Contact logic not adequate for real life situations

[Ghost Post]

But doesn't the term "unpredictable" depend on your point of view? 2000 years ago a solar eclipse or a comet in the sky would have been considered "unpredictable" but today they aren't. With the developments being made with quantum computers, its possible that we could have a pretty firm grasp on weather patterns in the not too far future. And even then, if something is "unpredictable" how do we know the difference between the real thing and a simulation? They don't have to be identical, just close enough that we don't know the difference. I think the only real problem is making sure they that have the ability to get enough data on how to simulate these events.

Davy

[Cappuccino]

Yes, you have made a good point, and there is no reason why the Aliens could not take reductionist science much much farther than we could even consider. But in my mind, making the fake Earth appear real requires two things. First, the condition at the time you visit must either be exactly like or very similar to the real Earth. Second, and most important, the processes that govern how the Earth behaves must also replicate the real Earth, otherwise the systems will diverge in a way that is obvious.

In my view, to make the system believable, it would have to be a dynamic system like ours, which developed over a few billion years, otherwise the details would get lost. And details would be very important in the long run, because as contradictory as this sounds, unpredictability can produce patterns that are very predictable. Damn, I'm talking chaos theory again.

[CzarJ]

Uh... uh... I disagree.

I'm confused.

------------------
Basket-Weaving For Donuts, Where You Weave Baskets And Get Donuts.

The Doctor Is In. $.05

[Vanyo]

And then it's not clear the puzzle (or whatever it is) is asking for an entire earth-like world. Maybe just a small island with an earth-like town would suffice. Although there's a sort of holographic quality to our world - the details reflect the overall structure.

[Cappuccino]

Of course, it could be that all of us right now are part of a world that is really just a laboratory experiment made up by Aliens to demonstrate that they can replicate the "true Earth" which exists far far away. In which case, all of our fussing about authenticity would be moot because we are thereby all fakes, and self-absorbed ones at that.

[Ghost Post]

I think the answer to the question is no. I would consider the question centres more around linguistics than anything else, addressing whether or not it is possible to transmit through a mutual platform of communication the atomic construction of our environment. I think the fact remains that language is based upon our mutual understanding of our surroundings (a fact that is reaffirmed by the well known example of the Inuit people who have well over 40 words for the word 'snow' as a result of their environment), and since aliens would not share this understanding of language itself being absent from the place at which communication occurs, it is simply impossible for them to comprehend or derive a perception of something outside their experience. In short, language is relatively insufficient in describing things and evoking experiences that are not shared by the receiver. I'm afraid the aliens are just going to have to visit if they ever want to comprehend our world due to the futility and inadequecy of human communication.

[Icarus]

Although I do not believe this puzzle teeters on left to right - here's how you solve this dilemma once and for all.

The aliens are of advanced inteligence, as stated, and they have developed not only radio technology, but also some magic teleportation device, or space travel - So since they have the inteligence to figure out this level of sophistication, they could easily take the next step - triangulate your radio source. If they can't figure out this simple process, how can they really locate your exact location in the first place to beam you to their planet at all ?

You're at a fixed point on earth every time you receive and broadcast your signal, as are the aliens. The aliens setup a very simple space map/axis and measure the amount of time it takes them to send you a signal and for you to reply - the simple basics of radar and sonar measures distance/time travel.

The aliens have detailed knowledge of physics, math, geometry and how planets revolve/rotate. Every time they send and receive a signal, they plot time/distance on their chart. They can use a computer to plot this as a 3-d model. Do this for 24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days, and guess what - the aliens now know exactly how the earth orbits around the sun. Unless you are transmitting from the equator, or the north or south pole, the aliens can easily determine if you are on the northern or southern hemisphere by determining the circumference you have traveled in relationship to the circumference of the earth.

So for one year you station yourself in the northern hemisphere, the next year you transmit from the southern hemisphere. You don't even need a full year for each - but obviously time isn't a factor in this puzzle.

The more I think about it, you don't even need to worry about the equator, Northern or Southern hemisphere - no matter where you stand on earth North will always be to the left while facing the direction of rotation. Just don't transmit at the exact pivot point.

