1. Comment #431280 by NewSkeptic on November 12, 2009 at 4:09 am

Carolyn is a brilliant, passionate and humane promoter of science. I've been a fan of hers ever since her Beyond Belief lecture on the images from the Cassini mission.

Thank you Josh and RDFRS.

Other Comments by NewSkeptic

2. Comment #431282 by ANTIcarrot on November 12, 2009 at 4:39 am

"A scientist cannot scientifically say there is no god."

While true, it misses out the point that there are many things they can say. For example a sientist can comment on burden of proof. And burden of rational definition for that matter.

Before you can demand proof that a house/universe isn't infested with invissible pink unicorns/god, you can ask for reassonable proof that such a creature does or even can exist.

And just to remind people, the film endded with spectacular public physical evidence (the anomalus industrial light show) that *something* had happened. It's just a pity the writers forgot about it two minutes later.

Other Comments by ANTIcarrot

3. Comment #431297 by glenister_m on November 12, 2009 at 6:30 am

I did enjoy 'Contact' but I was annoyed that only Jodie Foster's character went, instead of the 'representative team' that went in the book.

I'd still like to get a message to Jodie Foster regarding a story she kept repeating in interviews to publicize the movie. When she was in university, she took a course in Biology, and when she wrote the exam the first question was: "Describe a cell in 4 words." She basically flipped, tore the exam in half and walked out.

My message to Jodie if anyone has any suggestions on delivering it: "The answer was simply 'Basic unit of life'. No need to overreact."

Other Comments by glenister_m

4. Comment #431298 by toomanytribbles on November 12, 2009 at 6:38 am

i'm thrilled to see this video with carolyn porco. she's a hero.

BTW, why is there always this confusion about who ellie's character was based on? i have read it was jill tarter... elsewhere, that it was carolyn porco.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

5. Comment #431299 by Alternative Carpark on November 12, 2009 at 6:39 am

Delightful, as ever.

She is indeed the new, female, Carl Sagan.

Someone give this wonderful woman her own 13-part TV series where she flies us around the universe in a dandelion clock.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

6. Comment #431300 by HKSARblog on November 12, 2009 at 6:45 am

What a positively profound moment at 39:00 , when I first saw that picture of Saturn light up and heard the words “and across a billion miles of interplanetary space we can spot our own planet Earth nestled in the arms of Saturn’s rings”.

There is a powerful recognition that stirs within us when we see our own gorgeous little blue ocean planet as it would be seen by others in the skies of other worlds. It’s a recognition that never fails to move us.

As Richard Dawkins said, Carolyn Porco’s words are beautifully poetic.

Other Comments by HKSARblog

7. Comment #431315 by Shiva on November 12, 2009 at 8:00 am

Oooo! Cassini images! I love space images ;D

Other Comments by Shiva

8. Comment #431325 by fossil-fish on November 12, 2009 at 9:26 am

That whole lecture was superb, but that last image of the earth really grabs you.

Was interested in her comments on 'Longtitude'. That really was a great book. It was dramatised here a few years back where the story from the book was interwoven with the story of a second world war officer, who was going through a personal and emotional break down, and was charged with the restoration of the clocks. Great TV and definitely a great starting point for the real Hollywood science.

Other Comments by fossil-fish

9. Comment #431327 by Rawhard Dickins on November 12, 2009 at 9:38 am

So much good stuff here, thanks Josh, Richard et al.

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

10. Comment #431328 by alovrin on November 12, 2009 at 9:55 am

Carolyn said, somewhat optimistically, at one point science has only been around for 400 or 2500yrs. Religions or belief in a supernatural has been around for 30000yrs. So maybe we have to wait for another what 27500 yrs for science to overtake superstitious belief.

I dont think we have the luxury of such a timespan.

Other Comments by alovrin

11. Comment #431334 by glid on November 12, 2009 at 11:40 am

Brilliant talk!

Other Comments by glid

12. Comment #431339 by Tyler Durden on November 12, 2009 at 1:12 pm

That was fantastic. Thank you Carolyn (Richard, and Josh).

The image of Earth visible thru the rings of Saturn, breathtaking.

