h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Noggin,

"the simulation still has to *generate* those stimuli"

I disagree, a simulation is a result of the senses being stimulated, not the other way round.


"And for the observer this is enough to qualify the simulation as reality."

It really depends how you define reality. JS Mill said that objects in the external world are a combination of stimuli and possible stimuli. It is these 'objects' that make up reality. Our minds only have access to the stimuli, not the possible stimuli. To argue just the stimuli we are accessing are reality is almost arguing from a point of Idealism. This is flawed as it suggests we can't distinguish between dreams and reality (dreams as in the ones we are aware happen at night), yet clearly we can.

blub-blub

<>

This is would surely only be true if you are thinking of what the *mind* does as "running a simulation". This may be a defensible position, but doesn't seem to be what Argon0 intended.

If we are looking at the brain in a vat/hooked up to the matrix and regard reality as a "combination of stimuli and possible stimuli", then the internal programming of the matrix certainly counts as reality.

Noggin

I'm assuming for the moment that this idea of the matrix (never seen the movie, sorry) leads to determinism for those within it?

Therefore being in the internal programming is like watching a movie (or having a non-lucid dream) and therefore there are only stimuli, there are no possible stimuli, as all that needs exist to convince those within it are a set pattern of stimuli.

Blub-blub

The matrix is basically a version of the brain in a vat thought experiment. In order to make sense of its world (in this case the simulation its hooked up to)that brain *has* to assume that the source of what stimulates its senses is deterministic, though this can't be proved, because the world can be as deterministic as you please and still won't be fully predictable. And of course the feedback it receives will tend to confirm this initial assumption.

It's not like watching a movie because the matrix also receives feedback from the brain. And "the set pattern of stimuli" has to be enormously complicated to account for the world e experience.

Noggin

no... I was using the Matrix as a starting point, as that is what everybody (or most people) have been exposed to...

The idea is not to have a "brain in a bucket" but to simulate the brain, and the stimuli that reach that brain (although that is not strictly necessary if simulating the brain, you could simulate the action in the brain that the stimuli would produce if they reached the brain...)

Christianity vs Hinduism - fascinating - I HAD heard something about this before (and have confirmed it with a Hindu/Religious Scholar I know). But acknowledging (or worshipping) different aspects to ONE god does NOT = polytheism. Worshipping different gods = polytheism - which is how I, at least, see the Roman Catholic Church (who worship "saints" (who can easily be argued to be "minor gods" ) as well as the ONE god) ....

blub-blub, I wasn't just thinking of lucid dreaming, but also those studies by the military on sleeplessness where elements of the dream world are superimposed over the view of 'reality'.

Not too impressed by that quote, it's basically saying "you're wrong" without any backup. I shall have to read a bit further to see if there is any valid theorising behind it.

I would say more but I'm sat at home with the flu and feel very cr*p so will probably make lots of mistakes, so I won't!

Get well soon!

Noggin,

"It's not like watching a movie because the matrix also receives feedback from the brain."

This idea of feedback suggests a degree of analysis going on, ie the minds responses are measured and apropriate stimuli delivered, all that exists is cause and effect, still leaving out possible stimuli in the imagined world. A 'reality' is composed of many possible stimuli, no feedback is necessery, these are already in existence.

Argon0,

Before I respond t your first point, are you using the words 'brain' and 'mind' interchangabley, or are you arguing from a belief that the mind dosn't actually exist?

"Worshipping different gods = polytheism"

Would you not agree that the protestant church (and others) do direct their prayer towards different gods, the father, the son and the holy spirit? In my experience sometimes christians pray to Our Father, at other times Jesus.

Ic,
"Not too impressed by that quote, it's basically saying "you're wrong" without any backup."

Norman Malcolm was a specialist in the area of dreams. His argument is that the dream experience is different to the waking one. The second paragraph is the back-up, demonstrating the diffrences.

blub-blub

Where did I use the term 'mind' when talking about simulation (or anything else for that matter)... Imho the terms can be interchangeable - it depends on what you are talking about...

The Brain contains the mind in the same way that a cup contains a cup of tea (well... I think you'll see what I mean) OR the way a computer contains a program. Whether that mind is able to exist without the Brain? Well, I dunno, possibly - but then (ATM) you are getting into Religion/Philosophy...

OK... Christianity being MonoTheistic or PolyTheistic - to Christians, Christianity is MonoTheistic. Others may argue that it isn't and that Christians (or Jews, or Moslems, or Hindus) are fooling themselves (this is their right).

To a Christian GOD has Three Aspects (like a triangle) each of which can be worshipped (if you wish) separately, or together - but they make up ONE whole (as does a Triangle), NOW RCs worshipping Saints, well, that's a different matter, but they still BELIEVE there is but one god (the Saints, as I understand it, intercede with GOD on the worshippers behalf...). For a Hindu, the Triangle becomes a many sided polygon (or a wheel)... To an outsider it may APPEAR as if different gods are being worshipped.

<>

I see no reason why one couldn't simulate a brain, but the real question maybe as to whether one could "simulate" thought and feeling. The problem is that if one produced a really good simulation then it wouldn't be a simulation - it would be the real thing in a different medium.

