caused most of their problems by making bad decisions (with exceptions for those with unfortunate environments).

If free will is not responsible for creating a good or a bad life, the cause must be some quantum quirk which occurred very early. It does not seem reasonable to believe that my apparent success over a long life time is due to a long string of lucky tosses of the quantum dice rather than being due to basically good decisions.

Billy T: Your Essay on free will is interesting & informative. I agree with your views on mammalian visual systems. Thanks, glad you liked it. Also thanks for reading its 8 or so pages, few do. (Unfortunately, we live a world dominated by 15 second "sound bites" on TV. They even stress the attention span of most.) ...I am not convinced that your arguments provide a strong argument for free will, ...Nor am I. In fact, I tend to think genuine free will is an illusion. I.e. humans are really just very complex biological machines, with some innate programs and many things learned especially in the first two years of their life. I only note that it need not logically* be impossible if we are non-material constructs in a simulation as only material things (and energy flows) are governed by the natural laws.
I would not call the perceptual image generated by our brains a simulation, ...Whatever one calls the process, you seem to have described the essence of it. Although it was via my effort to understand how a visual 3D perception is created from 2D stimulation of the retinas that lead me to my POV about perception, the "simulation" I suggest that we perceive is about EVERY aspect that we have sensor for. (It does not include the radio waves passing around and thru our bodies as we lack sensors for them, etc.) I.e. I call it a "simulation" for that reason - We internally simulate (in parietal brain tissue, I am certain) the ENTIRE environment we can sense, and extrapolate slightly ahead to compensate for the neural progressing delays (mainly caused by time required for diffusion of neuro-transmitters across the "synaptic gaps.") so it is a "real-time" simulation of the world we sense.
I do not think that this parietal simulation actually has any representations in it that could be called "images." Even in the primary visual cortex, V1, where there certainly is a "one-to-one" conformal mapping of the retinal stimulation into neural activity, calling that neural activity an "image" is controversial. I have a thick book, called "mental images" from about 25 years ago when this controversy was hotly debated in the cognitive science literature. (I have not kept up with that literature for more than 16 years - since moving to Brazil - so do not know current POV. I bet neither side persuaded the other, but both just grew tired of the discussion.)

... Consider viewing brick walls. ... My conscious mind seems to be viewing an image precise enough for me to actually count the individual bricks in any wall I face. ... I doubt that the band width of the optic nerve and the processing power of my brain is sufficient to create the image in real time from the incoming data. ... I am sure that much of the apparent preciseness is due to the memory of other brick walls.... Correct on all this. Usually instead of bricks, and related to the "mental image controversy", one is told to "Imagine a tiger in profile view." "Do you have a sharp image of it?" - "Yes, especially with my eyes shut." "Good, now count the strips for me." - The subject never can.

The simulation is not as detailed as we think it is. IMHO, there may not even be any image in the real time simulation. Instead we may just have a set of facts "tied together" that we associate with a tiger, with the computer I perceive now, etc. for the whole 3D world I perceive with my eyes open. I do not know, but lean towards this "no image" POV because we do perceive many facts that are not visible. Generally they are called "affordances." For example, when I perceive a red apple I also know the interior is white and it is food I can eat, etc. It does seem perception is more than surface deep but this is getting into a level of detail about the nature of the parietal simulation I wish to avoid comment on as I would just be guessing.

Yes, the remainder of your post is true - we fill in much with our memory and/or "reasonable expectations." There is a nice simple visual experiment showing this. A piece of graph paper, not too finely divided is best, that you can make two small spots on, perhaps 2 or 3 inches apart and look at with one eye closed. When in the position that one of the two spots is falling on the fovea and the other on the "blind spot" (optic nerve entry point) you will see only one spot and an otherwise complete set of graph paper lines - That is you have filled in with the graph's regular lines all of the region falling on the "blind spot." We do this "filling in" of vision all the time when ever one eye is closed. I.e. with one eye closed there is no perceived black spot in the field of vision. And as you note, we do it for all the senses with possible exception of taste and smell.

--------------
*The simulation is taking place in the most capable computer that exists, but still there may be rules of its operation. I.e. the parietal brain computer making the simulation cannot be a Von Neumann machine, not a parallel processor of any type yet conceived by man. It certainly is not rigid rule following "fuzzy logic."
The main weakness of my argument that being non material creatures living in a simulation provides at least the possibility of genuine free will being real is here. I.e. by what set of rules is this parietal computer operating? I do not know the answer (and that is why I suspect genuine free will probably does not exist.). If there is an answer, I am inclined to think that logic does not have any "truth value" for at least some of its (declarative) statements.

For an example of such a declarative statement with no "truth value" (neither true nor false) consider:

"This sentence is false."

Note this four word example is in the class of "self referencing" statements. I think it likely that if genuine free will does exist, then there will be a lot of mutually self referencing activity of the parietal neurons, too complex for man's current understanding of their logic.