Consciousness Bootstrapped by Philip Gibbs

Willy, hopefully most intelligent people who discuss the simulation argument are clear that it cannot be right. There are a few people who think otherwise but that is a different game. Despite this, the simulation argument is very worthy of discussion and analysis. You see the argument begins with some philosophical assumptions, (not all of them explicitly stated) and proceeds to deduce that we must live in a simulation. Since the conclusion is preposterous you can then look at the assumptions and consider which ones may be wrong and what that tells us about reality at a philosophical reality.

What I have done is taken the simulation argument as a test of my philosophical world view. If my view included all the assumptions that led to the conclusion that we are in a simulation then I would rethink my ideas. The point I make in my essay is that the conclusion is avoided.

There seem to be some people who don't understand the point of arguments like the simulation argument. They think that people who discuss it must believe that it might be true. They then provide reasons why it is ridiculous to think we are in a simulation and conclude that everyone else is dumb not to see that. In doing so they completely miss the point of this type of philosophical thought experiment which is really about analyzing assumptions.

Your second argument is another good example of this. It is closely related to the infamous Boltzmann's Brain argument. It question why we have to go through the long process of evolution to exist when in an infinite quantum universe intelligence should eventually appear many times just by random chance. In your terms, why can't we just wait for randomly typing monkeys to produce the goods?

Again many people don't understand why this is worth thinking about because it is obviously an absurd idea. Actually it is the fact that it is absurd that makes it worth thinking about as a way to test assumptions. I don't claim to have all the answers for this.

On the question of intelligence, I am talking about what you call intrinsic intelligence, but you are right that this could be opened up to a wider definition.

My answer to your question would be yes. If you recreate a human brain at the atomic level you will create a second copy of the same consciousness that would be as much the same person as the original. That is provided you also create enough of the rest of the person for the brain to function. I would leave out the word "classical" because if you are talking about the atomic level then you are using quantum mechanics.

It is then interesting to ask how much detail you really need to make the same true. Surely getting every atom in the right place is over-kill? Would a simulated version of the brain be equally acceptable? Is it enough to just model the behavior of each neuron accurately? If so what happens if the copy becomes even more crude? Suppose it became possible to create general simulations of a human brain and train them to replicate your memories? Perhaps someone could just undergo a long interview with a computer in which they recall all their memories and discuss their opinions on everything they can think off, supplemented with photos of all the people and places they have known. If the computer could then use that information to create a version of them that would fool anyone, would it be a valid conscious copy? Suppose the copy is constructed from other people's memories of a person after they die instead of their own memories?

At some point on this scale of possibilities most people are going to say no, that is not a valid copy. I don't think there is a clear point at which that happens. I think that in the future all these things will become possible and it will start with the less perfect copies. Long before they figure out how to revive the people who had their head's frozen at death, it will be possible to create very convincing simulations of people just from an in-depth interview, or even produce a convincing virtual resurrection of someone who died. If you ask people now they are going to say that it will just be an imperfect simulation and not really a valid copy of consciousness. I think when it actually happens this is going to change the way people view consciousness and the self and there will be varying opinions about what it means philosophically. Some people will see a long interview as a much more reliable route to immortality than cryogenics.

I know people have asked questions like this but I don't think they have not gone far enough to anticipate the way it will actually pan out.

Hi, Vladamir. I am glad you are in the contest again and I will certainly read your essay. Thank you for your kind comments.

A common criticism of my essay is that is does not go into enough detail on some point. Of course I acknowledge the validity of that criticism without reservation. Your particular point about goals, intention and meaning is similar to what a few others have said. This is very useful feedback. I should write more about those things but it would require another essay. In fact to do this justice I would have to write a book. Perhaps if I can clear my workload I will even do that sometime.

I am glad you took the point about relative existence. Again there is a lot more that can be said. I like the points you make about it. In fact the different realities can be thought of as separate or as part of one greater reality. Understanding both these views may be important philosophically. I also tried to give the idea that the multiverse is really just one universe of different histories. We know from quantum mechanics that the "other worlds" are interfering with our reality so that we are not just following a classical path through one possibility. The connections between them are important. Again all this requires expansion.

Thank you for your comments that have made me think a little more about these things.

Robert, I am not necessarily saying that this is the case. I am just posing the question. I don't think there is a definitive answer because the question is in the realm of philosophy rather than hard science. I agree that we can learn a lot from these types of question. We will learn even more when some of these things become technically possible. I think different people will react differently according to their philosophical point of view and there is no right or wrong approach. The moral implications will however make it a very serious matter and some legal measures may be required. This will be the time when philosophy of consciousness becomes an applied discipline.

Thank you Christian. It is the last day of voting so I will be going round as many essays as I can today.

Ulla, thanks for your question. It is good to see you here.

My answer to your question is that everything up to consciousness emerges from its logical possibility. Nothing else needs to be added. I know this is a difficult philosophical position for some people but what else can the answer be? If consciousness or anything else arises from something else then that something else has to be explained too. Memories are of the utmost importance for consciousness but they are merely connections in the neural network that is our brain.

Marc, it is good to see you here too. I commented last time round that I wanted to say something about consciousness so I made sure I kept some space for it this time round. It is very relevant to the topic. I am glad you noticed my argument about the simulations. You can see hoe this relates to your clone ideas which is why I was so excited about your essay last time.

Your co-emergence idea adds more to this way of thinking. I like it a lot.

Rajiv, I left academia early in my postdoc phase because I knew other postdocs who had been doing it for ten years with no prospect of a permanent position. Being able to network well is as important as doing good research and I was bad at networking. It then becomes very difficult to start a new career outside academia.

So I left and got a job in software engineering while I could and then worked hard at that for twenty years, doing maths and physics in my spare time, until I had enough financial security to stop and return to independent research full time. I now appreciate being able to follow my own research path without the need to impress others or follow the funding. I don't know anyone who can make enough money writing books or blogs to survive that way.