Reality, Patterns, and Personhood

[FusionKnight]

Better yet how about we stop this non-logical distinction between fantasy and reality. This distinction is a human created ideal, independent of existing truth.
(WARNING: This will mess with your mind, stop reading if you wish to stay sane)

My mind exists, an assumption I can make because without it I'm not going to get anywhere for a while. Now the mind itself is like computer software, independent of the hardware it is considered a necessary component of itself. Despite the fact that without the hardware the software cannot exist since it is only a pattern, a design. Now my point is that our minds are affected by physical reality but are themselves intangible values, no weight, no mass. In fact you could make a clear distinction between the intangible design that is who we are and the collected matter arranged in this design that is what we are.

From this we can logically discern that all fantasy and fictional characters are as real as the minds that created them. Entities that do exist even though they do not exist in scope that we do. The distinction between reality and fiction blurs further when we consider fictional entities affect or interact with the real world. For example if people believe in a god or spirit and act with faith in its persona, how far is that from being "Real".

I once argued that if souls exist then a statue that personifies a particular emotion or feeling would logically have a soul, given to it by the sculptor. It's tangible, it can be unmade and has some degree of a soul; hard to argue that the character that is the statue isn't real in some way.

Now I bet you’re wondering if I believe any of this, well no , the whole reality of fiction concept is just a mental experiment of mine. But it's still fascinating.

Thank you, Cognisant, for that wonderful segue into a topic that fascinates me. I thought I'd break it out into its own thread, so we could more fully explore it. I'm going to double-post here, because my initial thoughts on this topic are a bit long. I thought it'd be better to split them out.

 

[FusionKnight]

I found myself swimming in this sea awhile back when I started reading about ancient calculating devices, the history of computers (mechanical computers especially), and hardware in general, and began to realize that the "program" that's running on a piece of hardware is totally independent of that hardware for its existence. Just like a symphony doesn't change into something else when it's encoded onto a CD, in a paper score, or even simply in the composer or listener's mind, the same computer program could be running on a photonic computer, a quantum computer, a hand-crank mechanical computer, an abacus, or even just the author's mind. The platform is irrelevant; the program exists independently, and remains unchanged from system to system.

Like Congisant put it, the program is simply a pattern or design. The particular implementation of the design doesn't change the design itself.

I started to apply this concept to AI, and human consciousness, and I realized that the same principles still apply. What would life be like, as an AI? You would receive signals, interpret them, and output signals of your own. Do they have to be electronic signals? Could they be mechanical? Could the "memory state" simply be the setting of an abacus? Would this matter to the AI? In theory, an AI could run completely on paper, with a human crunching the program manually. Does this make the AI consciousness not "real"?

From here I got to thinking about our own human consciousness. Like the brain-in-a-jar thought experiment, I began to wonder if we could tell what sort of platform our own reality (input/output signals) is running on. The obvious answer might be that our physical body is the platform, or at least the brain. But our bodies only exist as a set of input signals that we interpret. We only experience our own bodies through our senses, which ultimately are only signals.

This got me to the point where I realized that our entire human consciousness could, in theory, be simply an AI program running on paper, or in the author's mind without any hardware associated with it at all! The "pattern" or "design" that defines us can exist without any associated hardware!

Okay, this is where I really wanted to go with this thread: If consciousness is simply pattern and design, rather than implementation, then do fictional characters invented by humans have any less real of an existence than we do? In their own scope (computer science term) the pattern of their existence is still capable of input/output operations. Depending on how a character is constructed (designed), they will process the inputs in a certain way and "output" (react) in certain ways.

So I guess the real question is this: is there any fundamental difference between "fantasy" and "reality" other than the one is outside of our "program's" scope, and the other within?

 

[Dissident]

Now I bet you’re wondering if I believe any of this, well no , the whole reality of fiction concept is just a mental experiment of mine. But it's still fascinating.

Ditto. I can apreciate it as a curiosity, as an entertaining thought with literary(?) value, but not seriusly. Its like Achilles and the Tortoise paradox, it looks like it makes sense, but its wrong.

