Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Conceptual models are not scientific claims (or don't have to be) about the world. It doesn't matter a hoot if there are several that are equivalent except that it can be useful to know that they are equivalent in some or all ways.Some may claim some conceptual model is true which may not be a scientific claim. As you know, it's not a mistake I make. Hawkins iirc is a fan of ma
Chez: science uses conceptual models.
Also Chez: conceptual models are not scientific claims.
Alrighty, then.
Which models are you talking about? Many worlds is not really a scientific model, for example, it's more a philosophical one. It's not falsifiable. I don't think simulation theory is really falsifiable in most formulations either.
The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics seems like a scientific theory to me, because it is meant to explain scientific and mathematical data. Of course I guess if you want to bite the bullet on theoretical physics not being scientific, you could, but I don’t bite that bullet myself.
The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics seems like a scientific theory to me, because it is meant to explain scientific and mathematical data. Of course I guess if you want to bite the bullet on theoretical physics not being scientific, you could, but I don’t bite that bullet myself.
Most theoretical physicists don't take many worlds too seriously, precisely because it's not falsifiable. With the exception of Sean Carroll who has some contrarian views on the subject.
Most theoretical physicists don't take many worlds too seriously, precisely because it's not falsifiable. With the exception of Sean Carroll who has some contrarian views on the subject.
Sean Carroll is an extremely minor figure in academia who didn't even get tenure because he doesn't have the work. His opinions are for podcasts. Many worlds is a fairy tale.
Is there empirical data on how many theoretical physicists take it seriously?
Just looked it up and Wiki has this section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-world...
More than I thought.
Trying to know reality scientifically, by stripping the pursuit of moral content, is the donkey trying to catch the carrot — the carrot that is on a stick attached to the donkey’s head.
Trying to know reality scientifically, by stripping the pursuit of moral content, is the donkey trying to catch the carrot — the carrot that is on a stick attached to the donkey’s head.
Well, that's cleared everything up then.
Most theoretical physicists don't take many worlds too seriously, precisely because it's not falsifiable. With the exception of Sean Carroll who has some contrarian views on the subject.
None of QM's METAphysical interpretations eg Copenhagen are falsifiable because they all make the same predictions, yo.
Physics just correlates empirical facts. META provides a casual link. Electromagnetism being an example. The casual link opens up new hypothesis. Like the way the law of flotation eventually made hot air balloons. Once we get at the fundamental principles, we can figure out what conditions we need to provide to get a different outcome than nature spontaneously provides, like a ship made of steel.
"Only natural brains can be sentient ergo artificial brains cannot be sentient by the preceding argument." You must have been top boy in kindergarten debate society.
You could show sentience outside of a brain or go back to the 5th bottle of cheap cleaning alcohol you just opened. You're basically chezlaw but waaaaaaaaay more drunk....
Also my whole point was in response to the wannabe philosophizer who asked what are we gonna do if AI becomes sentient soon and has a list of the naughty people who said bad things about AI....
You could show sentience outside of a brain or go back to the 5th bottle of cheap cleaning alcohol you just opened. You're basically chezlaw but waaaaaaaaay more drunk....
High praise indeed.
If we could just get him on the good stuff
Conceptual models are not scientific claims (or don't have to be) about the world. It doesn't matter a hoot if there are several that are equivalent except that it can be useful to know that they are equivalent in some or all ways.Some may claim some conceptual model is true which may not be a scientific claim. As you know, it's not a mistake I make. Hawkins iirc is a fan of ma
I dont think he’s been a fan of anything for quite a while.
Unless you meant Justin Hawkins who’s probably more up your street, as well as John21’s who thinks The Darkness is universal.
I dont think he’s been a fan of anything for quite a while.
Unless you meant Justin Hawkins who’s probably more up your street, as well as John21’s who thinks The Darkness is universal.
If an AI started from physics alone, it would never conclude that certain wavelengths of EM radiation produce the subjective experience of brightness. Nor would blind physicists.
You could show sentience outside of a brain or go back to the 5th bottle of cheap cleaning alcohol you just opened. You're basically chezlaw but waaaaaaaaay more drunk....
Also my whole point was in response to the wannabe philosophizer who asked what are we gonna do if AI becomes sentient soon and has a list of the naughty people who said bad things about AI....
I'm more sentient after 5 bottles of turpentine than Billy Bob here is stone cold sober.
BobSlobber has asserted several times that I have an active alt on 2p2,
Curious he won't say who my alleged alt is in this forum.
This just begs the question of what constitutes a brain. You essentially are making the Chinese room argument against a computational theory of mind.
I find that the same people who are fascinated by discussing consciousness are also those fixated on many worlds and simulation theory and other amorphous and/or unfalsifiable ideas. It's just intellectual masturbation, but that's basically philosophy in a nutshell.
I don't think it is entirely intellectual masturbation as applied to machine intelligence. You have to wrestle with what it means to be conscious in order think through the ethics of turning something off. Otherwise you are just making decisions based on assumptions that you haven't really proven are true. For example, I could argue: A thing has to be composed of organic material in order to be alive. A thing has to be alive in order to have the possibility of sentience. Machines are not alive. Therefore machines can never be sentient. But that simple syllogism depends entirely on assumptions that I haven't proven to be true.
If an AI started from physics alone, it would never conclude that certain wavelengths of EM radiation produce the subjective experience of brightness. Nor would blind physicists.
I don’t think “from physics” has enough definition to accept the conclusion as following from the setup of the hypothetical.
If we included in “from physics” all the physical facts, I don’t know why we wouldn’t in principle think that certain samples of light are more intense given certain constraints on the thing receiving the light. If “brightness” just means the intensity which certain beings receive certain parts of the light spectrum, if they had all the physical facts I’m not seeing a reason why they wouldn’t be able to come to those conclusions.
Of course a blind physicist is not going to have the experiential knowledge of what that feels like, but so what? We’re stipulating that they have all the physical facts, which would include facts about how certain parts of the light spectrum cause stress on eyes with normal functionality. So if he had those facts he could definitely conclude things about certain intensities of light!
