Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 46

Author Topic: Transhumanism Discussion Thread  (Read 54281 times)

WillowLuman

  • Bay Watcher
  • They/Them Life is weird
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #405 on: January 14, 2014, 03:09:34 pm »

Reading the words does not mean I am conscious. There are many artificial OCR programs that can hardly be given that appellation. There are even programs that correlate "Meaning" to the words written-- Take for instance, Watson, the IBM AI that played jeopardy.

Having deeply contemplated the concept of "Cogito ergo sum" to great length, I have concluded that it makes a false assertion. That I am able to recursively parse my own outputs as inputs in relation to other processes does not make me a fully self-actualizing actor. Any choice I make that could be considered a voluntary action could actually be nothing of the sort at all.

It is entirely possible that I have no free will at all.

Or that free will does not mean the ability to make decisions with no input whatsoever, but rather the ability to consciously realize that you can make decisions.

If you assume that your entire-life is predetermined by the initial conditions of the Universe, then I'd still say you have free will. You still have to choose to do things; it's impossible to just "let your programming carry itself out," you have to actively carry it out. You move your feet to walk; your surroundings do not do this for you.

Getting back to the subject of transhumanism, it might be possible for two brains to verify each-others' existences if they were directly linked to each other. The nature of the other brain, including the very computer than ran a "matrix" world, would not matter.
Logged
Dwarf Souls: Prepare to Mine
Keep Me Safe - A Girl and Her Computer (Illustrated Game)
Darkest Garden - Illustrated game. - What mysteries lie in the abandoned dark?

Dwarf4Explosives

  • Bay Watcher
  • Souls are tasty. Kinda like bacon.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #406 on: January 14, 2014, 03:27:47 pm »

The way I see it, free will is the ability to determine what you do according to your thoughts. Therefore, as thinking can be considered an action, you need to be capable of choosing what you think. However, the decision to choose what you think is a thought itself. This leads to infinite recursion, which would require an infinitely large universe (and an infinitely large brain or other form of "thought container/processor"). This is clearly impossible, therefore having (completely) free will is impossible.
Logged
And yet another bit of proof that RNG is toying with us. We do 1984, it does animal farm
...why do your hydras have two more heads than mine? 
Does that mean male hydras... oh god dammit.

Levi

  • Bay Watcher
  • Is a fish.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #407 on: January 14, 2014, 03:52:02 pm »

I think of "free will" and "conciousness" as philosophy BS.  :P Until somebody figures out a reliable and believable way of measuring conciousness that doesn't involve recognizing yourself in a mirror, I'm going to continue to think of it as BS.  Hell, most people can't even agree on what it means.

Logged
Avid Gamer | Goldfish Enthusiast | Canadian | Professional Layabout

Dwarf4Explosives

  • Bay Watcher
  • Souls are tasty. Kinda like bacon.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #408 on: January 14, 2014, 04:16:27 pm »

I consider it ridiculous too, truth to be told. About the definitions of words (specifically consciousness), since we're just assigning concepts to patterns of vibrations, does two creatures having two different definitions associated with a specific pattern make the concept less valid? No, not at all. However, if the concept is invalid and pretty much impossible anyway, that doesn't really matter, now does it?
Logged
And yet another bit of proof that RNG is toying with us. We do 1984, it does animal farm
...why do your hydras have two more heads than mine? 
Does that mean male hydras... oh god dammit.

Graknorke

  • Bay Watcher
  • A bomb's a bad choice for close-range combat.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #409 on: January 14, 2014, 07:09:49 pm »

I think of "free will" and "conciousness" as philosophy BS.  :P Until somebody figures out a reliable and believable way of measuring conciousness that doesn't involve recognizing yourself in a mirror, I'm going to continue to think of it as BS.  Hell, most people can't even agree on what it means.
I'll agree on this one. They don't really mean anything, they're just vague concepts made up to be something special about humans.
Logged
Cultural status:
Depleted          ☐
Enriched          ☑

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #410 on: January 14, 2014, 07:10:56 pm »

Indeed.
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #411 on: January 14, 2014, 08:10:29 pm »

That's precisely why I went through the whole wild, and probably OT ride with LB over the nature of being.

The human intellect appears to be incapable of satisfactorily answering those questions without taking SOMETHING for granted.

That's why the usual thing that is taken for granted is that humans are conscious, even though they can't prove it, and there actually exists compelling outside evidence that they in fact, are not.

