Ambrosia Software Web Board: Psychohistory - Ambrosia Software Web Board

I was wondering the other day about the limitations of mathematics, in regards to very complicated things like, i.e. programming a way of recognising the abilities of ships in Ares to decimal figure accuracy, or maybe even predicting humans. Do you think it's possible to write a program to predict humans? In his Foundation series, Isaac Asimov tells us about a group of scientists (it's a thoroughly good read btw) who go invent a mathematics system which allows them to predict the future of humanity. I think such a thing really is possible, but I'm at a loss to know how it is done. We can start by making some 2 simple assumptions that are accuracte.

1) the larger the group of humans, the less chance chaotic elements will render the equation irrelevant
2) humans follow basic primal patterns that are largely predictable

Hmmm...

[This message has been edited by Count Altair El Alemein (edited 07-25-2001).]

Of course it can be predicted. But nothing to the extent at which Foundation was.

No scientist to my knowledge has actually gone off and tried to write a program to predict it. Humans hate second guessing themselves and have extremely short attention spans. I'm sorry if this is bringing me back to the matrix idea, but it's the truth: we're not self-aware, but programmed to think we are. I think there was a philosopher who said: 'I do not believe any of you are self-aware, convince me.' And the other guy tried for ages until they finally agreed it was impossible to prove that we are in fact self-aware. Well, i don't think I'm self-aware, but I wonder who many readers think the same (also there's a little catch-22 here: if I know I'm not self-aware, then I must be self-aware in order to realise I'm not self-aware. But if I am self-aware enough to know this, then doesn't that invalidate my previous statement? Wow, catch-22 gets you every time. Enough rambling.

We're obviously programmed to realize we're not.
This invalidates your first statement, and the paradox does not happen.
Was that so hard?

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchforkŅ"

That doesn't invalidate the paradox, not at all.

1) I believe I am not self-aware
2) Therefore I am self-aware

See?

Yes it does. Your paradox is based on the fact that "If we realize we're not self-aware, it's because we really are." But we can be programmed to realize we're not, meaning that the reason behind our realization is the fact that we're programmed, not that we're self-aware.

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchforkŅ"

Ahh, true. But that does raise an even more disturbing issue: we are progrmmed.

Yes, it seems to be the only good way out of the paradox.
(Actually, it's possible that we are truly self-aware, and the realization that we're programmed is false. But I'm sure hw well that works)

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchforkŅ"

I came up with another theory, that may be totally untrue, but here goes:

You know how you can't literally _cannot_ think consciously without words? And if you try well... go ahead and try, it's almost frikking impossible. This is because those words, our programmers can understand. And they are watching us, through the words we have to run through our mind to do things.

Idle banter: but maybe I'm on to something here!

Hey, I've got PICTs and MOOVs in my resource fork too, y'know!

Another interesting question: How would computers be different if we weren't programmed? Likely enough we wouldn't have programming languages, because there would be no reason humans would consider using words for thought.

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchforkŅ"

Or perhaps we couldn't think without programming, that it is inherent in being self-aware.. or whatever passes for self-aware round 'ere.

Maybe if we weren't programmed, we wouldn't have invented computers. Maybe we would be the observers, not the observed. A huge psychohistorical experiment, and I'm proud to be participating in the studying of primitive/programmed life.