Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[Iam90]

Originally Posted by Reach

Devonin essentially answers this, but I'll take a crack at it.

You're asking three similar, but unrelated questions.

1. Yes, the apple is still red.
2. Neither are 'right'.
3. In the physical world.

Now for explanations:

1. 'Red' is only a label. The apple is whatever the apple is, regardless of how it is perceived. This is because the apple contains inherent physical properties of matter that make it the way that it is. Our perception of this properties does not change them.

As such, as Devonin said, the inherent properties of matter that reflect light off of an apple remain constant, meaning the apple is still 'red', or whatever you want to label it. You just have to make sure that label is *constant* and reliably associated with these physical qualities.

If the apple is red insofar as we construct "red" out of the "inherent physical properties" of the apple, and we only view the universe as a construct out of these inherent physical properties, how can we ever know these inherent physical properties without our understanding of them being clouded by constructs of themselves, and more to the point how can we know that they remain constant? A constant effect doesn't necessarily dictate a constant cause, if there can be multiple causes for the same effect.

2. Technically, all senses are a construct of the brain. That is, the physical universe is interpreted systematically in our minds to create an image of reality.

None of these constructions are 'right' because none of them are the physical universe itself. Rather, they are a sort of mirror image, or physical reality mapping itself onto the mind.

3. This relates to the previous question. The constant here is the physical universe itself. Regardless of how our minds interpret the universe, the universe stays static in its physical properties. As such, that is where the truth is, and that is where science attempts to make valid and reliable measurements.

I'm still wondering how science intends to interpret the static reality under the sensory constructs - given that our scientific method is always going to employ the senses. It's a basic bit of Kantian metaphysics, but still an interesting thought.

These questions bring up an important philosophical point that can bring up interesting questions related to the thread topic:

Our brains create our perceptions of the universe - however, our brains are part of the universe itself. Therefore, our psychological minds are a construct of the universe itself. Our observations and thoughts are the universe looking back and thinking about itself.

This makes neuroscience not only the study of the brain, but the study of the universe mapping and constructing an image of itself. That is, a closed loop is created, where the universe is able to observe and understand itself.

As such, does that make us a form of utility for the physical universe? Much like humans create tools to perform certain tasks, do universes create minds in order to understand themselves?

Does this make the universe conscious and aware of its own existence?

If so, does that qualify as giving our lives meaning?

All this definitively tells us is that a conscious part of the universe reflects upon the whole; but as I understand the term "universe" implies the whole itself and not mere parts.

That's not to say it isn't entirely possible that you're right; but is our act of conscious reflection upon the universe enough to extrapolate that the universe itself is conscious? I'm not sure about that.

[devonin]

and more to the point how can we know that they remain constant? A constant effect doesn't necessarily dictate a constant cause, if there can be multiple causes for the same effect.

Who says they have to remain constant? We've set a range of wavelengths, the light reflecting from which we call "red" So long as those are the wavelengths reflecting from the apple, it's a red apple. If they aren't anymore, then it isn't red.

What happened to it to -make- it stop being red (ripened, was peeled, rotted whatever) is an entirely seperate question.

[MrRubix]

Reach: Like Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." Utility/meaning is a sort of humanized concept (although if you want to be specific, any lifeform with the ability to derive a sort of "preference/happiness" metric interprets utility in some way). We can theoretically argue that the universe is, therefore, operating as a sort of segregated hivemind.

[Reach]

If the apple is red insofar as we construct "red" out of the "inherent physical properties" of the apple, and we only view the universe as a construct out of these inherent physical properties, how can we ever know these inherent physical properties without our understanding of them being clouded by constructs of themselves, and more to the point how can we know that they remain constant? A constant effect doesn't necessarily dictate a constant cause, if there can be multiple causes for the same effect.

Well, to answer the first question, we can't really know the inherent physical properties of the universe without our understanding of them being clouded by constructs...

However, it's irrelevant. Given that all of our measurements happen within the context of our mental construction of the universe, they are therefore valid within that construction. There's no sense in arguing otherwise; of course we can't take measurements of a universe we can't perceive.


