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.
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.
Author
Topic: Transhumanism Discussion Thread (Read 54588 times)