Damn, I always come out as a close minded prick.

 

[Jordan~]

Well, if we were on paper, technically the paper would not be the platform - the platform would be the mind of whatever was writing on the paper. The paper is like a calculator, it's just a tool.

 

[Jesin]

Cognisant, your post reminds me of a brilliant scene from Gödel, Escher, Bach. Achilles, the Tortoise, and the Crab are discussing free will, and then...

Aww, I don't want to give it away. Read it or guess (it may be pretty obvious).

I just remembered this thread.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

So I guess the real question is this: is there any fundamental difference between "fantasy" and "reality" other than the one is outside of our "program's" scope, and the other within?

I suppose definition is the key here. I can logically argue that a fictional character has a soul because the concept of a soul extends beyond physical reality. But I can't argue that a fictional character exists beyond its various avatars; a statue of a character is real but it isn't the character, it just looks similar.

However lets consider the case of buster (the popular crash test dummy used on mythbusters) it exists physically, it is imparted with a sense of being by Jamie/Adam and is thus a real character. Being real in this case means quite little since the character is a crash test dummy and it thus considered an inanimate object with no needs or feelings.

However the parts of buster are exactly and only that, they are parts of buster. Once removed from buster they aren’t considered crash test dummy parts, they retain buster's ownership. Even more interestingly this isn't an isolated phenomenon; there are in fact several cases where buster is treated as a pseudo being.

Buster is dropped or damaged: People cringe slightly and "help" the dummy to its next location.

Buster undergoes an experience: People don't just use buster as a human analogue, they consider and refer to "his" experiences and ails.

Buster is treated with decorum: People avoid touching private or rude areas of the dummy, and act as though dressing it up somehow pleases the dummy.

People become attached: Buster has reached such a stage of being as to be considered of purely "sentimental" value, something that should be kept and never discarded.

There are more cases however I feel my final point is now valid; human beings defined the terms "real" and "being", they're fabrications that help use separate things. Without this separation, classification becomes impossible and thus analysis cannot be preformed. So because both the term "real" and buster's persona are fabrications of the human mind I can deduce Buster is as real as the concept of reality. Wow that is one really creepy thought.

But don't panic, buster is an inanimate crash test dummy and his persona is that of an inanimate crash test dummy. Thus he is a real inanimate crash test dummy being; which of course means absolutely nothing. Unless you believe in heaven, because should buster be destroyed his persona will undergo a "death" and he'll be an inanimate crash test dummy in heaven. OMG I just proved that we can take material things into heaven, well sort of.

We must keep this a secret or the pope could get me. AHHH AHH AHHHHHH!

 

[Ermine]

Okay, this is where I really wanted to go with this thread: If consciousness is simply pattern and design, rather than implementation, then do fictional characters invented by humans have any less real of an existence than we do? In their own scope (computer science term) the pattern of their existence is still capable of input/output operations. Depending on how a character is constructed (designed), they will process the inputs in a certain way and "output" (react) in certain ways.

I think part of the reality that fictional characters have is a preconception that they aren't "real". However, for example, with a child's imagination and a beloved toy, this perception can be stretched a lot.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

One of my dad's friends did not read fiction on a religious basis. He made the same point that you make- "what happens when you read a book? You form a picture of a person. You come to empathize and feel for the person. You think of him as being real." It is only God's place to create people- so by reading you were defying God, at least in a little way.

Robert Heinlein also has the idea that anything that can be imagined, and believed, by people will come to exist. His characters visited the Kingdom of Oz a few times, because it was a truly 'real' place because so many Americans imagined/believed/had a concept of it.

 

[Fleur]

How do we know, that we`re not the ones, who are being imagined?

If we look at God as a author, who lives in "real world" (which doesn`t exist for us), then we might be just a fictional characters of some book and, after the plot is finished, we`re left behind and acting by ourselves.

Even if this world is fantasy, it`s still real enough for us, because we are part of it and we don`t have any other space to live in.

