X-Message-Number: 8221 Subject: Re: Why ask for proof Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 13:05:09 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" <> > From: (Thomas Donaldson) > > Your line of argument seems odd to me. Yes, neither Ettinger nor I can PROVE > that we are not simulations, or brains in vats, or even have consciousness... > if by PROVE you mean prove in the mathematical sense. But then mathematics > isn't the means by which we gain most of our information about the everyday > world. You can no more prove the opposite: that you ARE in a simulation, or > a brain in a vat. (And Mr. Clark cannot even prove ... in this sense of the > world "prove" ... that he is a brain in a skull). > > You have presented no more or less than a game with words. Yet this game > seems to mean something to you. So just what does it mean and why is it > important to you? It isn't a word game. Its the heart of science. Some people here are claiming there is this special property called "anima", oh, pardon, "consciousness", which is not smellable, tastable or otherwise observable, and that this invisible fluid infests their brains but not a computer that would be otherwise indistinguishable in conversation over a teletype. Well, there is a problem with this, you see. One of the smarter philophers of science, Sir Karl Popper, long ago said (approximately) "if you can't falsify a hyptothesis -- if there is no test you can conduct to show that would disprove the hypothesis -- its useless." Science depends on constructing TESTABLE hypotheses, you see. If you can't test it, its religion, not science. I can hypothesize that there is an invisible undetectable six foot tall bunny following Robert Ettinger at all times, and no one could prove me wrong -- but since no one can conduct a test of any sort to prove me wrong, we can ignore the question as religious, not scientific. You have presented us with the "consciousness hypothesis", which holds that you are conscious, and that this is a special property that you have and that a properly programmed computer can't have. Well, give me a test with which I can try to falsify this hypothesis. The Turing Test isn't a perfect test of "intelligence", but it at least has the advantage of being a fixed procedure which yields the answer "yes" or "no" at its end. Several people here claim that even if a computer passes the Turing test, it isn't "conscious" but that they are. Well, if thats the case, GIVE ME A TEST. Show me how to falsify the "consciousness hypothesis" -- give me a standard by which to judge if an entity is "conscious" or not. Unfortunately, there isn't one. That means that ultimately, this is RELIGION, not SCIENCE. Now you ask "why do I keep asking the 'prove you aren't a brain in a vat' question?" Well, Robert Ettinger claims the world can't be simulated well enough by a computer to allow someone to live their life out inside the simulation. He claims you can always "tell" you are in a simulation. Fair enough. Given this, I asked him to present me with some sort of scientific test -- that is, an experiment we could conduct that would allow us to falsify the hypothesis that Robert Ettinger is living in a simulation. I'm not asking for a mathematical proof. A device Mr. Ettinger could construct that would output "Yes" or "No" would be fine provided he could convince us that the device would actually work. If Mr. Ettinger cannot give us a test we can conduct -- if he is merely saying "I don't believe this could be done" -- with the emphasis on "believe" -- what we are seeing is RELIGION, not SCIENCE. Science requires *falsifiablity* -- not "belief". Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8221