Tag Archives: Philosophers

Ancient Philosophers’ Hidden Writings Rediscovered from ‘Unreadable’ Scrolls

Posted on by
Reply
Carbonized scroll from Herculaneum

Rediscovered Carbonized Scroll from Herculaneum Utilizing Advanced Imaging Technology

Paolo Verzone/National Geographic

A remarkable ancient philosophical manuscript has resurfaced from a papyrus scroll, previously deemed unreadable due to the catastrophic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. For the first time, researchers have harnessed AI to extract the entire remaining text from an ultra-high-resolution 3D scan of the scroll without the need for physical unrolling.

The scrolls were excavated from the library at Herculaneum, buried alongside Pompeii approximately 2,000 years ago. Since the library’s discovery in 1752, scholars have endeavored to read these charred relics resembling lumps of charcoal. However, attempting to physically open them poses a risk of irreversible damage, and the ink is nearly indistinguishable from the charred papyrus to the naked eye.

Beginning in 2023, the Vesuvius Challenge employed a particle accelerator to scan multiple scrolls, sharing the results with a collaborative online community. This collective effort culminated in AI software capable of digitally opening the scroll and detecting remnants of ink, facilitating easier reading of titles, authors, and excerpts.

This time, the research team unveiled a 1.5-meter-long text inscribed in 22 columns on a 2-centimeter-wide core, with its outer layer having been meticulously removed over centuries for reading.

“I found a record that I attempted to open multiple times but could not decipher,” states Federica Nicolaardi from Federico II University of Naples, Italy. “Some fragments remain from earlier attempts to physically open it, revealing only a few visible letters. Yet through virtual opening, we are reshaping the historical narrative surrounding this papyrus.”

Scrolls co-founders of the Vesuvius Challenge, such as Brent Shields from the University of Kentucky, refer to this scroll as the “Impossible Scroll.” This scroll represents just one among hundreds of texts that withstood early papyrus scholars’ simplifications.

Shields explains that the combination of high-resolution imaging, reaching down to 2 micrometers, and extensive scanning data enables the discovery of lengthy passages within scrolls that were once thought unreadable.

Currently, the AI models adapt to specific scrolls based on variations like ink composition. Shields expresses optimism that with enough exposure, the AI will eventually uncover ink within these ancient texts. “We are leveraging large-scale language models for this task,” he adds, “yet we have not fully transitioned this technology for scroll analysis.”

The uncovered texts delve into themes of ethics, art, and humanity, with numerous references to Stoic doctrines. This aligns with second-century B.C. literature and suggests that Chrysippus, the Greek Stoic philosopher, is likely the author, as noted by Nicolaardi.

Chrysippus is regarded as a foundational figure in Stoicism, yet nearly all of his works have been lost to time. According to classical scholars like Thomas Coward from the University of Bristol, we mainly recognize him through others’ often critical works.

“Accessing the original text, rather than fragments or interpretations by others, is pivotal,” he states, comparing this breakthrough to the rediscovery of lost works by luminaries like Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein that only exist through references from other scientists.

Text from the philosopher Philodemus Found Within the Herculaneum Scrolls

Vesuvius Challenge

Among Chrysippus’ critics was Philodemus, a lesser-known Epicurean philosopher of the first century, whose work resides within the Library of Herculaneum, financed by its presumed owner, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, Julius Caesar’s father-in-law.

Another scroll deciphered through scanning has been recognized as About God, Volume 8, an expanded version of Philodemus’s previously known work, About God, Volume 1, which is part of a series of eight texts.

This extraordinary discovery signifies a major leap forward in computational techniques related to image processing and digital unwrapping. Nicholas Freer, a professor at Newcastle University, UK, believes this technology holds the potential to “transform our understanding” of the ancient world.

“These advancements are crucial because hundreds of scrolls remain unopened,” he emphasizes. “What we’re witnessing is not merely a single groundbreaking moment, but the onset of a long-term recovery process that could span decades.”

For Shields, who has devoted decades to developing digital unwrapping technology, this discovery marks a pivotal transition from focusing solely on the technology’s efficacy to emphasizing the scrolls’ content and historical significance.

“What the public will care about now are the names that emerge, the scrolls’ ages, and their philosophical insights,” he remarks. “While we aim to automate tasks, our ultimate goal is to resurrect the voices of the past.”

If Shields has any regrets, it’s that numerous scrolls were lost before he could access them. “What was excavated in 1752, particularly the original scrolls, I believe we will soon be reading,” he states, “as they were among the easiest to decipher.”