*wipes tear from eye*

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

13. Comment #431344 by God fearing Atheist on November 12, 2009 at 2:03 pm

8. Comment #431325 by fossil-fish

I was also surprised about her comments on "Longitude". Obviously the TV series didn't make it across the pond. Surprising given that it had Michael Gambon and Jeremy Irons as the principle characters.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

14. Comment #431349 by Koreman on November 12, 2009 at 2:17 pm

This is very sad news. A TV crew making 'in the footsteps of Darwin' was involved in a deadly traffic accident in Argentina. One member died, two others are in critical condition. The crew was sailing the world with 'the Beagle' and visiting places Charles Darwin went. Use Google translator.
http://beagle.vpro.nl/#/blog/item/2472/

Other Comments by Koreman

15. Comment #431351 by Logicel on November 12, 2009 at 2:28 pm

So Ms Porco is a strong atheist? She believes that there is no god? Very interesting how she intellectually confronts that her position is a faith position. I agree. But is god belief and belief that there is no god equivalent in probability? I don't think so.

Anyways, I am an agnostic atheist--I have no god belief but I do not know (nor do I care) that there is a god or not. Without evidence, I don't bother with god or pink unicorns or tooth fairies.

She is a wonderful speaker and a sweetheart to boot.

Other Comments by Logicel

16. Comment #431352 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Comment #431298 by toomanytribbles

I share your confusion. For years I had assumed that Arroway was based on Jill Tarter. In fact Jodie Foster had considerable "contact" with Tarter during the making of the film.

http://www.space.com/peopleinterviews/tarter_profile_991112.html

"Dr. Tarter, the woman upon whom Jodie Foster's character in the movie Contact was largely based"

The point of the character is that she is doing something that isn't mainstream science, quite unlike Porco.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

17. Comment #431355 by Bonzai on November 12, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Most scientists active in research don't really spend a lot of time thinking about or talking about God or its non existence. It is likely a non issue.

Other Comments by Bonzai

18. Comment #431358 by bjorke on November 12, 2009 at 2:52 pm

I admire a lot of what's said in Carolyn's talk -- however, Hollywood-style TV/movies are about as effective at teaching science as they are at teaching actual police procedures.

Science is, well, *real,* and movies are, almost exclusively, fictional. As a writer of fiction, either you invent "reality" (e.g., the aliens in "Contact," flubber, whatever), or you end up writing biography. And it would still be portrayed by actors and a director who would feel obliged by their professions (and egos) to alter things looking for the "dramatic truth." How many wives did John Nash have, again?

(Sadly I can't help but think that in Hollywood even the spectacular Cassini images would be replaced with "improved" CG versions)

Of course, Hollywood audiences (usually) know the difference. Consider that a few years ago three airplanes destroyed a few buildings and the worldwide ramifications of those events, compared to this coming weekend's movie fare where every building on the planet is wiped out & it's all jolly fun.

Hollywood thrives on spectacle and on stories full of interpersonal conflict. Science only occasionally works via either mechanism.

(As a consolation prize: consider the already-existing stock character of the manipulative power-hungry truth-suppressing churchman...)

Other Comments by bjorke

19. Comment #431361 by Bonzai on November 12, 2009 at 3:04 pm

Hollywood as a rule doesn't present the reality of science (and actually everything else for that matter)

Real science is not always glamourous, it often consists on many hours of boring, painstaking work that may or may not lead to any breakthrough.

Astronomy is not just gazing at the stars in awe, at the time of specialization a Ph.D. student in astronomy may spend all his time in a windowless lab in the basement looking at computer outputs from spectral analysis or analysing signals from radio telescopes.

I once talked to a young woman who got a postgraduate degree in archeology, she thought she would be going on adventures in far away places maybe a bit like Indie Jones, but in the end she was working in a musuem and spent all her work hours staring at rock samples and dating them.

Other Comments by Bonzai

20. Comment #431364 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 3:10 pm

It is a good talk, but I do disagree strongly with Carolyn's initial comments about science and religion.

The existence of God certainly is a scientific question, and atheism is a reasonable scientific conclusion. The Theist Hypothesis is that there has been supernatural interference in the natural world. All the supposed evidence for that has been satisfactorily shown to be not evidence for theism at all. Combined with the vast amount of evidence that the universe operates naturalistically, this should surely lead us to consider atheism a "theorum", to use Richard's term.