<>

It's not a very good analogy. The computer program is an "arrangement" of the switches in a computer, not something separate from it in the way that tea is separate from a cup.

<>

Does *anything* exist apart from cause and effect?

What do you mean by "possible stimuli in the imagined world", if not that one part of the mind cn provide stimuli for other parts?

Noggin

"I see no reason why one couldn't simulate a brain, but the real question maybe as to whether one could "simulate" thought and feeling."

Well that IS the question isn't it? If our understanding of the Universe is correct (which it almost certainly isn't!!, or not complete at the very least) then it SHOULD be possible to simulate a brain & the thoughts and feelings within it.

"The problem is that if one produced a really good simulation then it wouldn't be a simulation - it would be the real thing in a different medium."

Yup. Why is that a problem?

"<>

It's not a very good analogy. The computer program is an "arrangement" of the switches in a computer, not something separate from it in the way that tea is separate from a cup."]

I wasn't saying that the analogies were equivalent. The Second analogy may be a better (more accurate) one...

"Does *anything* exist apart from cause and effect?"

Quite possibly not...

"What do you mean by "possible stimuli in the imagined world", if not that one part of the mind cn provide stimuli for other parts?"

I don't mean anything by it, as I didn't type it.. BUT... I imagine that it refers to possible stimuli in a simulated world.

"The computer program is an "arrangement" of the switches in a computer, not something separate from it in the way that tea is separate from a cup."

Interesting contrast.

Are you suggesting that the mind is in some way physically separate and distinct from the brain?

In the teacup analogy, the cup has a specific shape, size and composition, being made is it is from various salts of calcium. It contains the tea, which admittedly shapes itself to the shape of the interior of the cup, but which is physically distinct, being a liquid mainly composed of water with some organic impurities, and which is fundamentally separable from the cup.

By contrast, I think the computer analogy is quite a good one, in that yes, the programme is an arrangement of switches in the computer. The programme has no "existence" per se as a physical entity, since *physically* within any given computer all programmes are equivalent, since they are just different arrangements of the same switches. Further, the programme is NOT fundamentally separable from the computer - it requires the computer as a substrate for its existence. Sure, you can represent it on paper as a list of instructions, but that's not the actual programme, any more than a Haynes manual is a car.

Mind is surely, is it not, merely the emergent property of the physical arrangement of the brain? For if it is NOT, and it is as you imply something *physically* separate, then it should be possible to separate the mind from the brain, to weigh the mind, even.

What I think you're talking about is not the mind, but the soul. And I'm not going down THAT road, not for a big clock...

SoRB

SoRB,

Reading your post above Humphrey Littletons voice appeared in my head explaining the rules of 'One song to the tune of the Other'. Your explanation has that ring about it!

ALfster?

SoRB - thank you - my points almost precisely - except a Computer Program can also exist after the computer is turned off, and can be moved from one computer to another (via disks or e-mail)...

Weigh the "mind"? -- hmm I thought I had heard something about this, and indeed there was a Film made (called 21 grams) about the Body losing mass on the point of death.

This is based on the work of one Dr. Duncan MacDougall which has largely been discounted see http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp, but truly needs much more work done on it to know either way.

There is an interesting article over at Wikipedia about the "mind" or "soul" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul.

"except a Computer Program can also exist after the computer is turned off, and can be moved from one computer to another (via disks or e-mail)..."

Hmm. I disagree with both of those. If the computer is switched off, the program no longer exists *as a program*, because the program is an arrangement of on and off states, and without power, everything is off.

As for using a disk... you can start with a program in computer A and end up with the same program in computer B, but in between what you have is NOT a program, it's a *description* of a program. This is an important distinction, I think, especially when you're getting into mind/brain software/hardware discussions.

This does admittedly require a pretty specific and dogmatic definition of the word "program", which excludes things like listings, installers, saved files, flow charts etc. and only includes actual running copies of the program.

One other point - if a program is running on computer A, which has a particular kind of processor, and it's copied onto disk and thence to computer B, which has a compatible but different processor - is it the same program? It may achieve the same results, but by different physical means.

Taking that further, if I've write a desktop calculator program for Windows, then port it to MacOS, is it the same program? If I go to great lengths to make it "look and feel" the same and give all the same results - is it the same program?

In both instances, I'd say not. Any other offers?

SoRB

Hmmmm.... You are right, your description DOES rely on a pretty dogmatic, and arguable, definition of a Program.

I KNOW programmer's would disagree with your definiion (after all I am one, to a greater or lesser extent, and sit next to a professional programmer who agrees with me).

Hmmmm... A quick look at Dictionary.com provides these:

"# A set of coded instructions that enables a machine, especially a computer, to perform a desired sequence of operations.
# An instruction sequence in programmed instruction."

The program exists BEFORE it is executed or run by the computer's CPU.

"If the computer is switched off, the program no longer exists *as a program*, because the program is an arrangement of on and off states, and without power, everything is off."

