Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

RFD - Wylted vs tejretics

Raisor
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 6:22:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Below is my RFD for the debate:

There is most likely an intelligent creator of the universe

Wylted vs tejretics

http://www.debate.org...

This is mostly stream of conscious as I read the debate...

R2 Pro should be more technical and clear in explaining the "indicators" we are in a simulation. He drops these assertions without much explanation. It isn"t commonly accepted that the universe is "pixelated"- I don"t know what this is supposed to mean, I can guess, but it isn"t at all clear. Con points this out, I think most of Pro"s indicators are garbage (at least as presented) but my guess is all of them will get dropped going forward except the double slit experiment.

R3 - Pro deals with most of Con"s arguments fairly easily. I think Pro is right that much of Con"s rebuttal is simply stating alternate possibilities without evaluating likelihoods. Pro"s responses explain why the case is more likely than the alternative. Pro makes a big miss regarding the Chinese room and Con"s argument that Bostrom underestimates the difficulty of simulating multiple AI (and multiple types of AI). I understand Con to be making the argument that simulating AI isn"t possible at all. I think its a fair point that the issue isn"t fully driven home in R2, the amount of weight I put on this will depend on how Con emphasizes it later.

Most of this BOP debate seems unnecessary. Pro is arguing that he wins if he proves greater than 50% probability. This still leaves Con the "agnostic" position and allows Con to win if Con simply shows all of Pro"s arguments to be improbable. So by Pro"s own standard, Pro is wrong to assert that Con needs a positive case to win- though it at least makes strategic sense to throw it out there to skew the BOP. Con is wrong that the 50% standard isn"t strict enough (the Rez says "most likely") and he is wrong that this standard doesn"t protect Con presumption. I don"t understand why Con fights so hard on the BOP issue, the standard Con wants in place of the 50% standard isn"t clear to me, it just seemed like a waste of time. I guess Con is trying to make it clear that he just has to show that Pro fails to meet the 50% criteria, but Con doesn"t have to prove that the negation of Rez meets the criteria? I guess that makes some sense considering Pro"s BOP arguments, but way too much ink was spilled on the issue.

Still, Pro is misconstruing the BOP issue. Pro is making the argument that a caused computer is more likely than an uncaused computer. If Con wants to prevent Pro from upholding the Resolution, he absolutely needs to show that this isn"t the case. I really don"t understand Con"s argument- if Pro fails to show that a caused computer is probable, we just assume both possibilities are equally likely? Ok, I guess. But Pro is making an argument for why a caused computer is more likely, so if Con doesn"t explain why the argument fails then Pro is winning the probability. I just don"t understand what Con is trying to argue.

Con just hammers that "Pro asserts" "Pro assumes" "Pro has to prove"." but Pro is justifying his assumptions and has "assertions" tend to actually be "arguments." I feel like Con plays fast and loose with his epistemological standards in a way that hurts his ethos. Con should rely on hard standard as an overall evaluation mechanism or in pinning down the most crucial and precarious of Pro"s assumptions. Con"s overuse of skepticism comes off as sophistry and a refusal to engage with Pro"s case.

For example Con claims: "Pro merely argues that since there will be a constant regress of ancestor simulations, it"s best to presume we"re also an ancestor simulation. That"s a bare assertion."

This is a disingenuous misconstrual of Pro"s case. Pro has at least 3 paragraphs in R3 explaining why multiple regressed universes makes its probabilistically likely that we are in a simulation. That is an ARGUMENT supporting a claim, not a bare assertion! Con would be better served simply addressing the arguments.

I feel like Con"s "populations" arguments would be good if I understood why knowing actual posthuman populations was crucial to Pro"s argument. Pro has presented Bostrom"s argument in a big picture way such that I don"t understand why specific population numbers are important to making the probabilities work, and Con isn"t explaining the flaw.

...ok I guess this is a two round debate? I feel like there really needed to be a final round. Tej if I were you I would have used the final round.

So I"m going to decide this debate in a way I don"t feel great about, I"m going to vote Con on the single issue of the Chinese Room. Pro doesn"t offer any rebuttal to this, and if the argument stands then a simulation can"t create conscious AI. I think Con should have driven this point home - that if the Chinese Room argument stands, the Resolution is IMPOSSIBLE. But I think Con just barely makes the claim enough for me to vote on it. On pretty much all the other issues I think Pro is winning (except the indicators), but if sentient AI isn"t possible, it really tanks the case. Pro can"t be too mad about the loss considering he forfeited his closing. Tej, next time at least make a brief closing summary for the first round your opponent forfeits. Personally I think that"s just good form.