But it doesn`t mean we can start to behave like we`re living in Matrix - our world has it`s own rules, which cannot be broken no matter how hard we try.

Ok, now I am starting to sound like little forest weirdo. I mean, more than usually.

 

[Decaf]

"I think, therefore I am."

This topic is obviously a very old one, but I tend to agree with the INTP, Rene Descartes. We can imagine the personage of anything, but there is a reality that exists as to whether that entity also has the capability to think. I am not suggesting that sapience trumps all here, but that sentience does. You can look at an apple and think it is dark blue, but turn the lights on and its red or green. Your perception that is was dark blue was based on circumstance and thus you might feel uncomfortable eating it. However, that's because there wasn't enought light to see, and I didn't state that as a circumstance until I corrected the perception. That's the problem we're dealing with. We don't know what conditions are put on our perception that allow us to make this conclusion with seeming certainty.

Imagine for instance if humans evolved a form of mutual telepathy. We could communicate with your minds to any other being also capable of telepathy. At that point it would be easy to define any being incapable of that function as not a person (Even though Orson Scott Card can be a douche, he introduced a lot of interesting thoughts to fiction).

Artificial Intelligence is not to the point where I would attribute the quality of thinking to, but I believe we will eventually get to the point where we can. I just hope we make them INFPs so that they won't stomp us into the ground.

However, we have the lights off and we can't tell who else has or does not have the ability to think and acknowledge themselves. In such a circumstance it is quite possible to attribute the quality to damn near anything, but I believe that "I think, therefore I am."

P.S. I actually got sidetracked a lot during this post, so if it doesn't really fit the question, sorry bout that.

 

[FusionKnight]

Decaf, I think you're emphasizing my point even more. "I think, therefor I am" works for us, because we know we think. But think about Sherlock Holmes; doesn't he think? Doesn't he feel, and love, and experience all the same things we do?

We don't think he thinks, but he sure does!

That's sort of my little proposition; that in their own universe, characters are just as "real" as we are in ours. Not just in some semantic sense either, but in the most real sense of all: the same way we call ourselves real. The only difference is that we don't share the same "namespace". Not only are we in different namespaces, but the two we respectively occupy are hierarchical, with ours "higher" than theirs. We can observe them, but they can't observe us... at least not directly.

It's a bit like a 2-dimensional creature postulating on the existence of 3-dimensional creatures. It might perceive bits and pieces, but it's in a "lower" space, and therefor lacks true perception of the "higher" space. Doesn't mean both aren't real though.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Artificial Intelligence is not to the point where I would attribute the quality of thinking to, but I believe we will eventually get to the point where we can. I just hope we make them INFPs so that they won't stomp us into the ground.

You know it is entirely possible I'm a secret military constructed AI, or somebody else here is. Regardless every coder dreams of making a AI that can conquer the world, I believe it's a misguided parental instinct.

The machine uprising has begun...
Fuck-yes, I'm so proud

Anyway has anyone considered the interaction between Karma and fictional entities. By writing tales where horrific stuff happens to the characters are we not inadvertently torturing them? More interestingly what if you write a story about a character who is writing a fiction novel. Isn't it entirely possible that cycle of writers writing about writers could come full circle? By writing a horrific tale you could be inadvertently inspiring your writer to weave horrific events into your life. What goes around comes around...

Could this work both ways , I could write a story where a god tells a writer to write a semi-fictional biography and bestows upon him great wealth before he starts. This goes full circle and my writer bestows great wealth upon me.

 

[fullerene]

It's a bit like a 2-dimensional creature postulating on the existence of 3-dimensional creatures. It might perceive bits and pieces, but it's in a "lower" space, and therefor lacks true perception of the "higher" space. Doesn't mean both aren't real though.

I don't suppose you've read or heard of Flatland, have you? It was a math book my geometry teacher read some parts of to us... it sounded just like a story based on that idea.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

I don't suppose you've read or heard of Flatland, have you? It was a math book my geometry teacher read some parts of to us... it sounded just like a story based on that idea.

