Comments

  • Abiogenesis.
    Of course, there's the possibility that we discover life all over the place. — Patterner

    Yes. I think that will be the case with non-intelligent life. My discussion with Relatavist was predicated on what would happen if we don't find any life anywhere and abiogenesis continues to be a mystery.

    But sure, let's just say. I guess I would wonder why something created the simulation of such an outrageous size, and only simulated life where we are.

    Simulating all the faraway galaxies wouldn't require much. They wouldn't have to be too "granular" to be convincing to us.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/oh-look-whos-leading-in-almost-all-of-the-swing-states/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=second

    "The Wall Street Journal, late last night:

    The poll of the election’s main battlegrounds shows Trump holding leads of between 2 and 8 percentage points in six states—Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina—on a test ballot that includes third-party and independent candidates. Trump holds similar leads when voters are asked to choose only between him and Biden.

    The one outlier is Wisconsin, where Biden leads by 3 points on the multiple-candidate ballot, and where the two candidates are tied in a head-to-head matchup."
  • Abiogenesis.
    ↪Relativist
    As we continue to not discover life and Earth is revealed to inhabit a more and more special place in the universe (and abiogensis remains unexplained), theories that predict humans are special will get an epistemic boost. These theories would be mostly religious, but simulation theory would become much more credible. A universe with only us in it would look extremely suspicious, wouldn't you agree?
  • Abiogenesis.
    I think it's a certainty that life exists elsewhere in the universe, because the universe is so vast. — Relativist

    I agree, but after a million/billion/trillion years of searching and no other life and no account of abiogenesis, what do you think the implications for abiogenesis would be? I think they would be profound.
  • Abiogenesis.
    What do you mean by "lucky"? The universe is vast (possibly infinite) - if life is possible, then it's a near certainty that it would occur somewhere/somewhen. What does luck have to do with it? — Relativist

    It wouldn't strike you as odd if it turns out we're the only life in the universe? That wouldn't be an incredibly surprising result?

    "Luck" would come in because it would mean that we inhabit one of the most (if not the most) special places in the observable universe: the only one where life is possible. That would mean we beat some really long odds. So far, our science is predicated on the notion that we're not in a really special or unique place in the cosmos. That would change.
  • Abiogenesis.
    What do you mean by "lucky"? The universe is vast (possibly infinite) - if life is possible, then it's a near certainty that it would occur somewhere/somewhen. What does luck have to do with it?

    Regarding your hypothetical, you seem to be suggesting that anything we haven't figured out within the next 10,000 years, should be deemed miraculous. Personally, I don't have that much faith in our ability to figure things out. We have our limitations.     — Relativist

    OK, assume a million years have gone by and we've surveyed countless worlds and we're the only one with life. And we still have no idea how it happened. How would that change your beliefs?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    It really does now seem entirely unreasonable to support Israel's ongoing violence here.

    I really tried to stay on the fence, given there are legit grievances for both. But I am not able to continue to be so stoic. Israel is the aggressor now. They must stop.     — AmadeusD

    I agree. They have to start wrapping this up now.
  • Abiogenesis.
    here is no evidence of anything in the world that does NOT behave consistently with physics, so why should we assume otherwise?

    I am a metaphysical naturalist because it's clear the natural world exists, and that its behavior is a entirely a consequence of laws of nature (approximated by physics). So I'd be very interested in hearing of something that disconfirms this.     — Relativist

    What if 10,000 years from now, we've surveyed millions of promising planets, have found no life anywhere else and still have no consensus on how it got started here? Would you just assume we got incredibly lucky somehow?
  • Is the philosophy of mind dead?
    Here's a good article about the science community's reaction to panpsychism:
    https://www.salon.com/2024/04/01/the-most-anti-science-belief-you-can-hold-is-that-science-is-a-religion/
  • Ukraine Crisis
    It is a proxy war between the US and Russia. Easy to see why. — Mikie

    America gave some security promises to Ukraine years ago if they would give up their nukes. That undoubtedly plays a factor in things.
  • Christianity - an influence for good?
    ↪alan1000
    A couple points: religions like Christianity give the masses a reason to behave: be good, and go to heaven; be bad and got to hell. I think there are a lot of people out there who would get up to a lot of mischief without the threat of hell looming over them.

