Philosophy has developed quite a bit since the Greeks started the Western tradition and I wasn’t invoking Greek traditions but I don’t recall the ancient skeptics getting very far.
The saying “Scientists need philosophy of science [and epistemology] like birds need ornithology” is true in a practical sense but dismissing the whole topic as irrelevant is unwarranted. Ignoring epistemological issues may be pragmatic depending on one’s career but lack of attention doesn’t resolve epistemological issues.
Through reason we can use our senses to discover flaws in our sensory systems and intuitions about the world (as well as empirically confirm the existence of cognitive biases). However, we could never have begun to make such discoveries in this world if our reason had no access to sensory perceptions or if our sensory perceptions were not accessible in a framework of space and time offered as “basic intuitions.” Whatever may exist beyond our access, our kind of experience in which we interact with physical objects outside of the direct and complete control of our imagination implies that some kind of world external to ourselves in which spatiotemporal kinds of interactions can occur exists, regardless of whether it is a “simulation” or something unfamiliar overlying a deeper reality. AGI programmers simulate a spatial world in which a young AGI system can operate temporally in part to verify actual learning is achieved, and do so in ways we can recognize based on how we learn about our environment.
Ultimately, little or no part of our experience can be cast into doubt save for immediate, transitory experience (including the experience of remembering). Everything else, including the memory of recent immediate experience used for purposes of analysis, can be doubted as a complete illusion because our minds only have direct observational access to the present (Hume). However, while “absolute” knowledge and certainty is beyond the access of minds like ours, our experiences have a sufficient amount of regularity (e.g. the unity of apperception) and predictability to allow us to reach judgments about the conditions of our day-to-day reality (e.g. locating a doorknob, expecting a sunrise) and subject questions to formal scientific methods that offer much higher degrees of warranted confidence. Whatever they believed, the only “knowledge” people have ever had applies within their domain of access as spatiotemporal beings with reason and an ability to manipulate their environment—whether or not deeper truth lies beyond it—but that scope of warrant is fully sufficient for purposes relating to their domain of experience. This view, with some other components such as arguments to cast doubt on solipsistic beliefs, is a version of “pragmatic realism.”
Sorry for veering a bit off-topic but I thought epistemology was relevant to the idea of consciousness just consisting of “illusions.” The prevailing cognitive science view these days seems to be that “perception = a kind of illusion.” My response is, “no and yes”—sensations are vital means of accessing the reality of an external world that have interpretative biases (e.g. color vision) as well as inaccuracies and quirks (e.g. blind spots, blindsight, saccades).
Ben Jones,
I’m not sure I understand the question; I don’t see personal identity v. non-identity as a binary distinction but a fuzzy one. While artifacts and characterizing information can be thought of as a form of extended identity I think sustaining relevant kinds of functional processing to produce awareness and self-awareness somewhat like what we experience would be important for creating a similar subjective experience, but over the long run the manner of information processing might become very different (hopefully enriched and more expansive) from what realizes our kind of experience. Ben Goertzel has shared some useful perspectives on the future of uploaded human minds over the long run, such as running <99% on post-human programs, swapping human life memory files (preferably from a very large and highly diverse selection), perhaps eventually finding no compelling reason not to dissolve increasingly artificial barriers between individual identities.
Caledonian,
Philosophy has developed quite a bit since the Greeks started the Western tradition and I wasn’t invoking Greek traditions but I don’t recall the ancient skeptics getting very far.
The saying “Scientists need philosophy of science [and epistemology] like birds need ornithology” is true in a practical sense but dismissing the whole topic as irrelevant is unwarranted. Ignoring epistemological issues may be pragmatic depending on one’s career but lack of attention doesn’t resolve epistemological issues.
Through reason we can use our senses to discover flaws in our sensory systems and intuitions about the world (as well as empirically confirm the existence of cognitive biases). However, we could never have begun to make such discoveries in this world if our reason had no access to sensory perceptions or if our sensory perceptions were not accessible in a framework of space and time offered as “basic intuitions.” Whatever may exist beyond our access, our kind of experience in which we interact with physical objects outside of the direct and complete control of our imagination implies that some kind of world external to ourselves in which spatiotemporal kinds of interactions can occur exists, regardless of whether it is a “simulation” or something unfamiliar overlying a deeper reality. AGI programmers simulate a spatial world in which a young AGI system can operate temporally in part to verify actual learning is achieved, and do so in ways we can recognize based on how we learn about our environment.
Ultimately, little or no part of our experience can be cast into doubt save for immediate, transitory experience (including the experience of remembering). Everything else, including the memory of recent immediate experience used for purposes of analysis, can be doubted as a complete illusion because our minds only have direct observational access to the present (Hume). However, while “absolute” knowledge and certainty is beyond the access of minds like ours, our experiences have a sufficient amount of regularity (e.g. the unity of apperception) and predictability to allow us to reach judgments about the conditions of our day-to-day reality (e.g. locating a doorknob, expecting a sunrise) and subject questions to formal scientific methods that offer much higher degrees of warranted confidence. Whatever they believed, the only “knowledge” people have ever had applies within their domain of access as spatiotemporal beings with reason and an ability to manipulate their environment—whether or not deeper truth lies beyond it—but that scope of warrant is fully sufficient for purposes relating to their domain of experience. This view, with some other components such as arguments to cast doubt on solipsistic beliefs, is a version of “pragmatic realism.”
Sorry for veering a bit off-topic but I thought epistemology was relevant to the idea of consciousness just consisting of “illusions.” The prevailing cognitive science view these days seems to be that “perception = a kind of illusion.” My response is, “no and yes”—sensations are vital means of accessing the reality of an external world that have interpretative biases (e.g. color vision) as well as inaccuracies and quirks (e.g. blind spots, blindsight, saccades).
Ben Jones,
I’m not sure I understand the question; I don’t see personal identity v. non-identity as a binary distinction but a fuzzy one. While artifacts and characterizing information can be thought of as a form of extended identity I think sustaining relevant kinds of functional processing to produce awareness and self-awareness somewhat like what we experience would be important for creating a similar subjective experience, but over the long run the manner of information processing might become very different (hopefully enriched and more expansive) from what realizes our kind of experience. Ben Goertzel has shared some useful perspectives on the future of uploaded human minds over the long run, such as running <99% on post-human programs, swapping human life memory files (preferably from a very large and highly diverse selection), perhaps eventually finding no compelling reason not to dissolve increasingly artificial barriers between individual identities.