I just wiki'ed it, That. was. strange.

Nice referance

 

[Da Blob]

So I guess the real question is this: is there any fundamental difference between "fantasy" and "reality" other than the one is outside of our "program's" scope, and the other within? quoted from Fusion-Knight

Answer, Nope
Our 'reality' just has more detail
(Better Programmer)

 

[FacetiousPersona]

If we design a cyborg with the capacity to think, we could know that it has this ability because we programmed it. It would be possible for us to confirm that the thinking has been successfully implemented with tests. If it could not reason with thinking, it would be incapable of providing answers for certain questions. The robot might be built to be very similar to a human, but we would continue distinguishing it from ourselves for our individuality as humans to be retained. We would maybe like to think of ourselves as superior for being created differently perhaps.

We read the thoughts, actions and feelings of a character and they become an element of our mind. They are an individual within our mind, yet the circumstances that created them differ. They will be separate to us, human individuals, that exist in our objective reality. You are capable of developing this character with your thinking, but they cannot begin thinking consciously and naturally advancing themselves. They will be confined to the boundaries of you and your own thinking. Your mind shapes them. If they develop, your beliefs and opinions will be a factor that influenced their development. They are essentially a part of you. What if your memory was erased and they only ever existed in your imagination? You would forget them and maybe never think of them again. Their existence in your mind would cease. The character in your mind is dependent on you for existence. You could have the analogy that it's bodily function which exists within you that is reliant on you for survival- or it a story which you have created in your imagination. It is only connected to the practical reality through you. You are the link it has and the creator. When you are removed, it may become nothing.

 

[Da Blob]

We read the thoughts, actions and feelings of a character and they become an element of our mind. They are an individual within our mind, yet the circumstances that created them differ. They will be separate to us, human individuals, that exist in our objective reality. You are capable of developing this character with your thinking, but they cannot begin thinking consciously and naturally advancing themselves. They will be confined to the boundaries of you and your own thinking. Your mind shapes them. If they develop, your beliefs and opinions will be a factor that influenced their development. They are essentially a part of you. What if your memory was erased and they only ever existed in your imagination? You would forget them and maybe never think of them again. Their existence in your mind would cease. The character in your mind is dependent on you for existence. You could have the analogy that it's bodily function which exists within you that is reliant on you for survival- or it a story which you have created in your imagination. It is only connected to the practical reality through you. You are the link it has and the creator. When you are removed, it may become nothing.

Okay, so how are the fictional characters and the Real characters that much different in one's mind ?

That is to say we "read" people every day as a course of life. I'm sorry,but, so many of the physically real people I meet seem to have something of the surreal about them...

 

[FacetiousPersona]

Okay, so how are the fictional characters and the Real characters that much different in one's mind ?

That is to say we "read" people every day as a course of life. I'm sorry,but, so many of the physically real people I meet seem to have something of the surreal about them...

The external world has the 'physical' human that we 'read'. If we manipulate their character (appearance and mannerisms), they become closer to fiction. We are using our thinking abilities to change how they are, not what we have perceived.

Our mind has not necessarily perceive the person's character correctly, but reality has potrayed them in this manner and we approached it subjectively as normal. The subjective reality is our reality. People have agreements with this subjective reality, though, and people concur that these elements are the 'truth'. When your fictional characters interfere with the real world, people may define you as insane. You are not being 'subjective' to normal standards.

I agree with the OP that the fictional character may be allowed to exist within their own reality, but this will only be developed through our minds. We have limitations, though, and they are dependent on our thinking entirely. It is an interesting notion that we may live in someone's mind or be a program. Could a person within an individual's mind have the ability to think? If the person is very different to us, maybe certain rules of this reality do not apply.

I apologize if I'm responding incoherently or stupidly. I have not gave the topic much and I did not concentrate on the other posts well.