    Also, people don't need religion to be horrible to each other. Khmer Rouge, Stalinist Russia, North Korea, Mao's Cultural Revolution, etc. If the Abrahamic religions never existed, things probably wouldn't be all that different.
  • What happens when we die?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    None of us can know anything about what happens after death, so why even ask the question? But I suspect it's true.
  • What happens when we die?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    You keep coming back until you learn that chasing idols (e.g., money, fame, power, substances, etc.) won't make you happy.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    At some point almost any change is seen as better than continuing the status quo, at least "you try" something else. — boethius

    And this is strange, since the economy is usually the top issue, and it's been humming along: stock market highs (most people have 401(k)'s, so they benefit from Wall Street doing well), record low unemployment, inflation back under control, 3+% GDP growth. But the majority of people hate this economy. Maybe because buying a house and renting have become so expensive. But it's hard to see what Trump would do to change that.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    "As we did in our previous poll three months ago, we asked the respondents in this poll what
    they thought of Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive. A vast majority of
    71%, compared to 72% in December 2023, say it was correct."
    https://www.pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Poll%2091%20English%20press%20release%2020%20March%202024.pdf
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    ↪Wayfarer
    It's a good one. I hope one of these days Sam Harris has him on his show.
  • Boethius and the Experience Machine
    Would an idealist even care about being in the machine or not? After all, if this is all a dream, what does it matter if I dream I'm living a life of luxury vs dreaming I'm in a machine being fed an experience of living a life of luxury? It's all an illusion anyway.
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    ↪Wayfarer
    He uses that one a lot.
  • Do we live in a dictatorship of values?
    No clue what you mean by that, but I have a clue that Amerigo Vespucci is rolling and gagging in his grave. — Lionino

    You have no clue what I mean when I say 9/11 was a big factor in American policy and it's not all just about oil? What is confusing about that?
  • Do we live in a dictatorship of values?
    Let's not even forget that their war on terror (more like war for oil and for Israel) has indirectly caused heinous crimes in Europe. — Lionino

    Oil has always played a big factor, but so did 9/11. It was a tremendous shock to the system. Much of America's policies, including torture, were to make sure another 9/11 didn't happen again. We didn't invade Afghanistan over oil.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    The content of an item of knowledge can always be put into a proposition. — Banno

    What's a good Searle article/paper that deals with that?
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    So can you tell us, without putting it in a proposition, something some animal knows? — Banno

    How can I tell you anything without putting it in a proposition?
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    I have had many border collies. They do all sorts of propositional things. Language is not required. The body and the now contain the message. — Chet Hawkins

    Maybe for animals close to our abilities who can almost think like us, but Salmon know when and where to return to the spawning grounds. What kinds of beliefs do they have? What are they like?
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    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

    I remember raging arguments at the International Skeptics Society years ago about whether enough monks writing down 1's and 0's could simulate consciousness, like the guy in the comic I posted moving rocks around and simulating this universe.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    All 'knowledge' is only a set of beliefs. — Chet Hawkins

    Animals know things, but what kinds of beliefs do they have? Certainly not propositional.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Trump won in 2016 while raising half the funds of Hillary, so I'm also just not sure that's a good proxy for odds of success. — boethius

    Money is not the end-all-be-all, but it is an important factor, and candidates would rather have it than not.
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    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

    Have you ever seen this?

    https://xkcd.com/505/
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    That means that yes, even the paper and pencil method, done to sufficient detail, would simulate a conscious human who would not obviously know he is being simulated. — noAxioms

    I missed this somehow. This is absurd. You're not going to be able to simulate a conscious person/generate consciousness from paper and pencil. This is getting into Bernardo Kastrup territory: is my house's sanitation system conscious?
    https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2023/01/ai-wont-be-conscious-and-here-is-why.html
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪boethius
    You're forgetting abortion. Since Dobbs, Democrats have overperformed in every special election. SCOTUS is taking up abortion again this Summer, and no matter what they decide, the mere fact of them sticking their noses in women's wombs will enrage and terrify them. Democrats also have a massive cash advantage. This is going to be a turnout election, and I would much rather be a Democrat candidate than Republican.
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    I think that sounds like magic, but everyone else is taking it seriously,
    — RogueAI
    I agree with you, though I would describe it as hand-waving. I agree also that sometimes it is best to roll with the punch if someone takes an idea seriously and I don't. I've done it myself. It may not result in them changing their mind, but it does allow some exploration and clarification.     — Ludwig V

    Sure. Simulation Theory is fascinating. I don't reject it right off the bat like "you're a p-zombie and don't know it". But I do think the central premise is, as you said, pretty hand-wavy.
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    .. that the thing simulated is conscious. — noAxioms

    Which is to say that a collection of electronic switches is conscious when there's a sufficient number of them and they're being turned on and off in a certain order.