To address the issue of being constant: The universe is not technically 'constant' in a literal sense (Quantum physics would definitely argue otherwise). What I mean is that the universe continues to abide by sets of physical laws which cannot be broken. Wavelengths can be expressed as discrete mathematical values which can be measured consistently and reliably. Therefore, you can define red consistently and reliably.

Any further explanation relates to the point I made earlier.

That's not to say it isn't entirely possible that you're right

Just to be clear, none of those questions necessarily represent my philosophical view points. They are merely questions to add discussion to the thread.

[Vests]

Implying there must be a creator for all creators previously existing? Intelligent design is quite plausible. Just as there are things we -try to- explain there are things we can not. People must understand that quantum, meta, and string are all theory. They are also not scientific theory. Sure, at their very most basic level they may have something to them. But once anyone leaves that safe little nest egg of concrete any individual can string together enough words to make something sound plausible.

Given enough rules, values, and limiting structures anything can be created. Scientists strive for Artificial Intelligence. Do you not think once it is self aware, it can not evolve like we have? We invent, thus we change. If other things can invent and change then we have a whole new situation on our hands. If a creature can make something biological and give it thought through complex computer like systems, then it can possibly invent life. Does that sound familiar? It should, the human body is strangely like a computer.

Either way, my base point is we have no idea where this universe came from. We have no facts to prove anything on either side. Both ideas are born upon 'faith' thus each is invalid for logical discussion.

[MrRubix]

AI can only "evolve" if we give it an environment in which it can evolve in. Evolution is just adaptation/change.

Science is not faith. It's conclusions derived from evidence. Theory, by the way, is the strongest thing we have when it comes to science. Quantum Theory, for example, is consistent with everything we know so far. We reject that theory if we encounter something that contradicts it. But a theory has to withstand the most rigorous tests possible -- which is to say, it must be true no matter what evidence you throw at it.

Intelligent design is extremely unlikely -- it's not even all that plausible. Is it possible? Yes, but the designer would have to basically be an entity that created a universe that did not need him in the first place.

Just because we have a gap in knowledge somewhere doesn't mean it discounts what we DO know. We can actually explain some interesting things about "where this universe came from" with quantum cosmology. But even if we had no clue, that doesn't mean we can just argue from ignorance and invoke something arbitrary. There's a lot that we do know and understand about the universe, and we're piling on the evidence each year. But in the meantime, it doesn't hurt to say "I don't know yet" to completely unknown concepts that nobody has an answer for.

[Frozen Beat]

Although Quantum Mechanics is consistent with everything we know _so far_, we still can't get it to work when General Relativity is also required. It's incompleteness poses a problem for all physicists of the day.

Also-The Anthropic Principle is really worthless when people mingle science in with it. I mean, science is the whole point of not going with the anthropic principle. Intelligent design IMO is quite the illusion.

Also, artificial intelligence may not be realized for a long time. It was predicted that by a year (it was 2000 something), that robots should be able to contain some hundreds of thousands of bits of information. Nowadays, 100 is remarkable, and the MIT has issues getting their robots to navigate in 2 dimensions, let alone 3. They couldn't engineer a fly if they wanted, and as Bill Gates said, they can't even tell an open door from a window. If we want quantum technology, we must first surpass the Uncertainty Principle.

[Vests]

Actually the science of true AI is relatively complex. Theoretically with unlimited connection to outside sources, it could manipulate itself in to a virus. Spreading and manipulating. But I digress, it was simply an example. Perhaps it is in fact "arbitrary" for this discussion.

I was more referring to the specific sciences he is discussing. Referring to the science of creation only. Trust that I am not saying science itself is faith, that would be utterly stupid.

Unfortunately you define theory in only the most scientific of ways. To be honest you just perfectly described "Scientific Theory." Do not get me wrong when I say theory. I mean it in the most broad sense possible. To quoth Wiki: "In philosophy, theory (from ancient Greek theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action."