But it does, it just doesn't exist as a *running program*. It is there stored as zeros and ones on the Hard Drive or other storage medium. Many programs will run only a little bit of themselves at a time - and will call other bits when asked to do so from either disk or Memory.

"One other point - if a program is running on computer A, which has a particular kind of processor, and it's copied onto disk and thence to computer B, which has a compatible but different processor - is it the same program? It may achieve the same results, but by different physical means."

Well depends what you mean by copied. If you run the program from disk then take that disk to another computer it is EXACTLY the same program. If you copy the program to another disk it's similar (in the mathematical sense, of the same but different - like a clone). But in essence it is the same. If you have to rewrite it to run it, it's not the same.

Actually as long as the instructions are the same the program is the same.

"Taking that further, if I've write a desktop calculator program for Windows, then port it to MacOS, is it the same program? If I go to great lengths to make it "look and feel" the same and give all the same results - is it the same program?"

No, definitely not. In the same way that fish and birds are different (they basically do the same thing, but in a different medium - I mean this as a VERY LOOSE metaphor), its a different program (you've had to rewrite it, the instructions ARE different).

"You are right, your description DOES rely on a pretty dogmatic, and arguable, definition of a Program."

Well, yeah.

"I KNOW programmer's would disagree with your definiion (after all I am one, to a greater or lesser extent, and sit next to a professional programmer who agrees with me)."

Hmm. You know *some* programmers who would disagree with me.

"The program exists BEFORE it is executed or run by the computer's CPU."

Hang on - you're talking about different things, and saying they are the same thing.

Consider - I can, if you like, instantiate a computer program as a flow chart, as a listing scribbled in my handwriting on a piece of paper, as a listing typed into a compiler, as final compiled code stored on a disk, or as a set of instructions actually in the process of affecting the internal state of a processor.

What you're saying is that all those different instantiations are the SAME THING.

What I'm saying is that only the very last one is a program proper - all the others are just *representations*.

An example from a different medium - do you consider a piece of sheet music and a performance of it (or even a recording of a performance of it) to be the same thing?

"But it does, it just doesn't exist as a *running program*."

Ah, well this is where the analogy breaks down. The "mind" is not a program, it's just *like* a *running program*. It is not, perhaps cannot be, documented or recorded. That's why I need my dogmatic definition, you see, to exclude all those instantiations of a program that are something other than a *running* program.

"Many programs will run only a little bit of themselves at a time - and will call other bits when asked to do so from either disk or Memory."

Good point. This brings up the provocative question of whether you use your entire mind all the time. You demonstrably (by use of CAT scans) use your entire BRAIN all the time to some extent or another.

"Well depends what you mean by copied. If you run the program from disk then take that disk to another computer it is EXACTLY the same program."

Even if the processor is a compatible one but with a different internal architecture?

"If you copy the program to another disk it's similar (in the mathematical sense, of the same but different - like a clone). But in essence it is the same. If you have to rewrite it to run it, it's not the same."

What about if you write a program in FORTRAN, say, but have to compile it for different processors? Exactly the same sequence of instructions at the high level, but a different object code - same program?

"Actually as long as the instructions are the same the program is the same."

Same question - instructions at what level?

SoRB

"Even if the processor is a compatible one but with a different internal architecture?" Yes, as long as the instructions are the same. The fact that they are interpreted differently is besides the point. The PROGRAM remains the same.

Hmm.. Fortran... Compiling... Well.. the Fortran Program is the same in each case... BUT the compiled instructions are different (different languages) - so the Program IS NOT THE SAME. As long as the instructions ARE THE SAME it is the same program - the instructions are the program.

OK by your definition (which you are of course at liberty to use) then they are all different. In fact whenever you run a program you are running it under slightly different conditions so its different every time. By your definition if you stop a program (clear it from memory) and start it again you are starting a DIFFERENT Program. Fine, as long as you are happy with your definition, and leave me to work with the majority of the world....

BTW do you believe in the Moon Landings? If you do come and give us a hand over here: http://pub23.bravenet.com/forum/1911968755/.

Interesting links, Argon0... thank you.

"the Fortran Program is the same in each case..."

The INSTRUCTIONS in FORTRAN are the same...

"BUT the compiled instructions are different (different languages)"

OK...

" - so the Program IS NOT THE SAME."

Hang on though...

"As long as the instructions ARE THE SAME it is the same program"

But the instructions *I* gave - the instructions in FORTRAN - ARE the same.

" - the instructions are the program."

Like I said - at what level? What is "the program"?

- the underlying algorithm?
- the FORTRAN listing?
- the pattern of bits that make up the stored FORTRAN program in the computer memory?
- the OPCODE representation of the assembly language output of the compiler?
- the hexadecimal representation of the same output?
- the actual physical internal arrangement of the processor while the program is running?

In the analogy with "mind", the "program" is only the very last one - everything else, even a BINARY listing of what gets fed into the register of the processor, is NOT the program but just a representation of it.

All of this is of course rather academic, but I find it interesting that you've allowed that while the instructions are the same it's the same program, but that you don't allow that to be the case for the FORTRAN instructions. What's the difference? Is the FORTRAN program not a program? If not, what is it? ...

SoRB