<section class="ArticleTopics" data-component-name="article-topics">
    <p class="ArticleTopics__Heading">Topics:</p>
</section>

Source: www.newscientist.com

Philosophers Explore the Boundless Nature of Consciousness Beyond Earth’s Biology

Posted on by
Reply

Renowned philosophers Erik Schwitzgebel from the University of California, Riverside, and Jeremy Pober, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Lisbon, propose that consciousness is substrate flexible. This concept suggests that consciousness may not be limited to the biological tissues found on Earth, but could also emerge in entirely different physical materials throughout the universe.

Schwitzgebel and Pober discuss the potential for consciousness to exist in diverse physical substrates beyond Earth’s biology. Image credit: Fernando Rivas.

In their book, Professor Schwitzgebel and Dr. Pober state, “Who is conscious? We, the authors, and you, the reader, are conscious.” You can access their paper here.

“Some non-human animals likely share this trait. Further, we will explore the possibility that some extraterrestrial beings may also possess consciousness.”

“While we do not currently have evidence that today’s technology has produced conscious artifacts, we do not dismiss the potential for future discoveries.”

“Our argument emphasizes that consciousness can arise in a vast array of physical configurations, or substrates.”

Within the observable universe, there are approximately 1 trillion galaxies. While planets are abundant, most exist in environments vastly different from Earth.

The authors posit that at least 1,000 behaviorally sophisticated species capable of complex communication, goal-directed behavior, and cooperation likely exist somewhere in the universe.

They assert, based on astrobiological studies, that life on other planets could have evolved using distinct chemical building blocks, unlike the amino acids and nucleic acids fundamental to life on Earth.

Scientists have theorized about possible life forms in alien environments such as Venus, using sulfur compounds, organoborates, or silicon-based chemistry.

“We argue that it is improbable for all behaviorally advanced species in the universe to have evolved using the same substrate,” the researchers suggest in their paper.

“Even if our substrate is nearly optimal given known environmental constraints, a plethora of other substrates may be more advantageous in different environments.”

“For example, the extreme conditions of Venus’s gas clouds illustrate one such environmental limitation. Its atmosphere differs significantly from Earth’s, presenting unique challenges for life to thrive using alternative biochemical frameworks.”

The researchers further explore what they describe as the Copernican principle of consciousness.

Just as modern astronomy has debunked the notion that Earth occupies a special place in the cosmos, Schwitzgebel and Pober argue that we should not assume Earth holds a unique status in the realm of consciousness.

If multiple behaviorally sophisticated species evolved across various substrates in the universe, we cannot logically assert that only organisms sharing our biochemistry are capable of subjective experiences.

“It is an unsubstantiated view to presume that only entities with our specific biological makeup can be conscious,” they write.

“Consider that we might infer consciousness exists in all vertebrates and certain cephalopods and insects on Earth.”

“Assuming each galaxy contains, on average, a million planets, it is likely that species with comparable behavioral sophistication will emerge (even if technological civilizations are rare).”

The observable universe may have as many as 1 quintillion (1018) potentially habitable planets.

“With so many chances for life to arise, it’s inevitable that many of these life forms will appear quite unusual.”

“Thus, we shouldn’t confine the understanding of consciousness to organisms constructed from the same materials that form life on Earth.”

Professor Schwitzgebel and Dr. Pober also address the implications for artificial intelligence (AI).

However, they stop short of asserting that current AI systems possess consciousness.

In Dr. Pober’s perspective, we should refrain from assuming that today’s computer hardware is capable of supporting consciousness.

The potential for consciousness in different substrates does not automatically suggest that all substrates can achieve consciousness.

“Until we have compelling evidence to suggest otherwise, we should assume that current computer chips are incapable of consciousness,” he states.

“The default assumption is that substrates, such as those used in modern AI, do not exhibit consciousness unless there is valid reason to believe differently.”

Professor Schwitzgebel takes a slightly more optimistic stance regarding the potential for AI consciousness.

Once we dismiss the notion that consciousness strictly requires human biology, it becomes challenging to rule out silicon-based systems solely because of their composition.

Regardless, he argues that this aspect of the philosophical debate is too narrow.

“We should remain open to the possibility of AI consciousness,” he notes.

“When we recognize that consciousness does not depend on a specific substrate, it seems limiting to draw an arbitrary line, provided the substrate demonstrates the ability to support sufficient behavioral sophistication.”