I would generally agree with you, but a gap is not the word for what we are discussing. Perhaps more fittingly or ironically we could invoke the phrase "a quantum leap." We are saying we can theorize more accurately than any evangelist that 13.7 billion years ago something unexplainable happened. We have no idea what actually could have caused the big bang theory, and the more narrow we go the more questions conversely arise. What started the process? Where did any of the energy or matter come from? We also theorize this is not even the first big bang to ever happen. So what happens if prior to our current rotation of bang-crunch, something did persist existing? What then if this entity that continued to exist has some (disregarding if major or minor) power to alter our universe? Could this theoretically not have happened just as the bang bang itself 'occurred'?

It is quite alarming that one that fancies themselves a philosopher can go insofar to quickly sweep aside an argument. I actually believe the side you're arguing for to be the more reasonable one. But why does that mean we can not equally allow question to it? We have no pure undeniable evidence either way, at least give both sides equal thought my friends.

[Frozen Beat]

When you mentioned robots->viruses, I couldn't help but remember, and now mention that computer viruses might potentially become as deadly as real viruses.

As Michio Kaku said, maybe we should fear AI once it gains the intelligence of a monkey.

That's a far ways off, and I have no idea what will happen.

I find it annoying when people post specific dates for when the big bang happened. I've heard 16.5 billion, 15 billion, 14 billion, 18 billion (all from credible scientists, not lunatics), a heck load of numbers, and in reality, they're huge gaps apart from eachother. I got no idea what to think of it.

M-theory, although in its infancy, might have to potential to explain the big bang. This is what they've got so far: strings (which are theoretical themselves) can stretch to perhaps even the size of our universe. Maybe our universe is a 3 dimensional membrane floating in a higher dimensional surface. Perhaps a collision with another membrane is what has cause the big bang.

Of course, this is all speculative. As Steven Weinberg has said, "M-theory could prove to be a tragic failure, but I can't imagine why nature would waste all that mathematical elegance."

Axioms annoy me actually, if anybody knows, please clarify how they proved 1+1=2.

I find English, in a sense, to be a failed language. The sense that I'm talking about, is that it fails to truly define things. I mean like, shoot for example, define: consciousness. Define: Existance. Define: Purpose. We really can't pin anything down, rather, I think we should make classifications.

Reasoning is really all ad hoc, but at least it's decent.

[Iam90]

Originally Posted by Frozen Beat

When you mentioned robots->viruses, I couldn't help but remember, and now mention that computer viruses might potentially become as deadly as real viruses.

As Michio Kaku said, maybe we should fear AI once it gains the intelligence of a monkey.

That's a far ways off, and I have no idea what will happen.

I find it annoying when people post specific dates for when the big bang happened. I've heard 16.5 billion, 15 billion, 14 billion, 18 billion (all from credible scientists, not lunatics), a heck load of numbers, and in reality, they're huge gaps apart from eachother. I got no idea what to think of it.

M-theory, although in its infancy, might have to potential to explain the big bang. This is what they've got so far: strings (which are theoretical themselves) can stretch to perhaps even the size of our universe. Maybe our universe is a 3 dimensional membrane floating in a higher dimensional surface. Perhaps a collision with another membrane is what has cause the big bang.

Of course, this is all speculative. As Steven Weinberg has said, "M-theory could prove to be a tragic failure, but I can't imagine why nature would waste all that mathematical elegance."

Axioms annoy me actually, if anybody knows, please clarify how they proved 1+1=2.

I find English, in a sense, to be a failed language. The sense that I'm talking about, is that it fails to truly define things. I mean like, shoot for example, define: consciousness. Define: Existance. Define: Purpose. We really can't pin anything down, rather, I think we should make classifications.

Reasoning is really all ad hoc, but at least it's decent.

there's a much deeper underlying problem than the ENGLISH language failing to convey concepts adequately; a lot of philosophers have studied the inherent flaw in language period and its limitations

[Frozen Beat]

Can you expand on that.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Frozen Beat

Although Quantum Mechanics is consistent with everything we know _so far_, we still can't get it to work when General Relativity is also required. It's incompleteness poses a problem for all physicists of the day.

Also-The Anthropic Principle is really worthless when people mingle science in with it. I mean, science is the whole point of not going with the anthropic principle. Intelligent design IMO is quite the illusion.

