----- Original Message -----
From: "Quentin Anciaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth

Hi Norman,

Le Jeudi 2 Février 2006 07:14, Norman Samish a écrit :
>   (NS) I don't deny that a future AI might be able to accurately replicate my brain and thought patterns.  I can't imagine why it would want to.  But even if it did, this would not be "me" returning from the dead - it would be a simulation by a AI.

What is "you" then?  How do you define it?  Like I said in an earlier mail, "me" seems to be an instantaneous and emerging concept... The Norman in the simulation would say he is "him"... Talking about indexical reference when talking about future/past/copied self has no meaning... Or please define what is "you".

Quentin Anciaux
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Quentin,
   
I'm not sure what you're getting at.  I have to guess what you mean by "instantaneous and emerging concept" and "indexical reference."
 
I'm unskilled in the nuances of scientific philosophy.  Nevertheless, I am able to reason and draw conclusions. 
 
I agree that nothing is certain - we all deal in probabilities.  I think that it is highly probable that I am a unique (in our universe) self-aware organism writing this note.  That's what I define as "me."  I think it is highly unlikely that some hypothetical AI could make a Norman simulation that is unaware it is a simulation.  Such a simulation would, of course, think it was "me."   But it would be mistaken.  I think there is one "truth," which is that it is a simulation and I am the real thing.
 
My conjecture is that a perfect simulation by a limited-resource AI would not be possible.  If this is correct, then self-aware simulations that are perpetually unaware that they are simulations would not be possible.  Humans have not made the discovery that they are simulations, therefore the most probable situation is that we are not simulations.
 
Norman

Reply via email to