weird philosophy stuff (elijah, come here!)

[Kuciwalker]

I've come to some strange conclusions when thinking about philosophy that really perplex me. I want to explain them (and the reasoning) here.

(1) Premise: There is an objective universe.

While this is wholly unprovable, I'm taking it for granted, because it seems to me to be impossible to formulate a meaningful philosophy that does not assume an objective universe.

(I don't actually use this in my proof, but I'd say it's an important thing to put at rest at the beginning.)

(2) Premise: The universe obeys deterministic physical laws.

This is also wholly unprovable. However, without deterministic laws, the universe is random, and it again seems impossible to formulate a meaningful philosophy without causality. In fact, the case where the universe is not deterministic seems very similar to the case where the universe is not objective.

(Please note that determinism does NOT preclude free will. You a free to make your choice - however, you make your choice based on certain rules, so other people can (theoretically) predict what your choice is. This also is completely consistent with religion, so don't try to attack me there )

(3) Premise: That which is not self-aware cannot independently come up with the concept of self-awareness.

Again, I'm sure this is unprovable, but it seems a logical assumption. I see no way something could actually come up with that concept without having experienced it or told about it.

(4) (Whatever you call a conclusion derived from other stuff, hereafter "Theorem"): Self-awareness is an "emergent property" (I think that's what it's called) of matter that arises naturally out of various forms it can take, by (2).

If the universe (and the components of it) obey certain deterministic rules, then surely any arrangement of matter in the universe must be a consequence of those rules. It also seems that self-awareness would be a natural consequence of the interaction of matter according to those rules.

(5) Theorem: Any "computer simulation" of a person or self-aware being would be self-aware, by (3) and (4)

This is the weird conclusion I was talking about. It really freaks me out, but it seems to follow from my premises. If the universe is deterministic, any simulation of the universe (given the correct rules) would report the same state at the same time as the "real" universe (of course, for other reasons, a "simulation" of the universe is an impossibility, but that's beside the point). Moreover, the inhabitants of this simulated universe would come up with the concept of self-awareness - because the inhabitants of the real universe would too. And anything that independently comes of with the concept of self-awareness is indeed self-aware.



Interestingly, this entire line of reasoning was a result of me thinking about artificial intelligence and whether or not an AI could ever be sentient.

[Shogun Gunner]

matrix?

[Kuciwalker]

No, this has NOTHING to do with the Matrix, and the idea didn't come from there

(not sarcasm)

[Dinner]

Elijah changed his name to Whaleboy or some such.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, I know, but I call him elijah anyway

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, and btw, I didn't just mean this thread for him

I just figured it would be the sort of thread he'd participate in

[child of Thor]

we had an interesting documentary about time travel on Tv the other day - it went into a lot of theory from the early newtonian era through einstein and into modern quantum, all backed up with various scientists in their field(and one or two weirdo's!).
Still what they summerised was that even though actual time travel itself would be incredibaly dificult to do, it was theoreticaly posible.

BUT to bring it back to this topic(i think ), it was concluded that it was 99% much more likely a sophisticated race would first develope 'virtual time travel', as its computing power would make it fairly easy to replicate alternate and very realistic states of existance. In this example the odds were very high(more than likely) that we would actualy all be simulations our selves!

It was on BBC2 i think early in the week?

[Lorizael]

Re: weird philosophy stuff (elijah, come here!)

Originally posted by skywalker
(Please note that determinism does NOT preclude free will. You a free to make your choice - however, you make your choice based on certain rules, so other people can (theoretically) predict what your choice is. This also is completely consistent with religion, so don't try to attack me there )

I really don't see how this works. What is it that is making the choice, and what mechanism in a deterministic universe allows this thing to make a choice?

(3) Premise: That which is not self-aware cannot independently come up with the concept of self-awareness.

Again, I'm sure this is unprovable, but it seems a logical assumption. I see no way something could actually come up with that concept without having experienced it or told about it.

Um, imagination, Skywalker. We create concepts that we do not physically experience all the time.

[Kuciwalker]

I really don't see how this works. What is it that is making the choice, and what mechanism in a deterministic universe allows this thing to make a choice?

Look at it this way: your mind is sort of like a computer, in that it takes in input, processes the input, and produces output. Either it does so according to a set of rules (which can be changed by the input; the mind changes), or it does so randomly. If it is random, then you REALLY don't have free will.

The thing is, everything is either deterministic or random. So, if you think determinism elimininates free will, well, that sucks. Because if so, "random" eliminates free will too, so your conclusion is that there is no free will.

Um, imagination, Skywalker. We create concepts that we do not physically experience all the time.

No, we don't. We come up with concepts that are new combinations of things that we experience all the time. No one has ever come up with a new "sensation".

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by skywalker

I really don't see how this works. What is it that is making the choice, and what mechanism in a deterministic universe allows this thing to make a choice?

Look at it this way: your mind is sort of like a computer, in that it takes in input, processes the input, and produces output. Either it does so according to a set of rules (which can be changed by the input; the mind changes), or it does so randomly. If it is random, then you REALLY don't have free will.

But if the input is created by a deterministic universe, and the mind only undergoes a change when affected by input, where is the room for choice? Everything is decided by the input, which is decided by the deterministic universe.

The thing is, everything is either deterministic or random. So, if you think determinism elimininates free will, well, that sucks. Because if so, "random" eliminates free will too, so your conclusion is that there is no free will.

Except that there is one more idea. The concept of a soul which rests outside the deterministic universe but stills inhabits a deterministic body. This could have free will without be random. But I don't subscribe to that theory.

I do think there is free will, though. I think the creating force of the universe has free will.

Um, imagination, Skywalker. We create concepts that we do not physically experience all the time.

No, we don't. We come up with concepts that are new combinations of things that we experience all the time. No one has ever come up with a new "sensation".

Obviously, but why can't the concept of self-awareness be the combination of a number of other concepts?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
No, we don't. We come up with concepts that are new combinations of things that we experience all the time. No one has ever come up with a new "sensation".

Sure we do, like "infinity."

[Kuciwalker]

But if the input is created by a deterministic universe, and the mind only undergoes a change when affected by input, where is the room for choice? Everything is decided by the input, which is decided by the deterministic universe.

The mind can feed itself input. Look at it this way - if I had a calculator, and I added 2+2 on it, would you say it was the calculator computing the answer or the universe? In the same way, when you process input, it is you deciding.

Obviously, but why can't the concept of self-awareness be the combination of a number of other concepts?

Self-awareness is a wholly unique concept, in that it is the awareness of sensation. How could it then be a combination of sensation?

Sure we do, like "infinity."

Well, first, I think we can percieve infinity, in a limited sense. However, infinity isn't a "sense". Infinity exists only in the limit

[Inverse Icarus]

define "simulation of a self-aware being". and define "self-aware". some of the greater apes (not just humans) will eventually realize themselves in a mirror, which is essentially knowing that they exist in a physical world.

i know this because a researcher came to my school at a colloquiem (i cant spell) and showed off his research. eventually the great apes figured out it was themselves in mirrors, and removed paint from their bodies that they could not sense without the mirror.

anywho, there exist machines that have passed the turing test for years using the "chinese box" princinple, do those count as simulations?

for the not philosophicaly schooled
the "chinese box" principle (or argument) states that if you gave a man that knew nothing about the chinese language a translation table and he was very skilled at using it, that he could take chinese input and give chinese output without himself knowing anything about the language. this argument is often applied to machines passing the turing test, as they seem to converse in english / whatever language they choose, but they fundamentally do not understand it.

the turing test is, simplyy put, a test that requires a machine to converse with a human. the simplest form of the test is to have a subject sit in one room with a computer terminal. in the other room is another person, and the machine. the subject will talk to both the other person, and the machine, and the goal of the designer is to make it indistinguishable for the subject to tell which "person" talked to is the machine, and which one the human. this test has been ruled out by many as a test of AI because, well, you can make assumptions on the subject and account for them, as well as arguments of the chinese box.

[Kuciwalker]

define "simulation of a self-aware being".

Take a computer, store the complete state of a self-aware being (and its surroundings) at a moment in time, and have the computer calculate the interactions of the particles in each moment in time.

and define "self-aware". some of the greater apes (not just humans) will eventually realize themselves in a mirror, which is essentially knowing that they exist in a physical world.

Self-aware means "aware" of your sensations. It is difficult (actually, likely impossible) to explain. However, recognizing yourself is not self-awareness - it is somehow being conscious of yourself and your thoughts.

EDIT: typos

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Self-aware means "aw" of your sensations. It is difficult (actually, likely impossible) to explain. However, recognizing yourself is not self-awareness - it is somehow being conscious of yourself and your thoughts.

which could be possible to program into a very sophisticated computer simulation, one that might use DNA bit instructions to assemble virtual beings in a virtual universe.........