Vote Con.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 6:23:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 6:22:15 PM, Raisor wrote:

Thanks for the vote. I have a few queries:

On the burdens issue--I basically agreed with Wylted's standard, but Wylted was drawing conclusions from it that didn't follow, e.g. my needing a positive case. Wylted says, "Given the default position judges should have assigning a 50% probability to each side, it should be next to impossible for my opponent to win this debate without offering some sort of positive argumentation." But judges mustn't assign 50% probability *to each side,* rather to each *position* on the issue of simulations, which means judges must presume my side. So Wylted had an inconsistent interpretation of the burdens that I challenged, though I get that I was pretty vague on that.

I"m curious as to where I "stated alternate possibilities without likelihoods." Yes, I didn"t point out likelihoods, but the point is, *neither did Wylted.* Because Wylted didn"t start on likelihoods in R2. He made multiple unjustified assumptions. It"s not up to me to show that these assumptions are likely not true; I"m not even obligated to argue probability there. Wylted made assumptions without showing that they were probable, so my alternatives don"t need probability, only that Wylted was establishing false dichotomies, trichotomies, etc. and there *were* alternatives that weren"t exactly mentioned.

The assertion Wylted made ("When you consider the fact that stacked civilizations could exist, and that a society could create several simulated universes, each simulated universe having stacked simulated universes, we have to assume we're most likely simulations") doesn"t make sense. So what if stacked civilizations can exist, and if a society can create many simulated universes? That doesn"t even imply that we were created. Wylted says, "If we can create an ancestor civilization that also reaches a post human phase, they in turn would most likely create an ancestor simulation. This is just common sense. The more ancestor simulations created the reach a post human phase, the more likely they are to create an ancestor simulation." This doesn"t entail that there was one before us. There"s no calculation to suggest that we aren"t the first in the regression, that the sans-universe posthuman motivations would be similar to ours, and so forth.

The posthuman existence point was hardly even rebutted. Like, Wylted assumed there"s "someone" to create a simulation, and confuses the conditions in our world with one sans the universe as we know it.

Bostrom"s argument had *so many* assumptions that I listed, e.g. populations, limits of computation, etc. that Wylted hardly even addressed. And there"s the relevance point...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Raisor
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:16:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 6:23:43 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:22:15 PM, Raisor wrote:

Thanks for the vote. I have a few queries:

On the burdens issue--I basically agreed with Wylted's standard, but Wylted was drawing conclusions from it that didn't follow, e.g. my needing a positive case. Wylted says, "Given the default position judges should have assigning a 50% probability to each side, it should be next to impossible for my opponent to win this debate without offering some sort of positive argumentation." But judges mustn't assign 50% probability *to each side,* rather to each *position* on the issue of simulations, which means judges must presume my side. So Wylted had an inconsistent interpretation of the burdens that I challenged, though I get that I was pretty vague on that.


I think i agree with you...but your position is unclear even now.

I would have said: "I agree with Pro's standard, to win the debate he must prove there is a greater than 50% chance of X. However, this means all I must do is show that Pro has FAILED to prove a greater than 50% chance. I need not prove that not-X is true or that there isn't a greater than 50% chance, I only need to disprove Pro's case, I only need to show that Pro has failed to show a greater than 50% chance."

I"m curious as to where I "stated alternate possibilities without likelihoods." Yes, I didn"t point out likelihoods, but the point is, *neither did Wylted.* Because Wylted didn"t start on likelihoods in R2. He made multiple unjustified assumptions. It"s not up to me to show that these assumptions are likely not true; I"m not even obligated to argue probability there. Wylted made assumptions without showing that they were probable, so my alternatives don"t need probability, only that Wylted was establishing false dichotomies, trichotomies, etc. and there *were* alternatives that weren"t exactly mentioned.


You in R2: "There"s no way of knowing the details of the world where the computer exists, and the laws of science as we know it don"t necessarily apply in that other world. Pro doesn"t give an indicator of how a law of causality applies in such a world, or if that world experiences linear time. The computer could be self-sustaining, which means nothing caused the computer."

That is much more of an assertion/unjustified assumption than Wylted's case.

As a contrast, you are claiming Wylted is "assuming" a simulation requires an intelligent creator. But he isn't, you have his argument backwards. The likelihood of a simulation is derived from the existence of intelligent post-humans. What wylted is assuming is the existence of post-humans, from there he concludes that simulation is likely, from there he concludes we are likely in a simulation. The claim that simulations do not require intelligent creators can coexist with Pro's argument, as long as it is also true that posthumans are likely to create simulations.

If Wylted had built his case up from his "indicators," if he started from the claim we are in a simulation based on empirical observation and reasoned from there that an intelligent creator was required, you would have more of a case.

