If this persons truth-discovering tools like reason and logic are compromised in such a way, how could this person *discover the truth* that his truth-discovering (or filtering instead of discovering, if you prefer) tools are compromised and unrelaible? — flannel jesus

For someone who seriously wants to look into it, there are tests like the WAIS which can yield more fine grained knowledge of cognitive strengths and weaknesses.

Do you have a link and timestamp to the YouTube video, or a quote from Craig? We need more than hearsay. — Leontiskos

Try this:

I want to suggest that we think of eternity, like the singularity, as the boundary of time. God is causally prior, but not chronologically prior, to the universe. His changeless, timeless, eternal state is the boundary of time, at which He exists without the universe, and at the moment of creation God enters into time in virtue of His real relation to the created order and His knowledge of tensed facts, so that God is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation. — William Lane Craig

But I do genuinely believe that humans are hardwired to live in cults. This is most of our social organization. — Brendan Golledge

Why "Cults" rather than "relatively small social bands"?

Pan troglodytes (chimpanzees), Pan paniscus (bonobos), Gorilla beringei, Gorilla gorilla, and Homo sapiens are related species hardwired for life in relatively small social bands.

Comment - this possibility high-lights for me a question about Bostrom's first two hypotheses. They seem to me to be empirical. But I don't see how one could ever demonstrate that they are true or even plausible without some sort of evidence. Without that one could never demonstrate any consequence of them as sound, as opposed to valid. En masse simulations could provide such evidence. — Ludwig V

The second premise - any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof) - seems obviously true to me.

To be clear, I am looking at the issue in terms of something like modelling at least a significant subsection of the world (say a solar system) in terms of subatomic particles, while needing to make use of subatomic particles in creating the simulation.

The simulator would need to consist of more particles than the system which is being simulated. That's a rather fundamental problem. In practice, only things that are simpler than the simulator (or things treated simplistically) can be simulated.

It seems to me that the person who would seek to disprove the second premise would need to prove that consciousness can arise in a simulation of something much more simplistic than the world we find ourselves in, or that it will be a routine matter for a post-human civilization to take all of the matter in a big solar system, and use it to model a smaller solar systems.

Fully agreed — flannel jesus

:lol:

Sounds very sensible as far as a single enterprise goes, and might even give the participants greater confidence to tackle inequalities on the political front. — Vera Mont

Although I have worked at the same place for 32 years now, I can't say I am in a position to know whether it gives many greater confidence to tackle inequalities.

I'd speculate that I and my long term co-workers might tend to be less empathetic because we don't have experience with dealing with a lot of the crap I hear others talk about.

Also, we do get propagandized with a fair amount of ESOP cheerleading, so I don't have a basis for a very objective opinion.

Is this you confirming that you won't post the pictures if they don't confirm your beliefs? I truly hope that you can be better than that — flannel jesus

It can be helpful to understand that some posters post seeking narcissistic supply, and admitting having been wrong is never part of that 'plan'. In such cases, it's good to be able to recognize that one has made a mistake oneself, in thinking that one is dealing with a reasonable person.

You obviously don't even understand what the core problem is. The core problem is proving "Cogito ergo sum" is correct or incorrect.

It shows you are also one of the copy-paste internet info without even knowing what it is, but not even knowing what we are trying to prove here. — Corvus

I'm afraid you have shown the core problem here to be your misunderstanding of logic. There is no sense in discussing proving something with you when you can't distinguish formal fallacies from valid logic.

Now it give me an impression FJ is a robot machine set up for keep replying automatically without even knowing what it is talking about. :roll: :chin: — Corvus

Because you being wrong is inconceivable?

Can anyone think of alternative arrangements that might work better? — Vera Mont

I work for an employee owned company, where all of the employees benefits from the company doing well. There are a lot of benefits to work being a place where my fellow employees and I are working for each other's well being.

Hell, I don't even want him to admit that. — flannel jesus

Admitting it to us is of little consequence. Ability to admit it to himself could be hugely consequential for him.

You can choose bravery at any moment. — flannel jesus

Not to mention increase his competence at using logic. All for the low low price of admitting to having been a doofus.

Fascinating stuff.

Hey Bill,

How have you been?

It seems though that I am not alone in this belief, that we cannot know things. — Chet Hawkins

You are not alone, but you are apparently in the unfortunate situation of never having developed expertise of much significance.

For me, knowing things plays a huge role in paying the bills. Knowing that other people know things is immensely helpful as well.

After all if you presume to know you would stop trying to know. — Chet Hawkins

Well, I'm living proof that you are wrong about that. Trying to know reveals that there is so much more that might be known, than one could possibly get around to. All the more reason to keep learning.

But I'm guessing learning from others really isn't your thing.

If you throw doubt upon my assertion, I am rather allowed to throw doubt on yours. What are we left with? Belief only. That is the point, MY point. — Chet Hawkins

I understand that all you have is beliefs. (Or at least you are into thinking so.)

Me? I'm left with all sorts of evidence. Not to mention internet access to a society where a lot of people have looked into things that I haven't looked at the evidence for, and therefore know things that I don't.

I suspect it might be a language issue - maybe he's struggling with what "therefore" means or something like that. — flannel jesus

That is my impressiom. He mentioned "cause" earlier. My impression is he is confusing a statement about logical entailment for a statement about causality.

For example, the ground of moral virtue has to do with interacting with other people. Such a thing simply does not occur in the experience machine.

I'm simply not sure that this is a key distinction in these authors, particularly not in the Consolation itself. Virtue often seems to be defined almost entirely internally. Aristotle does make some nods to consequentialism in terms of deciding if an action is freely chosen in the Ethics, and he has an idea of negligence in there, but overall virtue is largely about how the person responds to the world. — Count Timothy von Icarus

To put a more modern spin on it, for people with neurology like ours, deep learning that arises from time spent engaged in interacting with and learning from and about other people, plays a role in one's ability to do good for other people. So a relevant question would be, do the people' in the simulation serve as a realistic training set, for the development of such deep learning, when it comes to the people in our world?

Has anyone here read Stanislaw Lem's The Cyberiad?

Much earlier than Bostrom, and if not the best, at least the funniest thinking on such topics.

I have to say, if these beings are to be conscious, I wish you luck in getting your project through your research ethics committee. — Ludwig V

:up:

Copy-paste examples. — baker

Not worth my time. But you can look for all the times when people here have responded to you dismissively, and look at what you wrote that led to such a response.

You think whatever I say that you think.
You feel whatever I say that you feel.
You did whatever I say that you did.
Your intentions are whatever I say that your intentions are.

Listen to pretty much any scientist, and this is what they are telling you, directly, or at best less directly. — baker

The irony of you projecting your own behavior on scientists...

:roll:

Is having a conscience a problem? I suppose it could be if it became uncontrollable and developed into a mental health issue. — Beverley

Scrupulosity is a somewhat relevant mental health issue.

I wonder if everyone has a conscience though, but people choose to suppress it...

In cases of psychopathy I don't get the impression that there is any conscience there to suppress.

...idc. — AmadeusD

Perhaps someday?

As i say, not trivialising - but to reverse the mode of the above response, I think this may be uniquely you. Most aren't strong enough in their personality to allow for this actualisation while under the influence of an in-group (particularly one that feels somehow victimized). — AmadeusD

That sure sounds like trivializing folk psychology to me.

A computer can process information in ways that a pencil cannot. Why think consciousness can exist without the occurrence of information processing?
— wonderer1
Same question then: What information can a computer possibly process that a pencil cannot? — noAxioms

A pencil is not an information processing system. A pencil may be part of an information processing system which includes a person and a pencil and piece of paper, but the brain of the person is playing the key role in whatever information processing occurs.

To answer your question, a pencil can't process the video file found here.

You both seem to balk at the paper/pencil thing, but what can a computer do that the pencil cannot? If you cannot answer that, then how is your denial of it justified? — noAxioms

A computer can process information in ways that a pencil cannot. Why think consciousness can exist without the occurrence of information processing?

This is a peculiar argument (to me), because it does not care about the truth at all. #1 is completely unjustified in the OP, and #2 is essentially saying that if one values leeway freedom then they should believe it exists even if they know it clearly doesn't--i.e., you are telling people to believe in illusions so long as they like that illusion, as opposed to giving them the truth. — Bob Ross

The argument commits an appeal to consequences fallacy.

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.[1] This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise's consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

Bostrom's speculation has always smelled grossly unparsimonious, to me.

I’m actually sympathetic to this argument, but very carefully qualified. Let me ask you , to the extent that you think they’re onto something, would you agree that , since anything biology is capable of , it will do in many ways, it is reasonable to assume that a whole range of intermediate differences in functional brain organization are regularly produced? — Joshs

Absolutely. There is all sorts of evidence for that, along a variety of different spectrums.

This would give biological justification not only for binary differences in gender behavior , but also for gay and transgender identities. Of course, all this would be intertwined in complex ways with culture. — Joshs

Again. Absolutely.

And yet , he and she are but into all social interchanges. I suggest the reason for this is our tacit belief that our cultural assumptions concerning the roles and behaviors of maleness and femaleness of those we are interacting with is relevant. — Joshs

A recent paper suggests that it is deeper than culture:

Deep learning models reveal replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization

Significance
Sex is an important biological factor that influences human behavior, impacting brain function and the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders. However, previous research on how brain organization differs between males and females has been inconclusive. Leveraging recent advances in artificial intelligence and large multicohort fMRI (functional MRI) datasets, we identify highly replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization localized to the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network. Our findings advance the understanding of sex-related differences in brain function and behavior. More generally, our approach provides AI–based tools for probing robust, generalizable, and interpretable neurobiological measures of sex differences in psychiatric and neurological disorders.

Abstract
Sex plays a crucial role in human brain development, aging, and the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders. However, our understanding of sex differences in human functional brain organization and their behavioral consequences has been hindered by inconsistent findings and a lack of replication. Here, we address these challenges using a spatiotemporal deep neural network (stDNN) model to uncover latent functional brain dynamics that distinguish male and female brains. Our stDNN model accurately differentiated male and female brains, demonstrating consistently high cross-validation accuracy (>90%), replicability, and generalizability across multisession data from the same individuals and three independent cohorts (N ~ 1,500 young adults aged 20 to 35). Explainable AI (XAI) analysis revealed that brain features associated with the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network consistently exhibited significant sex differences (effect sizes > 1.5) across sessions and independent cohorts. Furthermore, XAI-derived brain features accurately predicted sex-specific cognitive profiles, a finding that was also independently replicated. Our results demonstrate that sex differences in functional brain dynamics are not only highly replicable and generalizable but also behaviorally relevant, challenging the notion of a continuum in male-female brain organization. Our findings underscore the crucial role of sex as a biological determinant in human brain organization, have significant implications for developing personalized sex-specific biomarkers in psychiatric and neurological disorders, and provide innovative AI-based computational tools for future research.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310012121 [Paywalled and I haven't read more than what I've quoted.]

:up:

With how vague you're being, can you truly blame me? — Echogem222

I'm not blaming you. I don't suppose you have libertarian free will.

I'm doing my best to understand what you're getting at, and yet the first time I mess up, you don't correct me, you instead just say I'm wrong... and that's all. Makes me wonder just how committed you truly are to this debate. — Echogem222

I'm not committed to debate at all. You might say I was investigating the degree to which you are open to learning. You thinking that you know what I'm assuming does not bode well I'm afraid. You see, there are patterns I've learned to recognize.

You're assuming that all faith is blind faith, but you see, true blind faith is when you no longer think you have faith in something, but instead think you know something is true, because when you think you know something, how can you then be wrong? It prevents people from thinking critically to have blind faith in things, it prevents people from desiring to learn more, after all, you already know so much, so there's no need to doubt what you already know. And this certainty in turn encourages others to no longer think they have faith in anything, but think that they truly know things, which is why so many people in this modern day believe in things that many people understand as being ridiculous. — Echogem222

You are remarkably confident in your beliefs about what I am assuming.

Also quite wrong.

Any why believe the brain even exists? Likely science, but why believe science is real? Evidence, I imagine, but why believe evidence is real? Etc. I think you get the point here. — Echogem222

To answer your questions... Reliable patterns to observations.

Yes there is more to our thinking than logic, but jumping from that to faith is missing out on a much more explanatory picture of what is going on.

Once you have faith in logic, it's consistent, but the system of logic itself is not logical, in that you can't prove it to be real with evidence, you have to rely on faith-based evidence. — Echogem222

Another way of explaining our trust in logic (without resorting to faith) comes with understanding the ability that neural networks in our brains have, to subconsciously perform pattern recognition. In learning to use language we develop at least a rudimentary recognition that logic works reliably. Subsequently we naturally expect the consistent pattern we have recognized to continue to hold.

So maybe "faith" isn't a particularly good way of understanding the situation?

Ok, is this still just ‘pop sci'?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ — Joshs

Unfortunately, Scientific American has been pop science for awhile now, and is ever more commonly becoming little more than people expressing their politics.

Or this?

the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities. — Joshs

That's rather sloppy political philosophy.

"...the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term..."

Many what? Many biologists? I seriously doubt it. Understanding sex is rather important in a lot of biological research.

And what are these "trans identities"? Is this a matter of science or of philosophical discussion?

I don't feel you were tactic hopping, I'm just trying to remain open on the subject cause it seems weird to me that sex was originally from Sexus, meaning to cut to divide to differentiate. It only became so entwined with "gametes" only near the turn of the 20th century. Only then did a biologist find something to apply their dualistic view of the concept to our body's functioning sex organs and reproduction system, narrowing it exclusively to something that fit their prejudice and say, "ah, the Gametes are core that determines sex. — Vaskane

Umm... You realize that biology is the study of all life, and for biologists it is a pretty reasonable thing to do, to recognize the significant distinction between sexes that they do. Right?

It's hard to completely get away from the fact that we just very recently left hunter gatherer tribes and got into modern society, so to speak. So some of these supernatural beliefs should be considered part of human nature. — Manuel

:up:

Morphic fields, and morphic resonance, even though generally (and angrily) rejected by mainstream science... — Wayfarer

You are projecting again. Scientists are pretty used to many people preferring woo.