8 ms·

A clone of a brain state in a different medium would be a Boltzmann brain. It is indeed a freaky concept. Stranger still is the possibility that inanimate matte

A clone of a brain state in a different medium would be a Boltzmann brain. It is indeed a freaky concept. Stranger still is the possibility that inanimate matter could randomly fall into an arrangement that mimics a brain state, say a cloud of atoms in interstellar space, or inside a star. Is it conscious? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

dogma1138 8y ago
Why is this freaky? Consciousness is an utterly arbitrary definition that is not free from debate or alteration. Same goes for life which is why often we use the phrase life as we know it. If a cloud of gas can do everything a brain can and we set an arbitrary set of rules of consciousness and it passes the benchmark then it’s conscious based on our arbitrary definition on a cosmic scale it’s still a cloud of dust just like we are lumpy specs of hydrated carbon. There is no special meaning to life or to consciousness other than the former might be an intrinsic outcome of a universe with an entropy driven arrow of time, and the latter might be an intrinsic outcome of iterative natural selection of self assembling replicating strands of hydrated carbons and other organic molecules.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Why is this freaky? Consciousness is an utterly arbitrary definition that is not free from debate or alteration. It's somewhat arbitrary, but hardly utterly. If anything, not only it comes from direct experience, but is also the most constant experience we have. (That's the point of Descartes cogito ergo sum, btw. We could doubt that the landscape arounds us that we see exists, but we can't really doubt that we think, for to doubt is itself part of thinking).
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    Consciousness is utterly arbitrary now you put in complex thought, doubt, inner monolog and many other things into the mix which again just show how utterly arbitrary the definition of consciousness is as you conjured one yourself. There is no single objective and useful definition for consciousness in philosophy or natural science other than the clinical definition of being aware and responsive to one's surroundings which technically mean that an ameba can be considered conscious since it's definitely aware of it's surroundings. And even the clinical definition is arguably not very useful in the grand scheme of things because it does not deal with inanimate objects and the definition of life is murky at best. So the best the best definition we have for consciousness is a clinical definition which is only applicable to life as we know it which has nothing to do with what ever you were talking about, hence utterly arbitrary.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >Consciousness is utterly arbitrary now you put in complex thought, doubt, inner monolog and many other things into the mix which again just show how utterly arbitrary the definition of consciousness is as you conjured one yourself. There's nothing arbitrary about it. All of those ("thought", "doubt", "inner monolog") go hand in hand with consciousness in the common sense, and at worst case, they are phenomena that presuppose it (secondary effects). It's also quite common in discussions regarding qualia for consciousness to include "self consciousness", not some low level awareness of surroundings that it's not aware of itself. Else a Rumba is also conscious. >And even the clinical definition is arguably not very useful in the grand scheme of things because it does not deal with inanimate objects and the definition of life is murky at best. Well, everything's murky if you try hard enough. Still, aside from some corner cases (e.g. are viruses living, are robots?) life is as clear cut as things come. >So the best the best