Most Interesting Question.

[Pirate]

I disagree. We must first be able to recognize weaknesses in our innate, human perceptions, before we can make accurate observations of time, energy, human interaction, etc....

I think relativity theory was a big step in realizing these limitations. The concepts of extra dimensions, curved space, quantum superposition and uncertainty illuminate our perceptual limitations every day. I think the TOE (theory of Everything, not Evolution) will take us closer to having that flat lens.

@Gothmog - you said very well some of the things I had been trying to say. thanks for the added perspective.

 

[betazed]

If we are looking through everything through a convex lens, thing will appear larger than they are. We must first be sure our lens is a flat, completely transparent piece of glass, and I do not think our perceptions have been studied enough to truly understand the nature of the universe.

We do have such a completely transparent piece of glass. Generally, it is called the scientific method. Specifically, i think it is just Mathematics. If something is mathematically true then it is true.

Which actually brings us to another very interesting question.

Why should nature obey the laws of mathematics? Whenever we have found something to be mathematically true, irrespective of how impossible it may seem, it has turned out to be true. Is there a platonic reality of mathematics that is somehow hidden from us and we uncover it a bit at a time (or rather a theorem at a time)?

 

[eyrei]

Whether there is any sort of afterlife is, to me, the most interesting question. Having the answer to this would so drastically change the way that people look at the world and life in general that nothing would be the same.

 

[betazed]

Whether there is any sort of afterlife is, to me, the most interesting question. Having the answer to this would so drastically change the way that people look at the world and life in general that nothing would be the same.

Why would you call that an unanswered question?

The scientific answer to that question is that there is none. No one has seen it, no one has any evidence for it; so there is none.

 

[Gothmog]

@Neomega: I am not sure what you are getting at.

On the one hand it seems you are saying that we are nothing more than a soft machine, which in many peoples view negates the possibility of free will. That is because software by its nature will respond to identical initial conditions and identical stimuli in an identical fashion. Thus there is no chance for it to do anything other than what it does, thus no free will. No choices, only responding to stimuli in the only way you possibly could.

Indeed the ghost in the machine metaphor speaks to how we could believe we have free will even if we don't. Self awareness by its self does not imply free will, nor the ability to influence the future. The question is if you have a true choice about how you influence the future.

And no, chaos theory doesn't give you an out here because it only implies an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions and stimuli, not unpredictability. Only the uncertainty principle breeds true unpredictability AFAIK, but that is random uncertainty - the 'God plays at dice' type - not the driven type implied by possessing free will.

On the other hand you seem to be saying that you believe in free will. I am not sure how to reconcile these positions.

I would also mention that any system with nonrepeating states can be interpreted as a computer running any program you please. A waterfall for example can be interpreted as a string of random numbers and in turn the collected works of Shakespeare, from the correct perspective. Just like the 'bible code'. So it may be that there is more to consciousness than computation (and as I mentioned consciousness doesn't imply free will).



What I was trying to say with 'to even attempt an answer we must first understand the present nature of reality' was that to know why things are as they are one must first know what things are. For example, did God create reality? So I am not sure what you are disagreeing with there.

I do not think our perceptions have been studied enough to truly understand the nature of the universe. In fact, I think the issue has largely been ignored

Again you are quite vague in what you mean here, but the issue certainly has not been ignored rather it is central. Who would have thought that all mass accelerates at the same rate in the earth's gravitational field before Galileo? The uncertainty principle was a direct result of such an inquiry, in some sense relativity was too. Even the spectrograph addresses this point. The very scientific method is a way of trying (not necessarily achieving) to deal with our problematic, subjective, perspective.

 

[betazed]

Indeed the ghost in the machine metaphor speaks to how we could believe we have free will even if we don't.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the "Ghost in the machine" metaphor speaks about how we can have a free will even if by all accounts we should not. So "Ghost in the machine" is closer to the weak AI pov, i.e.

the human brain may be simulated on a computer but even then then the computer will still not exhibit consciousness, because there is a "ghost" a "spirit", a whatever you call it, in our machine, that sets us apart. How and Why such a ghost is manifested in our specfic biochemical hardware is of course up for grabs.