You've now established north from south, the rotation of the earth on it's own axis, and around the sun.

Standing on the northern hemisphere and facing the direction of earth's rotation, you can now clearly define left from right, up from down, etc. etc. etc.

[Ghost Post]

I know how much people hate it when philosophy is brought into seemingly simple physics, chemistry or math problems, but I feel I must.

We are asked as the crucial question whether or not we could tell the difference... Seems to me that we could "physically" not tell. I assume that enough care was put into the formulation that it can be assumed that we can physically recreate a mirror-image of all of the atoms, quantum particles, spaces between matter, etc. due to the fact that we are given close to unlimited resources to do so.

But here's what I will add:

Andre Agassi is matter. The game he plays is physics. The chemistry of his body allows him to perform as he does and therefore tennis-playing is clearly describeable. Thus, we should be able (given enough clarity of description) to recreate an Andre Agassi.

So skip the third-dimension stuff. Andre could speak to, train, rescramble atoms and molecules and create a likeness of himself right here on earth. A formidable opponent posessed of all his talents and abilities!

Let's keep this simple, and not let too much philosophy get in our way: Andre Agassi and all of the humans alive are at the disposal of the project of recreating Andre Agassi... No, all they have to concentyrate on is recreating a being who can match his tennis-playing abilities.

So they stop to ask Andre how he returns a serve. How does he know to anticipate the exact position of the returning ball in space... How does he know to apply the exact amount of blood to the veins of his arm, in order that the appropriate amount of force is transferred through the racket to the ball. How does he calculate his overall appendage position in order to remain standing in balance and not teetering over after every serve?

Andre responds that he does not consciously perform any of these actions... He cannot explain any of this any more than he can force his mind to think of nothing at all, to stop thinking. If Andre himself is incapable of describing these, who will for him?

[Vanyo]

A clock can't explain how it ticks, but it isn't hard to understand. I think I miss the point. Andre knows tennis, not human physiology.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the whole point of this puzzle was the issue of defining left and right. Anything else that's been discussed is a matter of degree - how practical is it to describe what in how much detail. It's easy to imagine more or less workable solutions. But who would have thought of cooling cobalt 60 to near absolute zero and watching how it emits electrons in a magnetic field? And who would have thought left and right were so hard - rather uniquely hard - to describe?

[Ghost Post]

You are right. A clock can't explain, yet a clock is simple.

But is all that is as simple as it's description? The point I am trying to raise is that there are forces operative on us that we are not consciously aware of, and therefore that defy description.

(I can hear the shouts of horror as we enter into the realm of spiritual or magical!)

If all is reducible to mathematics, physics and chemistry, then we would be able to recreate another Andre Agassi. Yet Andre Agassi, regardless of his knowledge of physiology, is able to return a serve....

He does so either pre or sub-consciously. All the measurement in the world could not recreate a simple act such as returning a serve as well as this seemingly simnple combination of mostly carbon that is man....

[Vanyo]

[Ghost Post]

The answer to the question is Yes and No it depends on how you want to state not reconize our world. You can explain every objects make up what they look like color atomic structure ect. ect. You can also teach them what many words of the languages of Earth, but that only goes so far. It would be nearly impossible to explain what emotions are. It would also be Impossible to explain how people treat each other and how they act. The only way to explain that is if the alien race already had the concepts of emotion and that would be hard to explain because you would have to explain by using numbers that made pictures and hope they would understand. The fact is you could make a world that looked exactly like ours but if you wanted the people to act like us it would be by chance depending if they have emotions or not.

[Ghost Post]

Quote:

That's your assertion, but I don't believe it. In a hundred years we'll have two-legged two-armed robots that can play tennis better than any human. And they won't be conscious of how they do it, or be conscious of anything at all for that matter.

It was not long ago widely held that a computer could never play better than an average game of chess."

Reply:

The person playing chess can break down each necessary movement of the game and all of the necessary logic behind it.

All actions in Chess are consciously taken decisions. That is why I use tennis as the example. Tennis, like our reaction of movement when startled or the act of expulsion when sneezing is done either pre or sub-consciously.