definition we have for consciousness is a clinical definition which is only applicable to life as we know it which has nothing to do with what ever you were talking about It makes sense it has "nothing to do" with what I was talking about, since that's a definition you brought forward here and put up as the "best" and single useful one. It might be the simpler to test for, or the most useful for medical use. But it's even murkier than mine (since "awareness" itself reintroduces the issue). If we were to be content with low-level awareness then a Roomba is conscious, as it is in a way aware of its surroundings too. When we discuss consciousness, qualia, etc, we go beyond this basic definition. That doesn't make it "utterly arbitrary" -- if that was the case any random definition would do.
      - dogma1138 8y ago
        >There's nothing arbitrary about it. All of those ("thought", "doubt", "inner monolog") go hand in hand with consciousness in the common sense, and at worst case, they are phenomena that presuppose it (secondary effects). Again an arbitrary definition based on a human centric view. It's quite possible that we will develop an AI that would fall under what we would consider consciousness that has no inner monolog, on the other hand it's also quite possible that we'll develop AIs that come no where near consciousness with one. Consciousness as you continue to use it is an utterly arbitrary and irrelevant definition you can set an arbitrary benchmark for any arbitrary type of consciousness you want this is simply defining heuristics which is while can be a useful tool in some cases is not natural law or anything other than arbitrary. > Else a Rumba is also conscious. And what would be the problem or wrong with that? If the definition that supports Rumba being a conscious contraption is a useful heuristic model for you then use it there is no wrong or right with arbitrary definitions there is just useful or not.
- beautifulfreak 8y ago
  It's freaky because the "conscious" state of a Boltzmann brain might last a nanosecond, and could mimic what you are thinking right now, or could be psychotic. Imagine if shifting charges in piezoelectric materials in the dirt could generate Boltzmann brains, so when you take a walk, your footsteps create a string of thoughts in the ground. Maybe those thoughts resemble words, in the language of dirt, and maybe they rhyme, so they're a kind of poetry. Maybe star fusion leads to Boltzmann brains, so our sun sings to itself, or works out mathematics, or occasionally imagines that it is a dog. Such possibilities are freaky, I'd say, but feel free to remain unimpressed. I get your point, but the possibilities strike me as weird and wonderful. I'd be glad to learn that Boltzmann brains exist.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    I don’t think that we have the same definition of freaky. As far as Boltzmann brains go then a classical Boltzmann brain can actually be disproven even without going into the debate if there is even unbounded amount of randomness in the universe. As for quantum Boltzmann brains then it’s not again freaky and it heavily is dependent on how you take on physicality. If you think that the brain is a quantum system then a Boltzmann brain can never be a duplicate of you due to the no cloning theorem. If the brain is not a QM system but a classical one which is more likely to be the case then classical Boltzmann brains aren’t really possible in our universe. Overall this is again a philosophical niche not really physics it’s a fun anecdote to ponder not something you should take on seriously. Now if you want to take evolution as a random activity despite it not being random then we are all Boltzmann brains but again as a whole a Boltzmann brain does not provide any insight into fundamental natural law or useful heuristics for emerging properties so it’s not as much freaky as well pointless.