Am i mistaken?

 

[Pirate]

Why would you call that an unanswered question?

The scientific answer to that question is that there is none. No one has seen it, no one has any evidence for it; so there is none.

Well, I don't think anyone has actually done any experiments on the existence of an afterlife, so we have no empirical evidence either way. State your null hypothesis - "there is no life after death." Okay... what experiment can you do to test that? I think it may be an easily proven question once we find out how to prove it, but no one has come up with a way to do that yet (except the people in the movie "Flatliners").

(PS - this is not one of those "you can't disprove it, so it must exist" arguments. I'm basically saying that no one has created a scientific experiment that could show empirical proof yet)

 

[Thadlerian]

Voted "Physical basis of the mind", as that one would tell me about the future, and what happens after I die.

Or perhaps I won't like the answer at all, and just don't want to know.

 

[betazed]

Well, I don't think anyone has actually done any experiments on the existence of an afterlife, so we have no empirical evidence either way. State your null hypothesis - "there is no life after death." Okay... what experiment can you do to test that? I think it may be an easily proven question once we find out how to prove it, but no one has come up with a way to do that yet (except the people in the movie "Flatliners").

(PS - this is not one of those "you can't disprove it, so it must exist" arguments. I'm basically saying that no one has created a scientific experiment that could show empirical proof yet)

But you are trying to prove a non-existence. That is impossible.

Scientific method says that your null hypothesis should be "there is life after death".

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well, I don't think anyone has actually done any experiments on the existence of an afterlife, so we have no empirical evidence either way. State your null hypothesis - "there is no life after death." Okay... what experiment can you do to test that? I think it may be an easily proven question once we find out how to prove it, but no one has come up with a way to do that yet (except the people in the movie "Flatliners").

(PS - this is not one of those "you can't disprove it, so it must exist" arguments. I'm basically saying that no one has created a scientific experiment that could show empirical proof yet)

OK.

There are pink carrots with blue dots on them in a planet far far away, and they have exactly the same taste as the ones of earth, except it's slightly sugared.

You have no way to prove it's wrong. As a result, you can't deny it's right.

 

[Pirate]

But you are trying to prove a non-existence. That is impossible.

Scientific method says that your null hypothesis should be "there is life after death".

I see my error. There is anecdotal evidence however...

From your other post:

How and Why such a ghost is manifested in our specfic biochemical hardware is of course up for grabs.

That is exactly my unanswered question.
<edit>Breifly, could you tell me what is the difference between "hard" and "soft" AI?

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Breifly, could you tell me what is the difference between "hard" and "soft" AI?

That's a Most Interesting Question.
Sorry...couldn't resist.

 

[Mark1031]

An experiment in free will:

Raise your right arm. You can do it, great you must have free will. Or are you simply responding to my stimulus.

Now, if you're an atheist-- believe in God. Just do it for the experiment, you can will yourself back to being an atheist after that. If you're religious deny God.
Can you do it? I mean really do it so that you believe it not just that you activate the motor program to cause the appropriate statement to come out of your mouth.

You're in a bad mood. will yourself to be happy in the next five minutes.

You're a straight man, will yourself to find George Bush indescribably sexually attractive.

I think you'll find that there are really a lot of things that we quite clearly have no free will over.

 

[Pirate]

OK.

There are pink carrots with blue dots on them in a planet far far away, and they have exactly the same taste as the ones of earth, except it's slightly sugared.

You have no way to prove it's wrong. As a result, you can't deny it's right.

Well, I can prove that one wrong by going to all those planets and tasting any pink carrot I find. I think Betazed rebutted my argument more succinctly.

<edit> well conversely, if we claim "there is an afterlife" we cannot disprove it in the same way. Neither can we develop an experiment to disprove it. All we have are models of the brain which scientifically say there is no soul, but those models may be incomplete. As it stands now, betazed is right - science says there is no afterlife, but if the models are revised (see the ghost in the machine discussion in this thread) then we need a new test.

So I guess I'll restate my question. Can we develop an experiment to test the validity of Betazed's null hypothesis, namely "there is life after death"

 

[stormbind]

Well, I can prove that one wrong by going to all those planets and tasting any pink carrot I find. I think Betazed rebutted my argument more succinctly.