Also, artificial intelligence may not be realized for a long time. It was predicted that by a year (it was 2000 something), that robots should be able to contain some hundreds of thousands of bits of information. Nowadays, 100 is remarkable, and the MIT has issues getting their robots to navigate in 2 dimensions, let alone 3. They couldn't engineer a fly if they wanted, and as Bill Gates said, they can't even tell an open door from a window. If we want quantum technology, we must first surpass the Uncertainty Principle.

You're leveraging a lot of jargon and not really saying anything.

For one thing, you can't "surpass" the Uncertainty Principle. It's an intrinsic property -- it's a logically fundamental concept that has nothing to do with the accuracy of our measurement devices or the methods we use. It describes, for instance, how the more we know about position, we know less about its momentum, and vice-versa (in terms of simultaneity and infinitely arbitrary precision).

We can leverage quantum technology even with this "uncertainty principle" in effect. The words you're reading right now wouldn't be possible if not for quantum tunneling, which transistors utilize. What about the laser? MRI scans? Light switches?

Again, you conflate what a theory actually means. A theory exists to explain phenomena through evidence. There may still be deeper theories to unveil, but Quantum Theory exists because we have evidence and we have claims -- and the evidence supports those claims. The quest for unification doesn't mean that Quantum Mechanics is somehow "wrong." We will always have "incompleteness" within certain models, but that doesn't mean we just discard what we do know and what we have concluded and observed everywhere else.

And what do you have against the anthropic principle? All it is is a way to say "Well, our universe must be the kind of universe that allows life to be possible, because here we are, talking about it."

Regarding your fly argument, btw: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19068/

[Frozen Beat]

"For one thing, you can't "surpass" the Uncertainty Principle. It's an intrinsic property -- it's a logically fundamental concept that has nothing to do with the accuracy of our measurement devices or the methods we use. It describes, for instance, how the more we know about position, we know less about its momentum, and vice-versa (in terms of simultaneity and infinitely arbitrary precision)."
Are you sure?

@ Fly article: Sweet, thanks

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Vests

Actually the science of true AI is relatively complex. Theoretically with unlimited connection to outside sources, it could manipulate itself in to a virus. Spreading and manipulating. But I digress, it was simply an example. Perhaps it is in fact "arbitrary" for this discussion.

I was more referring to the specific sciences he is discussing. Referring to the science of creation only. Trust that I am not saying science itself is faith, that would be utterly stupid.

Unfortunately you define theory in only the most scientific of ways. To be honest you just perfectly described "Scientific Theory." Do not get me wrong when I say theory. I mean it in the most broad sense possible. To quoth Wiki: "In philosophy, theory (from ancient Greek theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action."

I would generally agree with you, but a gap is not the word for what we are discussing. Perhaps more fittingly or ironically we could invoke the phrase "a quantum leap." We are saying we can theorize more accurately than any evangelist that 13.7 billion years ago something unexplainable happened. We have no idea what actually could have caused the big bang theory, and the more narrow we go the more questions conversely arise. What started the process? Where did any of the energy or matter come from? We also theorize this is not even the first big bang to ever happen. So what happens if prior to our current rotation of bang-crunch, something did persist existing? What then if this entity that continued to exist has some (disregarding if major or minor) power to alter our universe? Could this theoretically not have happened just as the bang bang itself 'occurred'?

It is quite alarming that one that fancies themselves a philosopher can go insofar to quickly sweep aside an argument. I actually believe the side you're arguing for to be the more reasonable one. But why does that mean we can not equally allow question to it? We have no pure undeniable evidence either way, at least give both sides equal thought my friends.

They aren't easy questions. But we can only know if we have evidence for it. It may be possible that some things are unknowable or ungraspable. We can certainly ask questions and investigate to the best of our ability.

"Actually the science of true AI is relatively complex. Theoretically with unlimited connection to outside sources, it could manipulate itself in to a virus"

These are pretty big claims that aren't saying much. What does it mean to have "unlimited connection to outside sources"? "Manipulate itself into a virus"? The complexity and resources required for these kind of events to occur is stupendous.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Frozen Beat

"For one thing, you can't "surpass" the Uncertainty Principle. It's an intrinsic property -- it's a logically fundamental concept that has nothing to do with the accuracy of our measurement devices or the methods we use. It describes, for instance, how the more we know about position, we know less about its momentum, and vice-versa (in terms of simultaneity and infinitely arbitrary precision)."
Are you sure?