There is another way that theism can be investigated scientifically. It is a belief system held by humans, whose minds and psychology can be studied.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #431367 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 3:18 pm

I would like to add a more positive comment: I totally agree that Porco is our new Sagan. She is a fantastic speaker and and important promoter of science.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

22. Comment #431368 by Bonzai on November 12, 2009 at 3:21 pm

Steve

The existence of God certainly is a scientific question, and atheism is a reasonable scientific conclusion. The Theist Hypothesis is that there has been supernatural interference in the natural world. All the supposed evidence for that has been satisfactorily shown to be not evidence for theism at all. Combined with the vast amount of evidence that the universe operates naturalistically, this should surely lead us to consider atheism a "theorum", to use Richard's term.

So in one short paragraph you summarize the answer already. What would be the point for scientists to belabour the point by investigating claims that are outlandishly false? (as far as religion has anything concrete to say about their Gods) It is not good for your scientific career by dwelling on things that you can't publish in respectable peer reviewed journals. :)

Edited The existence of God may or may not be a scientific question, --actually it may not be a question at all,--it depends on what you mean by 'God" and it is, as you know, quite flexible and sometimes flexible to the point of meaningless (like the gap filling God/Gods)

There is another way that theism can be investigated scientifically. It is a belief system held by humans, whose minds and psychology can be studied.

That is strictly speaking an investigation of religion or religious behaviour, not the claims of God. :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

23. Comment #431371 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 3:31 pm

Comment #431368 by Bonzai

What would be the point for scientists to belabour the point by investigating claims that are outlandishly false?

Indeed.

That is strictly speaking an investigation of religion or religious behaviour, not the claims of God. :)

This is something I have been thinking about a lot recently.

Imagine a time in the future when we can model and truly understand brains. It may take decades, or it may take centuries. But I have no doubt it will happen.

This will mean we can actually investigate claims of God because we will be able to understand precisely why people make those claims.

What will be particularly damaging for theism is when we can say precisely in materialistic terms what the basis of religious experiences is, and can show that it has no supernatural basis at all.

If you take the view that our minds are the result of our brains, then any statement about anything at all can be subject to scientific inquiry, as that statement is made "by a brain".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

24. Comment #431372 by Bonzai on November 12, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Steve

If you take the view that our minds are the result of our brains, then any statement about anything at all can be subject to scientific inquiry, as that statement is made "by a brain".

There is a loop hole though. If you are a determined theist you can always say that such and such brain activities are the results of God 'working through nature', inducing the psychological states that result in religiosity.

There is always this 'loop hole' for those who insist on inserting a God in the background. In that case of course God would be a completely useless concept, but strictly speaking you still can't prove its non existence. Einstein didn't prove that the aether doesn't exist, only that you can do (better) without it. :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

25. Comment #431373 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Comment #431372 by Bonzai

In that case of course God would be a completely useless concept, but strictly speaking you still can't prove its non existence.

Indeed, but at some point surely, surely, it is reasonable to come to a scientific conclusion of non-existence.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

26. Comment #431374 by God fearing Atheist on November 12, 2009 at 4:04 pm

25. Comment #431373 by Steve Zara
Indeed, but at some point surely, surely, it is reasonable to come to a scientific conclusion of non-existence.

Change "non-existence" to "irrelevance" and I agree.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

27. Comment #431375 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Comment #431374 by God fearing Atheist

I'm afraid I can't change that, as I really do mean non-existence.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

28. Comment #431378 by Tyler Durden on November 12, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Comment #431373 by Steve Zara

Indeed, but at some point surely, surely, it is reasonable to come to a scientific conclusion of non-existence.

Non-existence in the brain of an individual or in the known (and ever expanding) universe?

'Theory of mind' could help explain belief in God

"It's not surprising that religious beliefs engage mainly the theory-of-mind areas, as they are about virtual beings who are treated as having essentially human mental traits, just as characters in a novel or play are," comments Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist at the University of Oxford.

NewSciencist Article

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

29. Comment #431380 by chewedbarber on November 12, 2009 at 4:37 pm

We are well past the point of concluding the non-existence of God. If anyone wants to claim otherwise, then they should first present a definition of a God which has not already been shown not to exist because its attributes have been shown not to exist. If God is God the creator but the creator did not create, then that God is just what exactly? God of nothing is the same as no God.