I'll throw another philosophical loop into this. The eye is both the source and the terminus of sight. As the eye experiences perception of the world external to itself, it is affected by thoe objects external to itself.

It is even affected by the nose, which it can see if looking downwards and inwards a bit.

It is affected even by the eyelashes if it points itself just right. But what about the cornea? Can the eye see the cornea? Or the pupil?

The eye can see all except for itself. There is a chasm and it is presumably in this chasm that the act of sight actually occurs.

[Vanyo]

[Ghost Post]

The real tennis playing seems to be a battle of assertions between Vanyo and Zygon quoting back and forth! Though I've got to say I do think Zygon's got a good point. I think external influences on the outcome of a tennis match are being glossed over somewhat. There is the importance of 'Luck' which is instrumental in the succes or failure of a match. There is the problem of judgement, a bad call might also result in the loss of the match. To Vanyo: if technology is to become as advanced as you presuppose, then how come
Wimbledon's 'Cyclops' machine constantly makes errors in assessing whether or not the ball is in play? Furthermore if the perfect mechanical tennis player is created what would be the point in watching the game? Ironically your scientific judgement detracts from the fundamental point of tennis as a 'game'. The potential for failure is essential in making the victory worth while.
In terms of your point about mechanical eyes that are more advanced than our own, surely this is rendred slightly defunct by the fact that no matter how advanced a focal system we construct, this must at some stage pass through the inferior 'eyes' that we were born with. As of yet we can't reconstruct our physiology through technology but merely provide extensions to it. However these extensions simply cannot bypass the organs that are a product of our biological construction.

[Vanyo]

What the heck are you talking about? Seriously, I'm completely missing your point.

[Ghost Post]

You are surely the first person in known science who consciously exerts the impulses to your muscles when startled.

[Vanyo]

[Ghost Post]

Quote:

There need be no consciousness. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Is not the reason for this ridiculously apparent? It was the conscious mind that developed the technologies that you speak of so reverently in the first place. Without the conscious mind technology wouldn't exist, period. So Vanyo how can you dismiss with such ease the importance of consciousness in technological advancement? The world simply presents too many variables in the environment for a single machine to function in the way humans do without being conscious. The capacity for a machine to spontaneously adapt to its surroundings is no where near as advanced as the human body. This was my earlier point which you seemed to miss, which is probably my own fault for not explaining clearly. The crowd at a tennis match could inspire Agassi to 'up his game'. No robot is capable of responding to outside variables such as this, certainly Deep Thought wasn't. You seem to ignore what a fantastic piece of machinery the human body is. I do see your point Vanyo, but do you not think perhaps genetics opens up more possibilities for producing a Wimbledon champion (for example) than technology does? My biggest problem with your argument Vanyo is that it is the fact that we are conscious that we recognise 'self'. It is this recognition of 'self' in conjunction with our relationship to our surroundings that make us adaptable, I do not think our evolution is purely sub conscious. When you can show me a robot that can make reasessments of itself, that can adjust to a million variables then you prove me wrong. And who knows if you do prove me wrong this might be a good thing for us all, as the technologies you propose certainly sound like an exciting development.

[Lord Bart]

*IF* we could describe our world in every detail then the alien world would be identical to ours. If it were not identical then we havent described our world well enough. So the real question is *can we describe our world*? I think the question presupposes we can, and the answer is yes. We have mathematical concepts of chaos and things like the uncertainty principle which could introduce the desired randomness that some people think would be unable to duplicate.

[Ghost Post]

Well, the question isn't really if we can describe our world well enough for it to be reproduced, right? Only well enough to fool ourselves. Isn't that something humans are exceptionally good at?
http://www.newsday.com/coverage/current/fanfare/thursday/nd8318.htm

... not quite it perhaps, but promising yes?