dogma1138 8y ago

Why is this freaky? Consciousness is an utterly arbitrary definition that is not free from debate or alteration. Same goes for life which is why often we use the phrase life as we know it. If a cloud of gas can do everything a brain can and we set an arbitrary set of rules of consciousness and it passes the benchmark then it’s conscious based on our arbitrary definition on a cosmic scale it’s still a cloud of dust just like we are lumpy specs of hydrated carbon. There is no special meaning to life or to consciousness other than the former might be an intrinsic outcome of a universe with an entropy driven arrow of time, and the latter might be an intrinsic outcome of iterative natural selection of self assembling replicating strands of hydrated carbons and other organic molecules.

coldtea 8y ago
>Why is this freaky? Consciousness is an utterly arbitrary definition that is not free from debate or alteration. It's somewhat arbitrary, but hardly utterly. If anything, not only it comes from direct experience, but is also the most constant experience we have. (That's the point of Descartes cogito ergo sum, btw. We could doubt that the landscape arounds us that we see exists, but we can't really doubt that we think, for to doubt is itself part of thinking).
- dogma1138 8y ago
  Consciousness is utterly arbitrary now you put in complex thought, doubt, inner monolog and many other things into the mix which again just show how utterly arbitrary the definition of consciousness is as you conjured one yourself. There is no single objective and useful definition for consciousness in philosophy or natural science other than the clinical definition of being aware and responsive to one's surroundings which technically mean that an ameba can be considered conscious since it's definitely aware of it's surroundings. And even the clinical definition is arguably not very useful in the grand scheme of things because it does not deal with inanimate objects and the definition of life is murky at best. So the best the best definition we have for consciousness is a clinical definition which is only applicable to life as we know it which has nothing to do with what ever you were talking about, hence utterly arbitrary.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Consciousness is utterly arbitrary now you put in complex thought, doubt, inner monolog and many other things into the mix which again just show how utterly arbitrary the definition of consciousness is as you conjured one yourself. There's nothing arbitrary about it. All of those ("thought", "doubt", "inner monolog") go hand in hand with consciousness in the common sense, and at worst case, they are phenomena that presuppose it (secondary effects). It's also quite common in discussions regarding qualia for consciousness to include "self consciousness", not some low level awareness of surroundings that it's not aware of itself. Else a Rumba is also conscious. >And even the clinical definition is arguably not very useful in the grand scheme of things because it does not deal with inanimate objects and the definition of life is murky at best. Well, everything's murky if you try hard enough. Still, aside from some corner cases (e.g. are viruses living, are robots?) life is as clear cut as things come. >So the best the best definition we have for consciousness is a clinical definition which is only applicable to life as we know it which has nothing to do with what ever you were talking about It makes sense it has "nothing to do" with what I was talking about, since that's a definition you brought forward here and put up as the "best" and single useful one. It might be the simpler to test for, or the most useful for medical use. But it's even murkier than mine (since "awareness" itself reintroduces the issue). If we were to be content with low-level awareness then a Roomba is conscious, as it is in a way aware of its surroundings too. When we discuss consciousness, qualia, etc, we go beyond this basic definition. That doesn't make it "utterly arbitrary" -- if that was the case any random definition would do.
    - dogma1138 8y ago
      >There's nothing arbitrary about it. All of those ("thought", "doubt", "inner monolog") go hand in hand with consciousness in the common sense, and at worst case, they are phenomena that presuppose it (secondary effects). Again an arbitrary definition based on a human centric view. It's quite possible that we will develop an AI that would fall under what we would consider consciousness that has no inner monolog, on the other hand it's also quite possible that we'll develop AIs that come no where near consciousness with one. Consciousness as you continue to use it is an utterly arbitrary and irrelevant definition you can set an arbitrary benchmark for any arbitrary type of consciousness you want this is simply defining heuristics which is while can be a useful tool in some cases is not natural law or anything other than arbitrary. > Else a Rumba is also conscious. And what would be the problem or wrong with that? If the definition that supports Rumba being a conscious contraption is a useful heuristic model for you then use it there is no wrong or right with arbitrary definitions there is just useful or not.
beautifulfreak 8y ago
It's freaky because the "conscious" state of a Boltzmann brain might last a nanosecond, and could mimic what you are thinking right now, or could be psychotic. Imagine if shifting charges in piezoelectric materials in the dirt could generate Boltzmann brains, so when you take a walk, your footsteps create a string of thoughts in the ground. Maybe those thoughts resemble words, in the language of dirt, and maybe they rhyme, so they're a kind of poetry. Maybe star fusion leads to Boltzmann brains, so our sun sings to itself, or works out mathematics, or occasionally imagines that it is a dog. Such possibilities are freaky, I'd say, but feel free to remain unimpressed. I get your point, but the possibilities strike me as weird and wonderful. I'd be glad to learn that Boltzmann brains exist.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  I don’t think that we have the same definition of freaky. As far as Boltzmann brains go then a classical Boltzmann brain can actually be disproven even without going into the debate if there is even unbounded amount of randomness in the universe. As for quantum Boltzmann brains then it’s not again freaky and it heavily is dependent on how you take on physicality. If you think that the brain is a quantum system then a Boltzmann brain can never be a duplicate of you due to the no cloning theorem. If the brain is not a QM system but a classical one which is more likely to be the case then classical Boltzmann brains aren’t really possible in our universe. Overall this is again a philosophical niche not really physics it’s a fun anecdote to ponder not something you should take on seriously. Now if you want to take evolution as a random activity despite it not being random then we are all Boltzmann brains but again as a whole a Boltzmann brain does not provide any insight into fundamental natural law or useful heuristics for emerging properties so it’s not as much freaky as well pointless.