(If the many worlds hypothesis is true, YOU DON'T have consciousness, any more than a photon being emitted from a star's corona does. Or, perhaps more aptly, you are no more conscious than a neutrino is. Your entire existence and all choices and thoughts you could ever make or have is all just a locally expressed probability function, and are no different than the observed state of an entangled particle.-- there is some tantalizing experimental findings that suggest that Many Worlds is true.)

However, that just moves the goalpost of what to take for granted; namely, the existence of a true and immutable reality outside of ourselves.

As I pointed out in the descartes-like discussion earlier, the brain has no mechanism to know this, and we would have no way of knowing that we are not manifesting a very complex schizophrenic hallucenation which we find to be consistent and interactive, but which is not "real" in any measurable sense.

All we can determine is consistency.

Logic does not seem equipped to resolve the problem. The logician must therefor conclude that it is every bit as possible for some random animal he encounters to have just as much "agency" as he himself does. (Otherwise, he has either found a very profound means of answering the question or is imposing falshoods on themselves in true "doublethink" fashion.)

I don't ascribe to doublethink, and I have not found any such magic bullet to solve the question with. I can't confirm nor deny my own existence, how can I confirm or deny the existence of agency in anything I percieve?

I can only give answers couched in local assertions.  "If X is true... then Y."

I cannot prove that X is true, and therefor Y. I refuse to assert that I can, until I know I can, and so far, my efforts to know this have been met with endless roadblocks of things that are unknowable.


Logged

WillowLuman

  • Bay Watcher
  • They/Them Life is weird
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #412 on: January 14, 2014, 09:08:10 pm »

It's really as simple as "For there to be a hallucination, there must be an observer to hallucinate it."

In this case I think Occam's razor applies. Why would someone build a ridiculously complex simulation and subject the apparently only brain in the universe to it? How would a brain survive or come into being in the first place? It's far simpler to assume that the world we live in is real.

I posit that assuming that nothing exists, and therefore every other argument or evidence is baseless, is mere navel contemplating. Like supernatural deities, it cannot be disproved or proved, and therefore can be ignored. Where does arguing from this point get us? What results does it produce? Proving that no one is conscious proves nothing. Proving that there is no such thing as objective reality is meaningless. That line of argument produces results which have no bearing on the world we commonly agree exists and that we live in.
Logged
Dwarf Souls: Prepare to Mine
Keep Me Safe - A Girl and Her Computer (Illustrated Game)
Darkest Garden - Illustrated game. - What mysteries lie in the abandoned dark?

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #413 on: January 14, 2014, 09:15:46 pm »

You might be curious about what happens to people put into a sensory deprivation tank.

All the simulation has to provide, is nothingness.

The average time before profound hallucenations begin to manifest is about 40 minutes.
Logged

Bauglir

  • Bay Watcher
  • Let us make Good
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #414 on: January 14, 2014, 09:28:19 pm »

That I am conscious is an observable fact. This does not preclude the possibility that I am also a predetermined series of molecular interactions, nor does it preclude the possibility that I am nothing more than a series of collapsed probabilities. It seems to me that any worldview that attempts to rationalize consciousness out of existence is analogous to a theory of physics that attempts to rationalize gravity out of existence - you might figure out that it's not quite what we thought it was, or that it works in ways we didn't expect, but that doesn't mean apples don't fall.
Logged
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky. “I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe” Sussman replied. “Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky. “I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes. “Why do you close your eyes?”, Sussman asked his teacher.
“So that the room will be empty.”
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

WillowLuman

  • Bay Watcher
  • They/Them Life is weird
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #415 on: January 15, 2014, 12:52:42 am »

That I am conscious is an observable fact. This does not preclude the possibility that I am also a predetermined series of molecular interactions, nor does it preclude the possibility that I am nothing more than a series of collapsed probabilities. It seems to me that any worldview that attempts to rationalize consciousness out of existence is analogous to a theory of physics that attempts to rationalize gravity out of existence - you might figure out that it's not quite what we thought it was, or that it works in ways we didn't expect, but that doesn't mean apples don't fall.
Precisely!
Logged
Dwarf Souls: Prepare to Mine
Keep Me Safe - A Girl and Her Computer (Illustrated Game)
Darkest Garden - Illustrated game. - What mysteries lie in the abandoned dark?

alway

  • Bay Watcher
  • 🏳️‍⚧️
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #416 on: January 15, 2014, 01:34:19 am »