But you can't say it's wrong until you have gone around and tasted them... so when do you suppose you will get back from your long voyage?

 

[betazed]

There is anecdotal evidence however...

really? Care to share it?

Breifly, could you tell me what is the difference between "hard" and "soft" AI?

The "hard AI" aka "strong AI" basically says that our brain runs a very complex algorithm which can in principle be simulated on any sufficiently advanced computer, and any such computer running the algorithm will exhibit all properties of the human brain, including consciousness (however you define it).

The "soft AI" aka "weak AI' says that our brain runs a very complex algorithm which can in principle be simulated on any sufficiently advanced computer, but consciousness is really a function of the specific bio-chemical hardware of the brain.

If strong AI is true then a sufficiently advanced silicon based computer will pass the Turing Test (provided we can reliably test for consciousness - which obviously depends on the definition of consciousness). If weak AI is true then no such computer will ever pass the Turing Test.

 

[Pirate]

But you can't say it's wrong until you have gone around and tasted them... so when do you suppose you will get back from your long voyage?

Betazed pointed out that you cannot prove a non-existence. Marla proposed an existence of a special alien carrot. There IS a way to disprove or prove Marla's hypothesis - by going out and finding the carrot. We just don't have the technology to do so yet.

Likewise, if as betazed said we must phrase the null hypothesis as "there IS an afterlife" then we should be able to disprove or prove it. Like Marla's alien carrots, there must be a way to prove it, we just don't have the technology yet.

There is another way to prove Marla's hypothesis with today's technology. We know how plants grow here on earth. We can model mechanisms determining color and sugar content and determine if it is possible to have a pink carrot that tastes slightly sugared and we can search for planetary systems that might have planets where this can grow. We can determine a probability that most people would be comfortable with. OTOH, we could model the mechisims for color and sugar and find that such a carrot is impossible, or come up with a probablility that is very low. Either way we are coming to a decision about whether it exists or not. However, since our decision is based on models they can change (e.g. with the discovery of plants on mars we could extend our model to include new mechanisms for plant growth).

Today's models of the brain and the search for the "ghost in the machine" say that there is no soul, there is no afterlife. This could change, because like the alien carrot we are working with models that might be incomplete.

 

[Mark1031]

The problem with this discussion is that not every hypothesis that can be stated falls under the purview of science.
Science as an approach to understanding the world requires, at least in theory, that you can undertake to test your hypothesis, that is, that you have the the means of investigation at your disposal to disapprove if that is what nature dictates. There are an infinite number of hypotheses that can be stated which simply can not be addressed by science at the moment.

OTOH. My experiment a few posts up disapproves the hypothesis of unfettered human freewill.

 

[Gothmog]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the "Ghost in the machine" metaphor speaks about how we can have a free will even if by all accounts we should not.

I am not sure even where this metaphor originates, so I do not know what its original intent was. I associate it with the mind body duality, and the experience of consciousness, not with the question of free will. I also associate ‘ghost’ with an inability to interact with the real world. This may indeed be my bias.

I was just pointing out in another way that consciousness does not imply free will. The ghost may live in the machine but be unable to affect it.

the human brain may be simulated on a computer but even then then the computer will still not exhibit consciousness, because there is a "ghost" a "spirit", a whatever you call it, in our machine, that sets us apart. How and Why such a ghost is manifested in our specfic biochemical hardware is of course up for grabs.

I agree with this, it is our ghost that sets us apart (in this metaphor and the soft AI hypothesis). That unquantifiable, presently untestable element… personally I thank God for it (heh). But even so the question of free will, of the ghost affecting the machine, is an open one.

Am i mistaken?

Not at all.

 

[Neomega]

There is another way to prove Marla's hypothesis with today's technology. We know how plants grow here on earth. We can model mechanisms determining color and sugar content and determine if it is possible to have a pink carrot that tastes slightly sugared and we can search for planetary systems that might have planets where this can grow.

This would not prove they exist on a planet far away. It would only prove the possibility... which is already a given, because anything is possible.