Other Comments by chewedbarber

30. Comment #431381 by God fearing Atheist on November 12, 2009 at 4:39 pm

Assume the SciFi concept of a "universe simulator"

They are created by gods and given to their kids as computer games.

Our universe is such a simulation. The simulation is a closure from the perspective of the simulated entities inside (us). There is no possible way we can know about anything outside the simulation, or ever gain any evidence there even is an outside.

However, god child, lets call him Kevin, can both save bit of the simulation, archive them and/or plug them into other simulations. Kevin can also interfere with the simulations.

If Kevin saves the state of simulated human minds at "death" and plugs them into another simulation we have an afterlife. Because the system is output only, we have no evidence at all for this process.

However, if Kevin uses any input facilities at all we immediately have theoretical evidence of Kevin's meddling. The closure of the simulation is broken, and Kevin is part of the universe. I said theoretical, rather than practical, as Kevin could interfere at about the level of simulated noise in the system (the level theists claim for miracles), and be as hard to detect as he is ineffective at influencing what goes no. However, whatever the level of interference from Kevin he has now made himself part of the universe and capable of detection and investigation by the scientific method by the inhabitants of the simulated universe.

This is precisely what theists claim. They claim to know what Kevin wants, he talks to some of them, he lays down rules, and when he scrapes out souls on death he places them in other universe simulators - "hell" and "heaven" according to how well they obayed the rules he input. This religious view (theism) is a scientific hypothesis and is scientifically testable.

If Kevin takes output only - he just watches, we have no way of knowing, and the hypothesis is not scientifically testable. Its is deism and is irrelevant to human affairs.

If Kevin takes output only; he watches but also scrapes souls; again we have no way of knowing. It is not scientificaly testable. It might be useful to know what Kevin does with the souls, but for all we know he likes horror movies and only the nastiest psychopaths are scraped for "Kevins horror show universe". Since we can't know by definition, again it is irrelevant for human affairs.

In conclusion: If god is relevant, god is part of the universe, and the god hypothesis is theoretically scientifically testable. If god is not part of the universe, is "super natural" or "outside the universe", the god hypothsis is not scientifically testable but is irrelevant to human affairs.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

31. Comment #431382 by Bonzai on November 12, 2009 at 4:46 pm

GFA

Ranked as excellent!

Other Comments by Bonzai

32. Comment #431383 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 4:47 pm

Comment #431378 by Tyler Durden

I'd say non-existence in the universe. I seem to be becoming a stronger and stronger atheist as time passes (even though I have sometimes disliked the term).

Regarding the theory of mind, I was looking forward to something a bit more science-fictiony, but still likely: Actual evidence of mind, through a full modeling of neurones and their activity.

I sometimes feel that some supposedly very difficult questions (what is consciousness, is there a God) can be productively dealt with by investigation of beliefs about the question.

Once we know precisely why someone has a belief in a God, and we can describe the origins of that belief in purely physical terms(*) then that pretty much wraps it up for God (this kind of analysis can wreck other ideas too, such as dualism).

[(*) to be philosophically rigorous, what we actually would have to show is that we can go deterministically all the way to the firings of neurones that lead someone to say "I believe in God", from initial purely physical brain states, but that's getting a bit detailed]

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #431385 by Bonzai on November 12, 2009 at 4:57 pm

Steve

[(*) to be philosophically rigorous, what we actually would have to show is that we can go deterministically all the way to the firings of neurones that lead someone to say "I believe in God", from initial purely physical brain states, but that's getting a bit detailed

I don't think that can be done simply because of nontractability (Determinism is meaningless for your purpose if you cannot track how things unfold because of, say, chaos)

But no matter, even if you can actually observe where the concept of God comes from say through some kind of neronal scan *philosophically* it is still no prove that God doesn't exist.

There are already ways to simulate religious experience by manipulating brain activities (e.g Michael Persinger's "God helmet" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger) But the theists would argue that you can reproduce the effect of God consciousness through physical means is not a proof that all God consciousness must be produced in this way (It doesn't follow from P -> Q that Q cannot be implied by something other than P) Also, there is always the escape valve that it was God who induced the brain conditions in the first place.