The assertion Wylted made ("When you consider the fact that stacked civilizations could exist, and that a society could create several simulated universes, each simulated universe having stacked simulated universes, we have to assume we're most likely simulations") doesn"t make sense.

I will agree that the argument could have been more clearly stated, but the implication is that stacking causes a proliferation of simulations. The more simulations there are, the more likely our universe is a simulated universe instead of the one "true" universe. The argument is a little bit implicit in this excerpt, but I think it is clear enough to follow from my perspective.

So what if stacked civilizations can exist, and if a society can create many simulated universes? That doesn"t even imply that we were created. Wylted says, "If we can create an ancestor civilization that also reaches a post human phase, they in turn would most likely create an ancestor simulation. This is just common sense. The more ancestor simulations created the reach a post human phase, the more likely they are to create an ancestor simulation." This doesn"t entail that there was one before us. There"s no calculation to suggest that we aren"t the first in the regression, that the sans-universe posthuman motivations would be similar to ours, and so forth.


Again you aren't totally incorrect- there is room to poke apart the argument. But you have to actually poke it apart, just repeating "this claim isn't justified, there's no reason to think this" is unconvincing without an explanation for WHY it is unjustified.

On the face of it, assuming that we are equally likely to be in any universe is pretty reasonable if we have no reason to believe we are in a real or simulated universe. This assumption warrants Wylted's claim. Its a probability argument, so nothing is "entailed," but it is still a valid argument. You can attack it and criticize it, but you need to more than just repeat that he hasn't done enough to support his case.

The posthuman existence point was hardly even rebutted. Like, Wylted assumed there"s "someone" to create a simulation, and confuses the conditions in our world with one sans the universe as we know it.


I don't know what the "posthuman existence" point was. I didn't see a strong argument from you that it is unlikely there are posthumans.

It isn't an assumption that higher level universes are similar to ours. Wylted's case is about SIMULATION and REPLICATION of existing universes- implicitly the higher universe would be similar to ours because ours is built to simulate it.

Again, Wylted isn't super forceful on this argument, it more lays below the surface than on top of it. But if I'm comparing his premise that higher level universes are similar to ours and your claim that there is "no reason to suppose that"- I find his premise pretty reasonable to suppose. Wylted is making the argument that the simplest and therefore most likely description of higher universes are that they are like ours. That is a "reason to suppose that."

Bostrom"s argument had *so many* assumptions that I listed, e.g. populations, limits of computation, etc. that Wylted hardly even addressed. And there"s the relevance point...

Just having assumptions isn't a problem. It's your job to explain why the assumptions are bad. You don't do that, you just keep repeating that Wylted is making assumptions. In general the assumptions Wylted makes are justified by argument, Occam's razor, or just general reasonableness.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 10:30:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Are we gonna start voting for RFD's?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 12:15:43 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 10:30:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
Are we gonna start voting for RFD's?

Only if you promise to vote for mine.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 2:33:14 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 12:15:43 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:30:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
Are we gonna start voting for RFD's?

Only if you promise to vote for mine.

I quit voting, the mods just remove my votes. Why bother.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 2:42:39 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 2:33:14 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/12/2016 12:15:43 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:30:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
Are we gonna start voting for RFD's?

Only if you promise to vote for mine.

I quit voting, the mods just remove my votes. Why bother.

You should write better RFD's.

Or quit voting...whichever you prefer
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 2:44:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 10:30:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
Are we gonna start voting for RFD's?

Best DDO quote of 2016 so far.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Raisor
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:41:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 2:44:23 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:30:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
Are we gonna start voting for RFD's?

Best DDO quote of 2016 so far.

u just a playa hata
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:16:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 6:16:49 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:23:43 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/9/2016 6:22:15 PM, Raisor wrote:

Thanks for the vote. I have a few queries:

On the burdens issue--I basically agreed with Wylted's standard, but Wylted was drawing conclusions from it that didn't follow, e.g. my needing a positive case. Wylted says, "Given the default position judges should have assigning a 50% probability to each side, it should be next to impossible for my opponent to win this debate without offering some sort of positive argumentation." But judges mustn't assign 50% probability *to each side,* rather to each *position* on the issue of simulations, which means judges must presume my side. So Wylted had an inconsistent interpretation of the burdens that I challenged, though I get that I was pretty vague on that.


I think i agree with you...but your position is unclear even now.