[Ghost Post]

But the problem surely lies in the fact that any language is removed from that which it is describing. Language can only be shared and fully understood by those with a mutual understanding of the circumstance in which communication takes place. Therefore no description will be adequate unless the aliens experience the world for themselves. Furthermore everyone's perception of the world is slightly different so who do we give the responsibility of describing to the aliens the factual necessities of our environment without introducing subjective assumptions? The problem is Language itself, and therefore the answer to the question is surely no.

[Ghost Post]

Suddenly I rember a passage from "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in which Dent struggles to explain to a machine that he want's water with the flavor of boiled leaves, and ends up with (as i recall?) "something almost but not quite entirely unlike tea"
^_^

[Vanyo]

I said: "There need be no consciousness. Why would anyone think otherwise?"

And it was clear I was talking about developing a machine to perform a task - in this case to play tennis. Machines can play chess without consciousness. You can build a machine with electronic "eyes" and robotic arms that can swing at a ball that is tossed at it. That's not tennis. But at what point in refining such a machine to the point that it could play tenis well would you need to endow it with "consciousness" (something you can't define, by the way)? And, the real question: why?

[Ghost Post]

Can I just add my stupid thought ?
Someone once said, I think, that there's no scientific observation that doesn't produce subtle changes in the observed. By observing them to communicate them you get to interfere with their normal state and alter them.

(Sorry, this thought came to me while thinking (and laughing a lot) about Agassi being cut in two and examined to be rebuilt on xd34-b Centauri.)

[Ghost Post]

Jarvis:

I love what you bring into this discussion when you note the catch 22 of description being possible only when there is a "mutual understanding of the circumstance in which communication takes place." How do we describe joy except by example? Or love? Or horror. Emotions are more than hteir mere descriptions, they are innate.

Vanyo, I quote the puzzle here again in response to your assertion that there need be no consciousness: "Assuming the aliens can build anything that you can describe..." How can you describe the world "well enough that you couldn't tell the difference" and still omit consciousness? Whatever definition you want to give this term, it is amazingly present in our world.

What this puzzle really does is to pit those who revere science against those sceptical of science. The question could have just as easily been "can science cure every ill" or "can mankind control the universe".

Formulated another way someone once stated "God is Dead."

[Sam]

If we assume that they can build anything, and we lived in, say, New York, there would be now problem. However, one must consider vegetation to create a propper world like oru own. Now if that is taken into consideration with "reasources" then there isn't as much of a problem.

A second major issue that pops into mind is the question of atmosphere. Who's to say that there was no misunderstanding when communicating about oxygen content in the air of the new planet. It would be easy to confuse covalent molecules such as Oxygen and say, Chlorine. That would pose a problem.

Thirdly, there is the question of emotion. One cannot simulate our world unless the emotions and lifestyles can also be simulated. The alien could be lying and just want to use you for a lab experiment.

when you get down to it. You will definitely be able to notice a difference because you will be surrounded by aliens that dont speak your language.

[Sam]

If we assume that they can build anything, and we lived in, say, New York, there would be now problem. However, one must consider vegetation to create a propper world like oru own. Now if that is taken into consideration with "reasources" then there isn't as much of a problem.

A second major issue that pops into mind is the question of atmosphere. Who's to say that there was no misunderstanding when communicating about oxygen content in the air of the new planet. It would be easy to confuse covalent molecules such as Oxygen and say, Chlorine. That would pose a problem.

Thirdly, there is the question of emotion. One cannot simulate our world unless the emotions and lifestyles can also be simulated. The alien could be lying and just want to use you for a lab experiment.

when you get down to it. You will definitely be able to notice a difference because you will be surrounded by aliens that dont speak your language.

[Ghost Post]

For a message board which exists solely to discuss hypothetical situations, you folk have some pretty unflattering ideas about the uses of language...

[JPJ]

I think the problem as posed comes down to telling left from right. This used to be thought insoluble but (anti matter apart) is now known to be solvable. See this link.
http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html

The answer to the problem is therefore, yes, you could describe our world in sufficient detail assuming that you were prepared to take the chance of ending up in an anti-matter world.

I am not so sure of the non-physics aspects of this discussion!

[Icarus]

I can't remember the name of the movie - or if it was a movie or a tv show - "Outer Limits" or something like that.

Anyway, my point is it dealt with a similar topic of human beings and aliens - the aliens tried to reproduce food (human food). I think it was a piece of cake. It looked like cake, but it didn't have the taste of cake.

I really wish I could remember what movie it was - does this sound familiar to anyone ? I don't think it's too far off from this puzzle - how would you describe taste, smell, flavor ?

You can go through all the scientific explanations you want, but you can't escape the fact that everyones senses are different. How do you describe the smell that's left behind after a rain on a hot summer day ?

And then I still come back to thinking there are just some things you cannot duplicate. Thoughts. After all, isn't that what makes us unique ?

Scientists have cloned thousands of organisms - yet are they all the same as the original - NO. They can't be. They may have the same exact DNA and gentic structure, but there is still an inherent difference, at least for now - in the case of the sheep - age. In the case of human beings - thoughts.

And here's one to think about - how do you describe to the aliens a soul ? Of course now you've crossed that line between science and religion - but how do you create a soul ? But then again, maybe that's too deep for this puzzle ?

[Ghost Post]

accurate communication among humans is itself so difficult.
tangibles can be described in maths, physics and chem - but what about intangibles - emotions etc. that make up a home ?

[Vanyo]

[dave10000]

quote:

---

(ICARUS)
Anyway, my point is it dealt with a similar topic of human beings and aliens - the aliens tried to reproduce food (human food). I think it was a piece of cake. It looked like cake, but it didn't have the taste of cake.

I really wish I could remember what movie it was - does this sound familiar to anyone ? I don't think it's too far off from this puzzle - how would you describe taste, smell, flavor ?

---

I don't know if this is the one you were recalling, but a scene like the one you describe appears in the Star Trek episode that IIRC has the Green Girl (Yvonne Craig, later of Batgirl fame). Kirk & others are given food & drink (sort of) around a big table, & later offerred gems (which were more real because their structure was easier for the aliens to understand).

[Ghost Post]

Quote:

You can describe a smell accurately enough to reproduce it by describing the chemicals in the air.

Yes, although we would all smell something different due to the fact that some of us have stronger senses of smell than others. But you simply cannot reproduce an experience through 'description'. This act of replication automatcially sets it apart from that which is replicated. It is different by definition of the fact it is a 'duplicate'. Since all our experiences of the world differ how do you suggest a myriad of 'conscious' perceptions be replicated for it to be convincing as not just 'the world' but rather 'our' worlds as we each individually perceive them.

I think Zygon hit the nail on the head when stating that the puzzle fragments those who 'revere' science from those who are 'skeptical'. I would certainly consider myself a 'skeptic', though my skepticsm largely pivots around linguistics more than anything else. And I would be interested to know as cohesive a scientific argument as Vanyo can put forward to other human beings, what platform of communication would you use to communicate the same to aliens? I am certainly skeptical that any such platform of mutual understanding can exist when the aliens have not experienced our world or rather 'worlds' as we individually understand them. Vanyo, the world you describes sounds cohesive and whole in which science can seemingly solve many things. The argument I put forward is based on a world that I think is far more fragmented than you suggest, the world of human 'consciousness' (though the understanding of the terms seems to be controversial and slightly devisive in solving the puzzle), and ultimatley Vanyo it is the 'conscious' mind that must be fooled by the aliens in the duplication of our world.

[Vanyo]

Zygon:

[Ghost Post]

Vanyo;

You ask if I can describe consciousness... No. In fact this is part of the basis of my argument. I cannot describe that which I cannot break-down into individual parts. Consciousness is the result of something that is more than the sum of it's individual parts. You claim neuron interaction or some mechanical interaction of substance somewhere... I don't!

Let me give you the simplest programming test of all. I want you to build a program that will respond appropriately to "Hello". Simple, huh?

Some of the responses possible would be "Hi" "How are ya?" "I have to go now". But what about "Banana." Is this an appropriate response?

[Vanyo]

"You can describe a smell accurately enough to reproduce it by describing the chemicals in the air."

[Vanyo]

[Ghost Post]

Do you think a machine can make mistakes like a man does ?