EDITED For those who attempt to say gotcha, I never refrain from talking about philosophy, I just don't think it is very difficult and that it requires "professional" training to do that. :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

34. Comment #431388 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 5:11 pm

Comment #431385 by Bonzai

I don't think that can be done simply because of nontractability (Determinism is meaningless for your purpose if you cannot track how things unfold because of, say, chaos)

There is good reason to believe that the brain isn't normally chaotic (indeed, chaotic activity seems to be a feature of illnesses such as epilepsy), but even if it was, this would not matter if we can get to a stage of modeling sufficiently every part. There are long-term projects to do precisely that.

But no matter, even if you have a very good theory and experimental data about where the concept of God comes from *philosophically* it is still no prove that God doesn't exist. Science only provide testable models, not what the world actually *is* (whatever that means, I will leave it to the 'professional philosophers' to ponder)

I'm not saying that we can prove that God does not exist. What I'm saying is that we can get to a sufficient level of evidence where we can come to a firm scientific conclusion that God does not exist. It's not the same thing.

We can't prove for sure that the earth is round, as we may all be brains in jars actually living on a flat world, but it is still reasonable to conclude scientifically that the world is spherical.

So I support the Atheist Theorum.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #431389 by Bonzai on November 12, 2009 at 5:13 pm

Continued from the last post..

Penfeld showed even in the 1950's that you can create sensations of sight and sound by stimulating different parts of the brain (Basically a simulation experiment). So he could say, create a sensation of eating chocolate by doing something to your brain even though there is no chocolate. But certainly it doesn't prove that chocolate is only a figment of your imagination.

Other Comments by Bonzai

36. Comment #431391 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 5:16 pm

Comment #431389 by Bonzai

But we know deterministically where that sensation of chocolate comes from. If we can show deterministically that the "sensation" of God does not come from outside the brain (God isn't stimulating the nerve cells), then that's it really.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

37. Comment #431392 by Bonzai on November 12, 2009 at 5:19 pm

Steve,

But Penfeld showed quite deterministically that if he stuck a needle in spot A in your brain, say, you would experience the sensation of eating delicious chocolate even though you were actually lying on a surgery table. This didn't prove the non existence of chocolate!

Other Comments by Bonzai

38. Comment #431394 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 5:23 pm

Comment #431392 by Bonzai

It doesn't prove the non-existence of chocolate, but what it shows is that in order to get the experience of chocolate without it being there, you have to directly mess with the brain.

For the "experience" of God to be considered real, then there must be some direct connection between God and brain cells, just as the taste buds that we use to sense chocolate have a connection.

A fully deterministic model of the brain can investigate that.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #431395 by God fearing Atheist on November 12, 2009 at 5:25 pm

So Steve, when the computational neuroscientists have finished their work do you think philosphy professors like John Searle (or Chinese bloody room infamy), or the godbots arguing from their own incredulity, will accept this is the complete origin and explanation for "concept of god"?

On a more interesting note, I'm going to a lecture next week about a 1 million processor chip for simulating neurons currently in development. (Well I hope it is 1 million processors, not a multi-processor chip to simulate 1 million neurons!)

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

40. Comment #431401 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 5:49 pm

Comment #431395 by God fearing Atheist

So Steve, when the computational neuroscientists have finished their work do you think philosphy professors like John Searle (or Chinese bloody room infamy), or the godbots arguing from their own incredulity, will accept this is the complete origin and explanation for "concept of god"?

I doubt it. But in terms of science, I would say it makes the conclusion of atheism inevitable.

I doubt it because there are already very strange arguments for dualism, such as (David Chalmer's 'zombies' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Zombie) that rely purely on personal incredulity.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #431403 by nother person on November 12, 2009 at 6:12 pm

I think the idea that Hollywood has a single story concerning scientists is strained. There have been a spate of 'scientist as action hero' movies of late, for instance. But although strained, there is also something to it. For instance, the ordinary couch potato with no real life involvement in police work would nevertheless recognize many fine role distinctions, such as cop on the beat, patrolman, desk sergeant, detective, forensic expert, private security guard, P.I. etc... But 'a scientist' in the movies is usually very generic, equal parts experimenter and theorist, and often a hazy mishmash of biologist-chemist-physicist-electrical engineer. Whether evil and insane or technological Merlin, the message is reliably: this role is not to be emulated–either cannot be emulated or ought not be emulated.