That I am conscious is an observable fact. This does not preclude the possibility that I am also a predetermined series of molecular interactions, nor does it preclude the possibility that I am nothing more than a series of collapsed probabilities. It seems to me that any worldview that attempts to rationalize consciousness out of existence is analogous to a theory of physics that attempts to rationalize gravity out of existence - you might figure out that it's not quite what we thought it was, or that it works in ways we didn't expect, but that doesn't mean apples don't fall.
Which doesn't mean, and here is the step most people fail on, that one can say "I don't understand what I'm talking about, therefore magic happens here." There's this stupid leap of "I don't know what gravity is; it could even be angels pulling the spheres together! It's therefore probably angels pulling the spheres together." And so, it isn't a case of trying to explain it out of existence, but rather an attempt to explain it at all. Throwing out angels as the philosophical circle-wankery it is; then stating "No, based on what we've seen with the entire rest of reality, there is probably a better way of explaining it without resorting to making crap up based on our monkey-feels." That's how science works, and why it works. If there is knowledge to be gained, we will converge towards it; or at the very least be tireless in our efforts to seek it out.

If, in fact, angels pull the spheres, and it is impossible to determine this fact, I really don't care whether it is angels pulling the spheres or if they only appear to move as a result of the illusion of time caused by distortions in a Calabi-Yau manifold warped by my massive ego. At the very least, I will determine in what manner the spheres are pulled, and those things about them which actually matter. The point is to seek out knowledge; if there is none to be found, then so be it.
/specific rant


In an even more general sense:
The entire situation gains a new layer of absurdity from what we have already learned from science: Time is itself merely a property of our universe; you even need to throw out all notions of past, present, and future when dealing with metaphysics these days. At the very least, come up with philosophical circle-wankery more interesting and alien than angels and souls, such that the conversation can be intriguing, if not enlightening. :P

For example, there is the simulated universe hypothesis; given sufficient time and computation, you can simulate a universe, the denizens of which may eventually become self-aware, conscious, or what have you; and would get the same answers to their awareness that we do. Now throw in some metaphysical monkey wrenches:
1. Time is itself a property of our universe, as is the way it behaves. Now move that to the general case, (metaphorically leave our universe) where we can no longer assume computational ability is finite. I think you see the point I'm getting at here.
2. Now put yourself back in our universe, and take a closer look at what a simulation is. Or, in fact, what computation is. Is a program encrypting a file, or compressing it? The same computation will do both; at that point, it's simply a matter of interpretation. Simulation is itself quite the same thing; by implication, you don't even need a formal computation system to simulate a universe. You don't even need sentient life. Is your universe simulated on a windows machine, or is it the acting out of a simple formula which happens to coincide with the equations for a highly regular pattern of sand movement upon the surface of a barren planet 175000 light years away?
And better yet, it doesn't even require time itself. That is the logical endpoint of a clockwork universe: if a mathematical equation describing the entirety of a universe can exist, and that universe can support self-aware life like our own, you could potentially pull out a single point; a single moment with a vast history and vast future; a specific time and place. So, let's say, we happen to pull out of small subset of that universe; simply plugging a handful of numbers into the equations; what we get back, under proper interpretation, is a simple enough object. Something we could, if interpreted in the framework of that universe, translate into a rough equivalent of a piece of parchment, inscribed with the words "I Think, Therefore I Am." ... Or, as we intend to use it, a file containing torrented music encrypted with a hash function. :)

As Descartes should have said: "I think therefore I may be; or I may simply lack comprehension of what I mean by being."

So yeah, if we're gonna go down philosophical circle-jerk alley, at the very least don't stop when we're only half-way in unless you intend to be boring. It's a rather playful example, but one which illustrates the point quite nicely. Anyone within a simulated universe would share the same opinion of 'being,' regardless of whether they were in this universe, one on a computer, or even one that wasn't simulated, but in fact existed only in the possibility-space of mathematics. You don't even need a simulation for them to think such; all you need is the possibility of a mathematical formula describing a clockwork universe, and as far as those in it are concerned, it's a universe. "I Think, Therefore I Am" thus only holds true for very unorthodox definitions of 'Am.' And in general, this is why I avoid wandering these alleys; they lead to unusual roads.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 01:36:28 am by alway »
Logged

Bauglir

  • Bay Watcher
  • Let us make Good
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #417 on: January 15, 2014, 02:01:17 am »

Well, sure. If you want to say that consciousness doesn't prove the existence of an immortal, immaterial soul, yeah, I agree. I'm just objecting to things like, "free will is impossible" or "consciousness is an illusion". Those arguments run blatantly counter to any semblance of empiricism, and I don't think a scientist can rationally hold them.