I would have said: "I agree with Pro's standard, to win the debate he must prove there is a greater than 50% chance of X. However, this means all I must do is show that Pro has FAILED to prove a greater than 50% chance. I need not prove that not-X is true or that there isn't a greater than 50% chance, I only need to disprove Pro's case, I only need to show that Pro has failed to show a greater than 50% chance."

yeah...I really phrased that dumbly


I"m curious as to where I "stated alternate possibilities without likelihoods." Yes, I didn"t point out likelihoods, but the point is, *neither did Wylted.* Because Wylted didn"t start on likelihoods in R2. He made multiple unjustified assumptions. It"s not up to me to show that these assumptions are likely not true; I"m not even obligated to argue probability there. Wylted made assumptions without showing that they were probable, so my alternatives don"t need probability, only that Wylted was establishing false dichotomies, trichotomies, etc. and there *were* alternatives that weren"t exactly mentioned.


You in R2: "There"s no way of knowing the details of the world where the computer exists, and the laws of science as we know it don"t necessarily apply in that other world. Pro doesn"t give an indicator of how a law of causality applies in such a world, or if that world experiences linear time. The computer could be self-sustaining, which means nothing caused the computer."

That is much more of an assertion/unjustified assumption than Wylted's case.

As a contrast, you are claiming Wylted is "assuming" a simulation requires an intelligent creator. But he isn't, you have his argument backwards. The likelihood of a simulation is derived from the existence of intelligent post-humans. What wylted is assuming is the existence of post-humans, from there he concludes that simulation is likely, from there he concludes we are likely in a simulation. The claim that simulations do not require intelligent creators can coexist with Pro's argument, as long as it is also true that posthumans are likely to create simulations.

That's *exactly* what I said in my "posthuman existence" point.


If Wylted had built his case up from his "indicators," if he started from the claim we are in a simulation based on empirical observation and reasoned from there that an intelligent creator was required, you would have more of a case.

The assertion Wylted made ("When you consider the fact that stacked civilizations could exist, and that a society could create several simulated universes, each simulated universe having stacked simulated universes, we have to assume we're most likely simulations") doesn"t make sense.

I will agree that the argument could have been more clearly stated, but the implication is that stacking causes a proliferation of simulations. The more simulations there are, the more likely our universe is a simulated universe instead of the one "true" universe. The argument is a little bit implicit in this excerpt, but I think it is clear enough to follow from my perspective.

So what if stacked civilizations can exist, and if a society can create many simulated universes? That doesn"t even imply that we were created. Wylted says, "If we can create an ancestor civilization that also reaches a post human phase, they in turn would most likely create an ancestor simulation. This is just common sense. The more ancestor simulations created the reach a post human phase, the more likely they are to create an ancestor simulation." This doesn"t entail that there was one before us. There"s no calculation to suggest that we aren"t the first in the regression, that the sans-universe posthuman motivations would be similar to ours, and so forth.


Again you aren't totally incorrect- there is room to poke apart the argument. But you have to actually poke it apart, just repeating "this claim isn't justified, there's no reason to think this" is unconvincing without an explanation for WHY it is unjustified.

On the face of it, assuming that we are equally likely to be in any universe is pretty reasonable if we have no reason to believe we are in a real or simulated universe. This assumption warrants Wylted's claim. Its a probability argument, so nothing is "entailed," but it is still a valid argument. You can attack it and criticize it, but you need to more than just repeat that he hasn't done enough to support his case.

The posthuman existence point was hardly even rebutted. Like, Wylted assumed there"s "someone" to create a simulation, and confuses the conditions in our world with one sans the universe as we know it.


I don't know what the "posthuman existence" point was. I didn't see a strong argument from you that it is unlikely there are posthumans.

Wylted has the burden. I said Wylted hasn't proven likely that there are posthumans, so presume Con.


It isn't an assumption that higher level universes are similar to ours. Wylted's case is about SIMULATION and REPLICATION of existing universes- implicitly the higher universe would be similar to ours because ours is built to simulate it.

Again, Wylted isn't super forceful on this argument, it more lays below the surface than on top of it. But if I'm comparing his premise that higher level universes are similar to ours and your claim that there is "no reason to suppose that"- I find his premise pretty reasonable to suppose. Wylted is making the argument that the simplest and therefore most likely description of higher universes are that they are like ours. That is a "reason to suppose that."

Bostrom"s argument had *so many* assumptions that I listed, e.g. populations, limits of computation, etc. that Wylted hardly even addressed. And there"s the relevance point...

Just having assumptions isn't a problem. It's your job to explain why the assumptions are bad. You don't do that, you just keep repeating that Wylted is making assumptions. In general the assumptions Wylted makes are justified by argument, Occam's razor, or just general reasonableness.

I disagree that most of his assumptions are justified by argument, Occam's razor or reasonableness. The "populations" argument, for instance, showed that Bostrom's argument depended on a flawed calculation of populations, and I even showed *why* the assumption was bad...

Thanks for the feedback- it makes a lot of sense and will be really helpful.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass