1. Is it possible that we, humans, are like Peter, under the [false] assumption that we are not artificial intelligence (AI)? — TheMadFool

A few questions that automatically spring to mind...

• to what extent will Peter's experience of himself have conflicted with his knowledge of other people?
• to what extent can that conflict be put down to human variation?
• to what extent can that conflict be put down to nurture, i.e. Peter's precise history?

Because if Peter lived in a world of humans all talking and philosophising about human experience, and if Peter's experience did not correlate with that, there might be limit to how much he could rationalise the conflict.

Well, the problem basically boils down to a single question: how do we know we're not AI? Arguably, we wouldn't know until some kind of revelation takes place? Religious undertones, here..God seen as the creator?!

Well, the problem basically boils down to a single question: how do we know we're [/i]not[/i] AI? — TheMadFool

That's what I'm getting at really. Did Peter actually have sufficient information to know he was an AI before the operation? And, if so, did Peter have sufficient skill in fooling himself that he did not.

Obviously Peter did find out by having an operation. This gave him knowledge about his interior that conflicted with his knowledge of human interiors. So why did no information prior to this conflict with his experience?

We could imagine an AI with some data available to its processors designed to agree with externally-derived (external to the designer) consensus (with maybe some peculiarities) about how it feels to be human. Something similar to the memory implants used in Blade Runner. So when an AI encounters humans discussing love, for instance, it can agree with much of what is said, and this agreement would reinforce his assessment of his humanity, the nature he believes he has in common with people.

If all such eventualities can be catered for, no conflict need arise. So my first question was: is this possible? Is a revelation, like the operation, not highly probable long before he was operated on?

No way to know what is real and what isn't.

Gotta go with the flow.

Live life as if it is real...not an illusion. Deal with the world as though it is real...not an illusion.

We could imagine an AI with some data available to its processors designed to agree with externally-derived (external to the designer) consensus (with maybe some peculiarities) about how it feels to be human. — Kenosha Kid

This is the heart of the matter. AI robots living together with no contact with humans would think their form, in terms of physical appearance and ways of thinking, is normal in the sense not artificial/synthetic. The only way such robots can become aware of their synthetic nature is by discovering a hidden clue in their form.

This is the heart of the matter. AI robots living together with no contact with humans would think their form, in terms of physical appearance and ways of thinking, is normal in the sense not artificial/synthetic. The only way such robots can become aware of their synthetic nature is by discovering a hidden clue in their form. — TheMadFool

Yes, or a clue that their form, while what they always experienced it to be, is no longer consistent with human form. In principle, a juvenile AI could be aware that it has, I don't know, the ability to knowingly parallelise computations over 258 cores and assume all humans to be able to do this. If and when they discover that this is not a human characteristic, that would be a clue.

But I wonder whether an AI could rationalise some clues the way humans might. If an AI never felt love, and had no sort of artificial memory or stub of it, it might just compute that it is unlucky, or is a particular human without capacity for love. It may be aware that some humans have no capacity for empathy, or an unrealised capacity for empathy, and rationalise its own lack of empathy as just one of those things. How much human nature might be whittled away like that? After all, humans lacking love or empathy can go through life not knowing they are different.

This topic reminds me of similiar 'reveals' in the climaxes of two episodes of the original Star Trek (1966-69): "What Little Girls Are Made Of" (s1e7) and "Requiem for Methuselah"(s3e19) ... :nerd: LLAP

1. Is it possible that we, humans, are like Peter, under the [false] assumption that we are not artificial intelligence (AI)? — TheMadFool

Yes. And even more likely, I suspect we assume - delude ourselves with a woo-of-the-gaps belief - that we are not 'zombies' (re: eliminativism).

2. What, for us, qualifies as a similar, illuminating experience, regarding our true nature (AI or not AI), to Peter seeing his own innards - electronic circuitry, powerpacks, and all?

For me it was prolonged use of 'hallucinogens' during the 1980s; also, deliberate attention to the 'phenomenon of sleep' that foregrounds subpersonal processes (which, neuroscience suggests, consolidate long-term memories for 'self-construction/maintenance'). 'Psychotic break' episodes (even severe PTSD, or grand mal seizures) might "illuminate" the illusory nature of subjectivity, or self-awareness, as well to anyone subjected to them. Or e.g. buddhist / advaita vedanta meditation practices or sufi trances or ... contemplating 'humean bundle theory'.

Although I started off like I was, I'm not considering the scenario that Peter learns of his true nature by coming into contact with real people.

What's the real issue is whether Peter can know his true nature as an artificial being, created by an intelligence rather than having evolved, without ever encountering the real McCoy? Since the answer is "no" and because we're all like Peter before his encounter with his creators, it follows that the possibility that we're artificial can't be ruled out. For all we know, we could be carbon-based AI created by an intelligent life-form and put here on earth as an experiment or for entertainment or whathaveyou.

The main protagonist in the film is a man by the name of Peter who finally discovers that he's a synthetic (AI). What qualifies as very "intriguing" is that Peter doesn't know he's an AI until he sees his innards, something that he's compelled to do to save his wife. Basically, Peter thinks he's human or a biological right up till the moment he looks inside his body and sees electronic circuitry, etc. — TheMadFool

So, did Peter not notice his lack of eating, pooping, peeing, sweating? What about sex drive? If his innards are a bunch of electronic circuitry, then he's not undergoing biological processes like digestion.

1. Is it possible that we, humans, are like Peter, under the [false] assumption that we are not artificial intelligence (AI)? — TheMadFool

I'm guessing this would have showed up in surgery or the morgue at some point.

2. What, for us, qualifies as a similar, illuminating
experience, regarding our true nature (AI or not AI), to Peter seeing his own innards - electronic circuitry, powerpacks, and all? — TheMadFool

I poop therefore I'm an animal.

So, did Peter not notice his lack of eating, pooping, peeing, sweating? What about sex drive? If his innards are a bunch of electronic circuitry, then he's not undergoing biological processes like digestion. — Marchesk

The "normal" for Peter included all of these activities. Even if it weren't whatever bodily functions he and others like him had would be the "normal", effectively eliminating the possibility of knowing his artificial nature.

So, you think we're some kind primitive (advanced?) AI? What exactly made you think this to be the case? What's there in drug-induced hallucinations, psychotic episodes, grand-mal seizures aje sleep that hints at this?

The "normal" for Peter included all of these activities. Even if it weren't whatever bodily functions he and others like him had would be the "normal", effectively eliminating the possibility of knowing his artificial nature. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure how. At least the Cylons from the recent BSG and Replicants from Blade Runner were synthetic biology, not electronics.

What's the real issue is whether Peter can know his true nature as an artificial being, created by an intelligence rather than having evolved, without ever encountering the real McCoy? Since the answer is "no" and because we're all like Peter before his encounter with his creators, it follows that the possibility that we're artificial can't be ruled out. — TheMadFool

"Do you know the power of a machine made of a trillion moving parts? ... We're not just robots. We're robots, made of robots, made of robots". ~Daniel Dennett

↪180 Proof So, you think we're some kind primitive (advanced?) AI? What exactly made you think this to be the case? — TheMadFool

I don't know what to think other than that we are not what we think we are - the human species (may be the only species that) deludes itself about itself in order to flatter itself (for the sake of anxiety / terror management? (Becker)) and maybe, possibly, in order to know anything is necessarily incapable of knowing itself (pace Pythia, etc) ... just as eyes see by not seeing themselves seeing. 

What's there in drug-induced hallucinations, psychotic episodes, grand-mal seizures a[nd] sleep that hints at this?

Objective suppression, or derangement, of subjective states of self-awareness that episodically foreground - make explicit - the ephemerality of 'consciousness'. In other words, they expose The What We Are by suspending or stripping away The Who We Tell Ourselves And Each Other We Are. 'What are we?' AI or not; evolved or not; zombie or not. Exactly. :fire: :eyes:

synthetic biology — Marchesk

Therein hangs a tale...

we are not what we think we are — 180 Proof

How fascinating and how disconcerting...

just as eyes see by not seeing themselves seeing. — 180 Proof

What about "reflection"?

In other words, they expose The What We Are by suspending or stripping away The Who We Tell Ourselves And Each Other We Are — 180 Proof

How has that turned out for us? Has it destroyed all sense of who/what we think of our selves? Does the flower still think its a flower after all its petals have fallen? What's left that we can point to and say, "that's us"?

KidAlthough I started off like I was, I'm not considering the scenario that Peter learns of his true nature by coming into contact with real people.

What's the real issue is whether Peter can know his true nature as an artificial being, created by an intelligence rather than having evolved, without ever encountering the real McCoy? Since the answer is "no" and because we're all like Peter before his encounter with his creators, it follows that the possibility that we're artificial can't be ruled out. For all we know, we could be carbon-based AI created by an intelligent life-form and put here on earth as an experiment or for entertainment or whathaveyou. — TheMadFool

Yeah fair enough, I tend to think incrementally. I was working (slowly) toward an argument for an answer to Q1, but I see you've jumped straight to the answer already.

If we assume we cannot know that we do not possess a property, and if having that property is possible, then, yes, we might have that property. Whatever that property might be.

So much for Q1. As for Q2, there's no valid equivalent. Peter learns of his nature based on new information about himself compared to old information about humans, namely anatomy. If we rule out knowledge like this, a different kind of "revelation" is required.

If we were all AI, why on Earth would we think we were human, or even not AI? Some kind of religion got us?

Yeah fair enough, I tend to think incrementally. I was working (slowly) toward an argument for an answer to Q1, but I see you've jumped straight to the answer already.

If we assume we cannot know that we do not possess a property, and if having that property is possible, then, yes, we might have that property. Whatever that property might be.

So much for Q1. As for Q2, there's no valid equivalent. Peter learns of his nature based on new information about himself compared to old information about humans, namely anatomy. If we rule out knowledge like this, a different kind of "revelation" is required.

If we were all AI, why on Earth would we think we were human, or even not AI? Some kind of religion got us? — Kenosha Kid

What's worth noting here is that given the inherent nature of ours to believe in creator gods, it looks as though we all have a subconscious desire to be artificial in the sense of having been created.

On the flip side, we also have an atheistic streak, telling us otherwise - that there's no evidence of a god. Yet, even if god has been chucked on the scrapheap, the central motif of creation stubbornly persists - simulation theory (Nick Bostrom).

What's worth noting here is that given the inherent nature of ours to believe in creator gods, it looks as though we all have a subconscious desire to be artificial in the sense of having been created.

On the flip side, we also have an atheistic streak, telling us otherwise - that there's no evidence of a god. Yet, even if god has been chucked on the scrapheap, the central motif of creation stubbornly persists - simulation theory (Nick Bostrom). — TheMadFool

Sure, I thought this might be more your angle, and was thinking of simulation theory too. Claims like "the inherent nature of ours to believe in creator gods" I tend to suspect as false, at root because I was no indoctrinated by my Christian parents as a child and was genuinely surprised to discover that people not working for their church believed in it. If anything, I had a harder time wrapping my stupid single-digit year old head around the idea that the Earth could even have an origin.

I agree that the capacity to ascribe agency without evidence is inherent in us all, but there's a difference between having a capacity (I can love) to a particular activation of that capacity (therefore I love Trump). There are/were plenty of places whose religious systems did not include creator gods: Jainism, Buddhism, most modes of Hinduism, Dreamtime. The likely default, primitive view of the Earth is not that it had a creator, but that it has always existed: origin stories are not a foregone conclusion. So it's at least "inherent nature to ascribe agency" + "contingent derivation of a cosmological origin". This idea alone has obvious memetic power and is also a step in the direction of something like Big Bang theory.

How likely it is that this alone would yield creationist beliefs is difficult to say. The widespread belief in a creationist God now owes some to its memetic fitness, owes some to its accord with our inclination to ascribe agency, but owes most to an "improved" method of replication whereby children are indoctrinated at an impressionable age with ideas they are taught are unquestionable (or you're punished/no child of mine). Remove that, and I suspect the belief in creator Gods would seem far less than inherent and would need even more forceful means of persuasion (a crusade here, a Holy Inquisition there).

Simulation theory is a good illustration. It is not derived from a need to ascribe agency but based on probability theory and a difficult-to-swallow definition of "technological maturity". However, it is creationist, so it appeals to that agency need. There's no direct evidence against it, although its definition of "technological maturity" is a leap of faith in itself. And it's entertaining, which is why everyone has heard of it, i.e. it has great memetic fitness. And yet almost no one actually believes it. It's a fledgling creationist theory, maybe it will catch on and convert the swelling atheist numbers, but that remains unseen and seems kind of ridiculous (but then... Scientology!). One guy (does he even believe in it?) came up with it and everyone heard about it and thought about it because it's interesting. It doesn't seem comparable to a natural inclination to believe in creators, at least not yet.

Claims like "the inherent nature of ours to believe in creator gods" I tend to suspect as false, at root because I was no indoctrinated by my Christian parents as a child and was genuinely surprised to discover that people not working for their church believed in it. If anything, I had a harder time wrapping my stupid single-digit year old head around the idea that the Earth could even have an origin. — Kenosha Kid

While respectful of your valuable personal experiences I'd say a single individual's observations are, at best, anecdotal "evidence". How do you explain the, almost simultaneous, birth of religion in different cultural, social, and political settings? To me, this bespeaks a widely prevalent predeliction toward religiosity.

There are/were plenty of places whose religious systems did not include creator gods: Jainism, Buddhism, most modes of Hinduism, Dreamtime. The likely default, primitive view of the Earth is not that it had a creator, but that it has always existed — Kenosha Kid

That maybe the default, yes, but what's the majority view? Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the religions with the greatest number of followers have a creation myth which people seem to have no qualms about.

Simulation theory is a good illustration. It is not derived from a need to ascribe agency but based on probability theory and a difficult-to-swallow definition of "technological maturity". — Kenosha Kid

Is the argument cogent?

While respectful of your valuable personal experiences I'd say a single individual's observations are, at best, anecdotal experience. How do you explain the, almost simultaneous, birth of religion in different cultural, social, and political settings? To me, this bespeaks a widely prevalent predeliction toward religiosity. — TheMadFool

Of course, but when you then state that such a thing is "inherent", it begs the question of why such an inherent quality is not universal. One looks at the differences between myself and someone, say, raised in the Catholic church and ask: might this account for why my inherent quality was never realised? Granted, yes it might. Might it also account for the illusion of such an inherent quality? Yes, also. This is in contrast to an explanation that relies on me having a special mind. The claim that the quality is inherent starts to look suspect, and it is the claim that needs justifying, not scepticism of it.

The emphasised part I've already covered. Religions did spawn independently all over. However it is not true that these religions were uniformly creationist, and it was "the inherent nature of ours to believe in creator gods" claim I objected to. Many were non-creationist because they did not have the bright idea that the world had not always existed. Intellectually, creationism is a great achievement, not an inherent prejudice of the mind.

Taking the thick end of the wedge, belief in the Abrahamic creationist God is extremely widespread: over half of the world's population believes they believe in the creationist God of the Old Testament. Is this evidence that the idea is inherent? No, for two reasons:

1) Well, according to the Old Testament, pretty much the first thing God told Moses to do after his revelation was kill or sexually enslave neighbouring peoples who would not accept God: destroy or breed out disbelief. Why? Why not appeal to their inherent creationist prejudice? Granted, the Old Testament is not a reliable history, but more reliable history tells us this went on for a very long time after. The means evolved, the results are waning, but it's clear that there are several features of creationist religious belief (that themselves might be inherent capacities) that do not rely on an inherent belief in a creator (in fact suggest a lack of such an inherent belief) that nonetheless did an amazing job of making such a belief universal. Add to that an effective sort of temporal crusade, where the non-believer the creationist encounters is their own baby, and it's even more dubious to assume that the near-universality of creator myths, which is overwhelmingly belief in the Abrahamic God, requires any inherent creationist bent at all.

2) Simulation theory bears this out: multiple similar ideas appearing throughout history are the products of a miniscule number of minds. The prevalence of simulation theory as a considered concept is not a measure of mankind's amenability to build such concepts. That was one man with an idea that many men and women found amusing, and very few compelling. Likewise the more mainstream ideas of creator gods did not appear independently among their believers. Those myths originated from a small number of minds, and, rather than emerging from some inherent prejudice, were adopted by a great many people due to a variety of processes not depending on, but not eliminating, such a prejudice. The necessity of tools such as genocide, mass murder, terrorism, exploitation, incarceration and indoctrination shriek of evidence that, were such tools abandoned, belief in a creator God would not catch on as well. The question is how well would it catch on, i.e. what is its memetic fitness as an idea alone? Unknown. But as civilised nations have turned their backs on religious crusades and holy inquisitions, relying mostly on childhood indoctrination to perpetuate the idea, belief appears to be waning. This is not consistent with the idea of a universal, inherent prejudice toward creator gods.