"Consciousness" is that which I refer to when I describe the system that thinks thoughts - what the exact nature of that system is, I don't know, because perfect mapping of the brain is currently impossible. But I don't think that it's impossible to know in the first place, or that there's some magical step dividing meat from mind. It's just that I know something thinks thoughts because all empirical evidence suggests that I have experienced thoughts being thought.

"Free will" is the exercise of choice through decision-making, which I also clearly have by virtue of having made decisions, but I don't think that makes me exempt from the laws of causality. A highly deterministic brain poses no more problem for free will than does a large rock pinning me to the ground. And I'm always confused by people asserting that the fact that I was always going to make a particular choice meant that I never made it - that's blatantly contradictory.
Logged
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky. “I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe” Sussman replied. “Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky. “I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes. “Why do you close your eyes?”, Sussman asked his teacher.
“So that the room will be empty.”
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #418 on: January 15, 2014, 02:16:47 am »

the entire rest of reality
Quote
Time is itself merely a property of our universe

How do you know any of things you're talking about, reality, the universe, etc. exist? You don't. That's even one of your own arguments:

Quote
there is the simulated universe hypothesis

Yes, and let's assume for purposes of discussion that the universe is simulated. What is viewing the simulation?


Consciousness is that which observes. If a universe is being observed, something is observing it, and that thing is by definition conscious because it is observing a universe. If a hallucination is being observed, something is observing it, and that thing is by definition conscious because it is observing a hallucination.

It doesn't matter whether the universe exists, or whether time exists or whether there's an objective reality out there. If observation is occurring, it doesn't matter what is being observed, or whether the observation or interpretation of that observation is in any way accurate.

Consciousness is that which observes.

Do you observe?

If the answer is yes, then you are conscious. None of the other stuff you're talking about makes any difference.

Quote
Anyone within a simulated universe would share the same opinion of 'being,' regardless of whether they were in this universe, one on a computer, or even one that wasn't simulated, but in fact existed only in the possibility-space of mathematics.

But in that case, a conscious entity would still be observing that simulated or possible universe. If there is a thing having the experience of a real or simulated universe...then there is a thing having that experience.

If 1, then 1

Consciousness is the only thing that can be truly known. For exactly the reason you say: there's no way to know whether that thing out there we call the universe really exists, or whether there's an "out there" for it to exist in at all. Awareness is the sole means by which we are...aware. Our awareness is the only thing that we are aware of.

If awareness exists, then awareness exists.

All that stuff about universes is just speculation based on the experience of consciousness.

WillowLuman

  • Bay Watcher
  • They/Them Life is weird
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #419 on: January 15, 2014, 02:40:40 am »

That I am conscious is an observable fact. This does not preclude the possibility that I am also a predetermined series of molecular interactions, nor does it preclude the possibility that I am nothing more than a series of collapsed probabilities. It seems to me that any worldview that attempts to rationalize consciousness out of existence is analogous to a theory of physics that attempts to rationalize gravity out of existence - you might figure out that it's not quite what we thought it was, or that it works in ways we didn't expect, but that doesn't mean apples don't fall.
Which doesn't mean, and here is the step most people fail on, that one can say "I don't understand what I'm talking about, therefore magic happens here." There's this stupid leap of "I don't know what gravity is; it could even be angels pulling the spheres together! It's therefore probably angels pulling the spheres together." And so, it isn't a case of trying to explain it out of existence, but rather an attempt to explain it at all. Throwing out angels as the philosophical circle-wankery it is; then stating "No, based on what we've seen with the entire rest of reality, there is probably a better way of explaining it without resorting to making crap up based on our monkey-feels." That's how science works, and why it works. If there is knowledge to be gained, we will converge towards it; or at the very least be tireless in our efforts to seek it out.

If, in fact, angels pull the spheres, and it is impossible to determine this fact, I really don't care whether it is angels pulling the spheres or if they only appear to move as a result of the illusion of time caused by distortions in a Calabi-Yau manifold warped by my massive ego. At the very least, I will determine in what manner the spheres are pulled, and those things about them which actually matter. The point is to seek out knowledge; if there is none to be found, then so be it.
/specific rant
Bauglir didn't say ANYTHING about angels or crap. You're being pretty unfair. All he's saying is that claiming that consciousness cannot exist because it can't be proved empirically discounts empirical proof in the first place, and is therefore a contradictory thing to say.
Logged
Dwarf Souls: Prepare to Mine
Keep Me Safe - A Girl and Her Computer (Illustrated Game)
Darkest Garden - Illustrated game. - What mysteries lie in the abandoned dark?
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 46