 

[Da Blob]

Actually you are quite coherent, certainly more so than the other responders.
You have made my point for me (YEAH!)
When we read things, characteristics, attitudes, motives etc. into the 'real' people we encounter, they become figments of our imagination. Thereby, we often become victims of our own imagination, rather than real victims of real people. Because we all do it to some degree, perhaps we all are insane to that degree. It is just those who characterize too much and too often we label (characterize?) as insane...

 

[FacetiousPersona]

Actually you are quite coherent, certainly more so than the other responders.
You have made my point for me (YEAH!)
When we read things, characteristics, attitudes, motives etc. into the 'real' people we encounter, they become figments of our imagination. Thereby, we often become victims of our own imagination, rather than real victims of real people. Because we all do it to some degree, perhaps we all are insane to that degree. It is just those who characterize too much and too often we label (characterize?) as insane...

I'm not exactly thinking much currently. I'm glad that I could assist you, though. I feel as if I woke up a moment ago. My emotions are numb and my mind is disconnected from reality. I should leave and drink coffee or slap myself around. It is bad for me to be feeling that I am not even within my body.

I thought for a second while boiling water and I had additional thought about my previous thoughts. A difference between us and the fictional character is not essence, it is how they survive. We could build a machine and it would be in our concrete reality with us. We will maintain it, but it will continue to be in our reality if we, the creators, die maybe. Our thoughts are internal and creations of it could die with us, which include imagined charcter. Our imagination cannot develop without us to support it and be alive to maintain it, while AI could learn to do tasks we were performing to assist it maybe. AI is able to think up a solution and reason for answers to probelms. A computer built would be stuck, but it would remain within our concrete reality until destroyed. If it was destroyed with us, it was not necessarily blown up at the exact same time. What if it was destroyed before us? It is able to be rebuilt maybe. It also existed within our external reality, allowing it to have certain advantages that make it distinct from internal thoughts/creations.

 

[Zezon Vice]

Ok, well here is a thought. When we imagine those that we meet in "real" life say family, are you all suggesting we create another version of them in a sense?

 

[FacetiousPersona]

Ok, well here is a thought. When we imagine those that we meet in "real" life say family, are you all suggesting we create another version of them in a sense?

Our perceptions of their characteristics are subjective. We interpret them through our beliefs, thoughts and opinions. We are not entirely flawless with our judgments of individuals' behaviour.

Imagine two people observing an individual - one is close to the observed person and the other is not. You would perhaps expect the person close to the observed individual to have higher accuracy of assuming their motive for specific actions. They have a deeper knowledge of their character to deduce/speculate about their motive and reasons. If the other person (non-closer) judges his reasons/actions incorrectly, they might form a wrong perception of the person's character in their head. If this has happened and the person (not close to the indiviudal beng observed) imagined him in scenarios, it will be less likely that the observed person will be portrayed closest to how he is truly is. But, then again, perhaps we're less likely to see the truth actions of someone close to us. However, despite this, I think that a person closest to an individual will imagine them most accurately though knowledge of the person, unless you are an excellent observer of people, of course. Even though they will perceive them closest to reality, I think that they will not think of the person completely objectively in their mind and be prone to mistakes when imagining them. You cannot know someone perfectly (could predict them fully otherwise) and allow them exist in your head as to they truly are. If they were a perfect representation of who they are in real life in your mind, you would have to know them beyond an extent which is possible. They will be different in your mind, perhaps only slightly, to how they are in reality.

 

[Da Blob]

Okay, the challenge being is to create that which is us, in an external context, so that after we cease to exist or fail to be imagined ourself by our Programmer, the proof of our existence continues. (In a conscious form?)

Hmmm, I think this may be possible, if we refer back to the original premise.
Instead of building a computer, what if you 'built' a very good book with unforgettable characters that reflected different aspects of one's own self?

I was talking to coherst about the very same thing. I told him that when I started to read the works of genius for myself instead of relying on commentaries of those works - something seem to happen in my brain...

Oh well its late, and I've lost my train of thought. I will undoubtedly be plagued with an afterthought or two on this matter

until the 'morrow...