Other Comments by nother person

42. Comment #431404 by God fearing Atheist on November 12, 2009 at 6:13 pm

40. Comment #431401 by Steve Zara

Thanks for reminding me of p-zombies, not.

It brings back memories of cognitive psychology lectures and the hordes of "philosophers" showing their total ignorance of computer science, mathematics or computational neuroscience. It was when I first read Dan Dennett, refreshingly driving a bulldozer through their naive arguments from personal incredulity.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

43. Comment #431409 by Eshto on November 12, 2009 at 6:41 pm

I cried.

Other Comments by Eshto

44. Comment #431415 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 6:54 pm

Comment #431404 by God fearing Atheist

When I first read Dennett, I thought he was clearly wrong. But the more I looked into the ideas of "p-zombies" the stranger it seemed. That a being could exist that was in every physical was identical to me but which did not have internal experiences - "qualia".

Then, suddenly it hit me. How could a zombie know it was a zombie? It couldn't. So how could we know? We can't. So the idea has no useful meaning.

This is part of the reason I think that Porco is wrong. Religious questions only make sense they are asked in a context of dualism. They are begging the question.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #431422 by alovrin on November 12, 2009 at 7:14 pm

For the "experience" of God to be considered real, then there must be some direct connection between God and brain cells

In fact I tried, for a few years, to activate this supposed connection in my own brain. When finally, after many false positives and no results, I realised there is no such brain- god connection.
But funnily enough, as an off shoot, I find solitude quite enjoyable.

Other Comments by alovrin

46. Comment #431444 by bluebird on November 12, 2009 at 8:37 pm

Very nice, thanks :)

She mentions 2009 as the celebratory year of Galileo, the telescope & astronomy. Reminds me of Tafelmusik's 'Galileo Project - Music of the Spheres'. I think this is coming to K.C. early 2010, I'd LOVE to see it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJRCUbMmvHo

Other Comments by bluebird

47. Comment #431445 by jackal on November 12, 2009 at 8:44 pm

In case anyone else wants a copy of that beautiful image of the Saturn solar eclipse from 38 min in: http://member.ipmu.jp/brian.powell/Saturn_eclipse.jpg

Other Comments by jackal

48. Comment #431476 by Quine on November 12, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Comment #431415 by Steve Zara:

Then, suddenly it hit me. How could a zombie know it was a zombie? It couldn't. So how could we know? We can't. So the idea has no useful meaning.

Exactly. That is why I came out as a zombie. I realized that I could not know if I have an "inner life" or just think that I do. From this I developed the theory of Zombie Relativity which states that if B can run A as a simulation, then A is a zombie relative to B. For example, if C. elegans could ask us about it, we could tell it, "yeah, you're a zombie." So, for us, we will have to wait for something like superintellect AI or ET to come along and fill us in, however, by Occam, the base assumption starts at zombiehood until you can show by evidence something "higher," so, zombie is where I am.

It is not easy; you just have to take all those zombie jokes, BOTOH, having no inner life, you know you are not really insulted.

Other Comments by Quine

49. Comment #431477 by Steve Zara on November 12, 2009 at 10:20 pm

Comment #431476 by Quine

My argument for my zombie-nature is a bit stronger than I have expressed. It is that if a p-zombie can say "I experience qualia", then my own inner mental voice that expresses that idea could also be a result of "p-zombie processes", and so I can't trust my own judgment about my personal zombie-nature.

So, for us, we will have to wait for something like superintellect AI or ET to come along and fill us in

I don't think we will have to wait. I think there are some philosophical arguments based on modal logic that I have been playing around with that make our zombie nature pretty much guaranteed, but also I think that it could well be possible for us to examine our own nature through a full simulation of ourselves: To use your terminology, A can run A as a simulation.

I like the idea of "coming out as a zombie". That surely requires some kind of badge or T-shirt design. Perhaps a red 'Z'?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #431483 by Quine on November 12, 2009 at 10:34 pm

Comment #431477 by Steve Zara:

To use your terminology, A can run A as a simulation.

I suspect that invokes the "halting problem" and/or requires unbounded stack space.

Other Comments by Quine