@ Fly article: Sweet, thanks

Yes, I am sure.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Frozen Beat

When you mentioned robots->viruses, I couldn't help but remember, and now mention that computer viruses might potentially become as deadly as real viruses.

As Michio Kaku said, maybe we should fear AI once it gains the intelligence of a monkey.

That's a far ways off, and I have no idea what will happen.

I find it annoying when people post specific dates for when the big bang happened. I've heard 16.5 billion, 15 billion, 14 billion, 18 billion (all from credible scientists, not lunatics), a heck load of numbers, and in reality, they're huge gaps apart from eachother. I got no idea what to think of it.

M-theory, although in its infancy, might have to potential to explain the big bang. This is what they've got so far: strings (which are theoretical themselves) can stretch to perhaps even the size of our universe. Maybe our universe is a 3 dimensional membrane floating in a higher dimensional surface. Perhaps a collision with another membrane is what has cause the big bang.

Of course, this is all speculative. As Steven Weinberg has said, "M-theory could prove to be a tragic failure, but I can't imagine why nature would waste all that mathematical elegance."

Axioms annoy me actually, if anybody knows, please clarify how they proved 1+1=2.

I find English, in a sense, to be a failed language. The sense that I'm talking about, is that it fails to truly define things. I mean like, shoot for example, define: consciousness. Define: Existance. Define: Purpose. We really can't pin anything down, rather, I think we should make classifications.

Reasoning is really all ad hoc, but at least it's decent.

Who the hell is quoting numbers like that? The age of the universe is around 13.75 billion years old. It doesn't venture far from this.

"Axioms annoy me actually, if anybody knows, please clarify how they proved 1+1=2."
Luckily for us, mathematics is a language that we, as humans, have fully defined. 1+1=2 because we say it is.

BTW I can define consciousness and purpose pretty easily. Existence is a bit tougher. Language doesn't break down here.

The English language only really breaks down when we approach things like quantum mechanics, for instance. This is why we use math to describe quantum physics to a greater degree of precision. The wave/particle duality doesn't really exist. But it doesn't make sense for us to call things "wavicles," either. We call some things particles on the macro scale because they exhibit particle-like qualities and some things waves on the macro scale because they exhibit wave-like qualities. But it doesn't make sense when we try to extrapolate this to the quantum levels, where things make take some properties of one category and other properties of another, etc. Thankfully, math is a sort of language that has much use to us.

[ledwix]

It's strange that an animal on Earth has such curiosity. Never before has anything like this happened, as far as we know. Then again, we don't know that much regarding races that populate the universe in general. A race of primitive hunters and gatherers evolves to develop complex languages, wonder about the nature of reality, develop models, both qualitative and mathematical, alleging some sort of inductive truths greater than the truth's known in the life of the individual, create technologies and economies that promote longer and more convenient lifestyles for billions of people, many of whom are able to communicate instantly with one another across an invisible, barely existent, yet massively powerful network of information, discover the true shape of the planet, and even look for and find other places like our own home planet, all because we dared to think about things beyond our own personal sustenance and also imagine the world as an objective reality guided by a programmed set of laws ready to be discovered.

As curious humans, we think we can know everything. The fact that we exist in between the very small and very large shows that we likely can't. It seems natural that we take conjecture and belief as closer to fact than would be logically justified. Well, it's at least fun to speculate and think something is true. It gives security sometimes.

[Vests]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

They aren't easy questions. But we can only know if we have evidence for it. It may be possible that some things are unknowable or ungraspable. We can certainly ask questions and investigate to the best of our ability.

"Actually the science of true AI is relatively complex. Theoretically with unlimited connection to outside sources, it could manipulate itself in to a virus"

These are pretty big claims that aren't saying much. What does it mean to have "unlimited connection to outside sources"? "Manipulate itself into a virus"? The complexity and resources required for these kind of events to occur is stupendous.

It would be more productive to talk about the subject at hand. We could start a AI thread if you'd like to continue that conversation there.