Vivian on 3/2/2011 at 19:35
Quote Posted by Kolya
Being compared to an automaton seems to be the highest honour lately given away by the halfwits.
As of last friday, thats
Dr halfwit to you.
Koki on 3/2/2011 at 19:52
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Well, this was an interesting thread that got shot to shit far too soon.
It's a question of philosophy
demagogue on 3/2/2011 at 21:02
Having been a philosophy major, what I don't like as much about questions like this is that it's dancing around the real issue, when it'd be better to just go straight to it.
And that is: what's the relationship between experience and behavior?
All this question really does is get at that main question from an arguably interesting angle. But it'd be better if we just went straight for the jugular.
Nobody really cares much about 2 people sharing exactly the same experience. But we should care a LOT about all the hidden elements that go into what we think is just normal experience and normal behavior. There's nothing mundane about normal experience and behavior; the simplest things are astounding and almost beyond comprehension! Ask any AI researcher trying to do something as simple as get a camera to track a person walking. Do you have any idea how galactically complex are seemingly simple concepts as "above" and "in" are in practice? Ask an AI researcher trying to get a computer to successfully discriminate one object "above" or "in" another
My general attitude is fuck the scifi questions on their own terms. Who cares? I wonder how it's even possible people have experience and behavior at all! That said, some scifi thought experiments, including this one, can be more or less useful to answering such basic questions, but they're only a means to that vastly more important end. Keep your eyes on the prize.
Back to that: is behavior determined purely by experience? Most people these days agree it's no. Then the issue becomes what else is involved? And where does it come from? Saying "DNA" (or "molecules") begs the question a little; what selection pressure got it in the DNA, and what function does it have in the brain in selecting our behavior? What does that imply about our sense of freedom and agency? Those are the sort of things that I find interesting.
Sg3 on 3/2/2011 at 21:39
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
the point of the question which is, essentially; given identical biological, temporal and physical characteristics and experiences will there be interpersonal variance in the way someone responds to that particular life.
Yes, this is pretty much what I meant. Thank you. Sulphur was right; the original question was phrased poorly.
Quote Posted by Kolya
there's a question mark at the end. So it may not be a philosophical question after all. Was the author uncertain here or possibly paving the way for a wide scope of interpretations?
Both. [smile]
Quote Posted by Renzatic
If you were to take two identical human entities, and expose them to the same experiences, you would still end up with slightly different personalities between the two at the end of. Each of them having an identical genetic makeup would introduce a bias towards certain things, but wouldn't guarantee that they'd respond to certain situations exactly the same.
Say Person A had a headache one day
But if the two had exactly identical biology and experienced precisely identical experiences, then they would both have the same headache on the same day, yes?
Quote Posted by Briareos H
On a more philosophical note, the problem with "If I'd experienced exactly what you experienced throughout your life" is that you're putting yourself in the place where you're already the same person. That's what demagogue is trying to get at by shoehorning phenomenology philosophy in a slightly clumsy manner: since the construction of the self is a movement of continuous phenomenal integration, if you have experienced exactly what this virtual "other" has experienced, then it can only be from a first person perspective and you can't be discernible from him.
How about an "alternate universe"? I mean, say that there were two copies of the universe. If they were identical in every factor, except that one day a leaf were to fall past the window of Clone 1 and not past the window of Clone 2, then the two would probably end up drastically different people and different "universes." But if they were wholly identical, so much so that no leaf would fall, no air molecule would move, in Clone 1's universe without doing exactly likewise in Clone 2's universe, would not the two clones remain the same?
Vivian on 3/2/2011 at 21:49
Maybe? I'm out of my depth here, but from what I've heard, true randomness/chaos/whatever is a real thing. So given identical inputs, you might get slightly different outputs if you have some element of chaos in there. That sound about right?