    I know I sound redundant about that, but doesn't that sound pretty fantastiscal? That you could wire up a bunch of switches and get the subjective experience of eating a bag of potato chips to emerge from them?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Either human rights are universal and they apply to everybody or they're not and then they are no justification to treat Palestinians differently if they don't hold them in the same regard as you. — Benkei

    People lose rights when they go down certain roads. From the UN "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." That sounds good, but what if you get convicted of a crime? There goes your right to liberty. What if a rapist goes after a woman who gets to the gun in her purse in time? There goes his right to life. People make stupid choices and lose their rights all the time. The Germans did it, the Japanese did it, and the Palestinians did it when they threw in their lot with Hamas.

    Compared to what we did to Germany and Japan, which was totally justified, the Israeli's have been incredibly merciful and respectful of civilian lives.
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    As for Baldur's Gate, that (like any current game) doesn't simulate any mental processes, and even if it did, the simulated character would be conscious, but the game is no more conscious than is the universe. It merely contains conscious entities. A computer simulating a bat would not know what it is like to be a bat, but the simulated bat would. — noAxioms

    You're right about Baldur's Gate, but ChatGPT certainly simulates mental processes (or seems to. More about that in a second). You can have a full on conversation with it. Do you think it might be conscious?

    Now, when you drill down on "simulate mental processes", what does that ultimately mean? Computers are essentially collections of electronic switches, so simulating mental processes just means that electric switches XYZ... are turning off and on in order ABC...so if you get a lot of switches (or not so many switches but a whole lot of time) and flip them on and off in a certain order, voila! You get consciousness. I think that sounds like magic, but everyone else is taking it seriously, so you also have to take seriously the idea that it might not take a whole lot of switching operations to generate consciousness. Why should it? So it seems that if we're going to take simulation theory seriously, we should be equally open to the idea that some of the simulations we're running now are conscious. Maybe some of the "creatures" in Conway's Game of Life are conscious. Why not?
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    ↪noAxioms
    If you're open to the possibility that consciousness could emerge from a computer simulation, are you also open to the idea that consciousness is already emerging in the simulations we're currently running? IOW, if simulation theory is possibly, is my Baldur's Gate party maybe conscious?
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    Are you claiming that exchanging meaningful information about LED lights entails exchanging meaningful information about transition metals and photons and everything else that an LED is?
    — RogueAI

    No, I am claiming one is a collection of facts Y about the LED and the other a collection of facts X, you don't need X for Y neither Y for X, even though X would give you a deeper understanding of Y.     — Lionino

    But you are claiming that exchanging meaningful information about mental states entails exchanging meaningful information about brain states. Why aren't the facts about the mental states collection of facts Y and the facts about the brain states collections of facts X?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Israelis are actively rooting for the destruction of Palestinians as are you, so that makes you and Israelis extremely dangerous and culturally backwards. Not surprising that you left any rational faculty a long time ago in this thread that everything you say has idiotic consequences. — Benkei

    I don't want the Palestinians destroyed anymore than I would have wanted the Germans or Japanese destroyed in WW2. They eventually came to their senses and the war ended. I hope the Palestinians come to their senses, reject their stone age beliefs about women and LGBTQ, and reject Hamas. Then the war can stop and we can have some peace.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    But it is: there's a clear judgment contained in the fact that Palestinians are not up to "our" level and therefore the Israelis are good and they are bad and therefore fuck them — Benkei

