If the universe was fine tuned for our life...

[IATIA]

If I create a 'sub reality' does that necessarily infer that it is intelligent?

You can create a sub reality that has no potential for the emergence of intelligence. If you did that sub reality could not be a parent of its own sub reality. It would be a dead end.

So, if I write a computer program (X) that is capable of encoding it's own sub realities, does that make computer program (X) intelligent?

[KevinM1]

This entire thread, summed up:

---

---

[Heywood]

So, if I write a computer program (X) that is capable of encoding it's own sub realities, does that make computer program (X) intelligent?

One definition of intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. If your computer program satisfied this definition I think it could be said to be intelligent.

IBM's Watson computer program, which beat the best two Jeopardy champs in a game of Jeopardy can do this in a limited sense. It can acquire knowledge during the game. For instance if all the given answers in a category have been the name of a month, it can recognize that. It then applies that new found knowledge about the category to change the way it determines what is likely to be the correct answer.

I would have to see your computer program to judge if it was intelligent or not. The fact that it can encode its on sub realities doesn't necessarily tell me that it is. Any sub realities it does create would still be dependent on the existence of an intelligence. The computer program could not exist were it not for your intelligence so any sub realities it creates could not exist unless your intelligence existed.

[IATIA]

So, this is an intelligent program?

[Heywood]

So, this is an intelligent program?

Try this one.

http://en.akinator.com/

Think of a character, real or imagined and it will tell you what you are thinking.

I don't know that I would call these kinds of programs intelligent. As far as I know they prompt you to program them with new knowledge but they don't really acquire it themselves.

[IATIA]

It fulfills your standard for intelligence as well as the chess program. So it must be intelligent.

[Jenny A]

---

No I think the burden of proof is the other way around. You imagine a space and give it rules. Now you say it is a real space. I ask in what way? You say it is real if viewed from the inside. But there is nothing inside to do the viewing. The burden of proof that it is more than just imagination is yours. Your sub-realities are nothing more than rules and descriptions of outcomes of those rules. They don't create anything real.

---

Presumably nobody is viewing the far side of Pluto right now....yet you and I would both agree that the far side of Pluto is not imaginary. Why? because potentially we could put an observer there and view it. Perspective is what determines what is real and that perspective exists whether or not a conscious observer exists. Our entire understanding of reality is formulated on this idea that what is real is determined by perspective.

No, our reality is not created by perspective. Take dreams for example. I have them from time to time, and I'm sure you do too. Do you think they are real in the sense of representing a reality? I don't, I doubt you do either. I don't because my conscience mind is sure that they are merely dreams not reality and from time to time even my dreaming mind is aware that I'm just dreaming. But the perspective from my brain is the same.

Imagine you are in a space ship positioned in space. You see me pass you in my space ship traveling at the speed of light. You observe a clock on my space ship and see it is stopped. Is time really not passing for me? From your perspective there is no flow of time for me. Now from my perspective reality is completely different. From my perspective I see you passing me at the speed of light. From my perspective your clock is stopped and for you there is no flow of time.

Does the flow of time exist for me? Well it exists and it doesn't exist. It all depends on perspective. Sub realities exist and they don't exist...it all depends on perspective. How can something exist and not exist? The notion is nonsensical. I resolve the nonsense by thinking about it this way. If something can be observed to exist from at least one perspective, then that thing can be said to exist. Since a sub reality is real and has physicality from the perspective of the things they contain, I can credibly say sub realities exist....even if they lack physicality from my perspective. I can credibly say the flow of time exists for you even though it doesn't from my perspective.

I think the problem here is that I see no perspective from which computer generated "sub-realities" exist. They are collection of mathematical rules with the results displayed visually. There is no inside perspective.

Try this piece of inductive reasoning:

When people say words, the objects named are not created by the words.

When people draw pictures, the objects depicted are not created by the picture.

When people write a mathematical equation, the things described by the equation are not created by the equation.

Therefore, when people use mathematical procedures to create words and pictures on a computer screen, nothing is created except the words and pictures on the screen. No new objects or space is created.

[Heywood]

I think the problem here is that I see no perspective from which computer generated "sub-realities" exist. They are collection of mathematical rules with the results displayed visually. There is no inside perspective.

I'm okay with your position that there is no inside perspective provided you also take the position that you cannot possibly be a simulant existing in a computer reality. If you think it possible that you could be a simulant and think there can be no inside perspective.....then you have a contradiction in positions.

Premise 1. Computer simulations have no inside perspective from which an entity contained within them would perceive a reality.
Premise 2. I perceive a reality.
Conclusion: Therefore I cannot be an entity contained within a computer simulation.

Is the above argument valid and true as far as you are concerned?

---

It fulfills your standard for intelligence as well as the chess program. So it must be intelligent.

I'm not staunchly opposed to calling those programs intelligent. I also don't believe intelligence is something boolean....that is you either are intelligent or you are not. Intelligence comes in varying degrees. Minimalist is less intelligent than a cockroach. A cockroach is less intelligent than a dog. A dog is less intelligent than a human being. If those programs are intelligent, they are less intelligent than Minimalist.

[Jenny A]

I think the problem here is that I see no perspective from which computer generated "sub-realities" exist. They are collection of mathematical rules with the results displayed visually. There is no inside perspective.

I'm okay with your position that there is no inside perspective provided you also take the position that you cannot possibly be a simulant existing in a computer reality. If you think it possible that you could be a simulant and think there can be no inside perspective.....then you have a contradiction in positions.

Premise 1. Computer simulations have no inside perspective from which an entity contained within them would perceive a reality.
Premise 2. I perceive a reality.
Conclusion: Therefore I cannot be an entity contained within a computer simulation.

Is the above argument valid and true as far as you are concerned?

Pretty much, except that you can't really talk about being contained in a computer program in any spacial sense. The cute evolving box-like creatures shown in your previous video are generated by and presented as the results of a program. But they are not contained in the program any more than 10 + 10 = 20 contains twenty or a quadratic equation contains the curve you can graph using it.

[Cyberman]

It fulfills your standard for intelligence as well as the chess program. So it must be intelligent.

Intelligent, but not unbeatable. After several impressive hits, including once when I was thinking of myself, I managed to stump it. I was thinking of Moore Marriott, one third of the trio including Will Hay and Graham Moffatt - some of you may know him from the classic Gainsborough Pictures comedy Oh, Mr Porter! ("The next train's gone!"). It came up with Will Hay at first, then Charlie Drake, Alistair Sim and Arthur Askey, before admitting defeat.

Not trying to prove a point; just throwing it out there.