Sg3 on 3/2/2011 at 22:03
I think that "randomness" is a term used to describe human uncertainty; or, more accurately, the human inability to determine sufficiently-complex factors. Instead of saying "We don't currently possess the ability to say," instead they say "it's random." For example, dice. If we had better data gathering, storing, and processing abilities, we could calculate the mass, velocity, molecule placement, density, plasticity, ect. of the dice and of the surface they strike, and thus determine where precisely they would go and which sides would end up. But since we can't, we simply call it "random." That doesn't mean it's "true random," it simply means we lack the ability to predict it, at least with our current resources.
By the way, I think that both Koyla and Subjective Effect made very interesting points (as did, of course, many others). Agreement isn't necessarily necessary for mutual increase of knowledge. And, for the record, I agree with those who mused that behavior is evidently determined by a combination of genetics and environmental factors (both "nature" and "nurture," to use equally-confusing but perhaps more traditional terms).
Vivian on 3/2/2011 at 22:08
I used to think that, but from talking to people, I get the impression randomness (or unpredictability - there's a difference I don't really appreciate) is considered a real thing - not just unquantified complexity.
Sg3 on 3/2/2011 at 22:12
Quote Posted by Vivian
from talking to people, I get the impression randomness (or unpredictability - there's a difference I don't really appreciate) is considered a real thing - not just unquantified complexity.
What sorts of people? I know that "most people" I've talked to believe in it, yes. But what about people who have thought about it enough to understand the difference between "current inability to calculate" and "inherent inability to be calculated"? Or, something like that.
Renzatic on 3/2/2011 at 22:13
Quote Posted by Sg3
How about an "alternate universe"? I mean, say that there were two copies of the universe. If they were identical in every factor, except that one day a leaf were to fall past the window of Clone 1 and not past the window of Clone 2, then the two would probably end up drastically different people and different "universes." But if they were wholly identical, so much so that no leaf would fall, no air molecule would move, in Clone 1's universe without doing exactly likewise in Clone 2's universe, would not the two clones remain the same?
That's what I wondered up above, and what SE pondered about as well.
If you did have two identical people in two identical universes, and they performed the exact same routines at the exact same time, day in and day out, then we'd have no other choice but to throw out the idea of free will. Everything is preordained on a molecular level, and we're just along for the ride.
On the other hand, if these two identical people, living in identical universes, began to show divergent behavior, even if they're small changes based around their personality subset, then it'd mean we're not necessarily ruled totally by external forces. That we can make choices.
So which would happen?
Well, I like both chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Sometimes I'll be in the mood for one over the other. Sometimes I'll go into an ice cream shop, and make a spur of the moment decision off some third choice I only just noticed. What if one of those spur of the moment decisions is based off two extra flavors I'd like to try equally? If I had a duplicate in another identical universe, would we make the exact same decisions? Would we go into that ice cream store wanting chocolate, see that the cookie dough and mint chocolate chip flavors interests us more, then both choose the cookie dough, even though we don't have a preference for it over the mint chocolate chip?
Was our choice to choose cookie dough influenced by a gust of air from the heater turning on three minutes after walking through the door? Would our decision have been different if the heater didn't fire at that exact moment because a warm front happened to move out a little more slowly? The list of variables goes on and on and on.
So in the end, would these two people act and make the same decisions if put into identical external circumstances? I have no idea. Like SE, I'd like to think we won't. I like to believe I can ponder upon an idea. But if we are just basic stim-response machines, and our thought processes are nothing more than an illusion influenced solely by external events, then no, we wouldn't.
edit:
Quote Posted by Vivian
Maybe? I'm out of my depth here, but from what I've heard, true randomness/chaos/whatever is a real thing. So given identical inputs, you might get slightly different outputs if you have some element of chaos in there. That sound about right?
From the way I understand it, there is no true randomness in the universe. Everything has a start and end point. It just appears random because the variables in an infinite universe are themselves about infinite, and are impossible to trace. So if you were to have identical universes down to the submolecular level, you'd have universes that experience the same random events.
...I think.
Sg3 on 3/2/2011 at 22:19
Quote Posted by Renzatic
On the other hand, if these two identical people, living in identical universes, began to show divergent behavior, even if they're small changes based around their personality subset, then it'd mean we're not necessarily ruled totally by external forces. That we can make choices.
Choices based on what? Why?