    While all that's true, and Palestinian culture is inferior to Western culture (and "evil" in many respects re:women and LGBTQ), there's a bit more going on: Israel's neighbors have tried to destroy Israel. They want all the Israeli's dead. Palestinians are actively rooting for Israel's destruction and voted in murderous thugs to carry it out. That makes them not only culturally backwards but also extremely dangerous, and Israel has a right to defend herself.
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    Tribesmen see an LED. They have no clue what transition metals are, what diodes are, what photons are, what a catode is. Yet, when the LED shines red, they say "the liver is red", when it shines blue, "the liver is blue". They think that LED is the thing purifying their bodies of all toxins, so they call it liver. Nonetheless, they are still correctly talking about LED states. — Lionino

    Are you claiming that exchanging meaningful information about LED lights entails exchanging meaningful information about transition metals and photons and everything else that an LED is? Suppose two children are talking about how bright the sun is. Is your claim that they are also talking about photons and fusion and just don't know it?

    Also, the photons the cavemen are seeing being emitted from the LED's (and causing their erroneous beliefs about the LED's) are not identical to the LED's themselves, in the way that brain states are supposedly identical to mental states.

    Also, in your example, the tribesman have an erroneous belief LED's and livers. The children in my example don't have erroneous beliefs about their mental states (or what's causing them, since they have no beliefs about brains at all). Can you give an example where no erroneous beliefs are going on?
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    I refined this a bit for ChatGpt:

    Reveal
    User
    Assume that mental states are identical to brain states. Assume there are two children who have no idea what brains are talking about the mental state of how lonely they are at school. How is it possible the children are talking about brain states when they don't know what brains are? Isn't knowledge of brains a necessary condition for conversations about brain states?

    ChatGPT
    You're correct that typically, knowledge of brains would be necessary for conversations specifically about brain states. However, in the scenario you've presented where mental states are assumed to be identical to brain states, there's an inherent assumption that any discussion about mental states implicitly refers to brain states, whether or not the individuals involved understand the concept of brains.

    In this context, when the children talk about their feelings of loneliness, they're actually discussing brain states, albeit unknowingly. The assumption that mental states are identical to brain states means that any discussion about mental states is inherently a discussion about brain states, whether or not the participants are aware of it.

    So, while the children may not have explicit knowledge of what brains are or understand the concept of brain states, their conversation about loneliness at school can still be interpreted as discussions about brain states because of the assumption that mental states are identical to brain states.

    User
    But the children know they are talking about mental states. They are aware they are having a conversation about mental states. If mental states are identical to brain states, how could the children talk "unknowingly" about brain states while they're talking knowingly about mental states? Doesn't that imply a difference between mental and brain states?

    ChatGPT
    You raise a valid point. If the children are knowingly talking about mental states without explicit knowledge of brains, it suggests a differentiation between mental states and brain states in their understanding, contrary to the assumption that they are identical.

    In this case, the assumption that mental states are identical to brain states may not hold true, or at least, the children's understanding of the relationship between mental states and brain states is not aligned with that assumption. If they are aware of discussing mental states without referring to brains, it implies that they perceive mental states as distinct from the underlying brain states.

    This scenario suggests that there could be a discrepancy between the theoretical assumption that mental states are identical to brain states and the way individuals conceptualize and discuss their own mental experiences. It highlights the complexity of understanding the relationship between mental states and brain states, especially in terms of individual perceptions and conceptualizations. Therefore, in this context, the children's awareness of discussing mental states without reference to brains challenges the assumption of their identity and suggests a differentiation between the two in their understanding.
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    I'm not interested in proving this part of the argument. Now, how can people who have no idea of what brains are talk coherently about brain states?
    — RogueAI

    Because, in reductive materialism, there no difference between "I am stressed" and "My hypophysis is ejecting adrenaline" in what those phrases refer to. When I say "I am stressed" I am coherently talking about a brain state. I don't need to know anything else about the brain — where it sits, what it does, what its cells are like — to be coherent about that. That I think the brain is actually the liver and the liver is the brain is another aspect of the topic. We don't know many things about the brain, yet neuroscientists coherently talk about it.
    — Lionino

    We don't know many things about the brain, yet neuroscientists coherently talk about it.
    — Lionino     — Lionino

    Let me see if I'm understanding you right. You're claiming that two people who don't know what brains are and don't even know they have them can still have a meaningful discussion about brain states?
Home » RogueAI