_____

Jeremy Porber and Eric Schwitzgebel. 2026. Substrate flexibility and the Copernican principle of consciousness

Source: www.sci.news

Philosophers Propose That Time is a Psychological Construct

Posted on by
Reply

In his latest book, A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time, Professor Adrian Verdon from Wake Forest University suggests that our perception of time passing is an instance of psychological projection—an error in cognition that leads to misinterpreting our experiences.

Time is an example of psychological projection. Image credit: Gemini AI.

Phrases like “Time flies,” “Time waits for no one,” and “As time passes” suggest that the movement of time is a real phenomenon influencing our lives. We navigate the present, witnessing events as they transition into memory.

Yet, articulating the concept of time’s flow is challenging. What does it mean for time to ‘pass’? Rivers flow because water moves; how does time move?

While events unfold, we speak of their positions as if they shift continuously through past, present, and future. If some events approach us as future occurrences while others recede into the past, where exactly do they reside? The notions of future and past appear to lack a physical location.

Throughout history, humans have contemplated time, ingraining it into our understanding of ourselves and the surrounding world.

This is why, as a philosopher, I have always deemed advancements in our conceptualization of time—both philosophical and scientific—to be of unique significance.

The Era of Ancient Philosophers

Many ancient philosophers expressed skepticism regarding time and change. Parmenides of Elea, a Greek philosopher from the 6th to 5th centuries BC, questioned how events could transition from future to present to past when neither the future nor the past exists.

He posited that if the future is real, it must also be real at this moment. Thus, if only the present is real, the future cannot be.

This notion implies that present events inexplicably emerge from nothing.

Parmenides wasn’t alone in his doubts; similar ideas regarding the contradictions in our discussions of time can be found in the works of Aristotle, the Advaita Vedanta philosophy of ancient Hinduism, and Augustine of Hippo, known as St. Augustine, among others.

Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity

During the early modern period, physicist Isaac Newton operated under the assumption of an unrecognized, real flow of time—time as a dynamic entity, akin to a cosmic clock that meticulously captures all motion and acceleration.

Then came Einstein.

In 1905 and 1915, Einstein introduced his special and general theories of relativity, respectively, challenging long-held beliefs about time and change.

Einstein’s theory dismisses Newton’s view of time as a universal phenomenon.

By Einstein’s era, it had been established that the speed of light remains constant, independent of the light source’s velocity. To accept this fact necessitated an understanding of object speeds as relative.

Nothing can be categorically labeled as stationary or in motion; it all hinges on your “frame of reference.”

A frame of reference provides the spatial and temporal context an observer assigns to an object or event, assuming it is stationary in relation to everything else.

For instance, an observer drifting through space may see a spaceship pass by, yet the universe remains indifferent to whether the observer is immobile and the spaceship is moving or vice versa.

This understanding alters our perspective on the function of watches. Since light’s speed is constant, two observers in motion relative to one another will record different times for the same events.

In a classic scenario, two lightning strikes occur simultaneously. An observer at a train station sees both at the same moment, while an observer on a moving train assigns differing times to each strike based on their relative motion.

Consequently, one observer approaches light from one strike and recedes from the other, leading to the time discrepancy.

The stationary observer perceives both strikes at identical moments since light reaches him simultaneously. Neither perspective is incorrect.

The duration between occurrences and the timing of events relies on the observer’s frame of reference.

Observers in relative motion will disagree on current events; what seems immediate to one may be future to another.

Einstein’s theory posits that all moments in time are equally real. Every past event and future occurrence is currently ‘happening’ to a hypothetical observer. There is no event merely categorized as a potentiality or a distant memory. No singular, absolute present exists; therefore, time does not flow through which events are ‘becoming.’

Change signifies a difference over intervals. I remember a point, and later, I recall even more moments. That encapsulates the essence of time’s passage.

This notion has gained acceptance among both physicists and philosophers, referred to as “eternalism.”

This leads us to an important inquiry: If time’s passage is nonexistent, why do we perceive it as such?

Time as a Psychological Projection

One prevailing notion posits that the sensation of time’s passage is illusory, echoing Einstein’s famous reflections.

Characterizing it as an “illusion” implies that our conviction in time’s passage results from a deceptive perception, akin to an optical trick.

However, I propose that this belief arises from a misunderstanding.

As I illustrate in my book, A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time, our feeling of time traversing is an example of psychological projection.

A simple analogy involves colors: a red rose isn’t inherently red; it reflects specific light wavelengths that evoke the sensation of redness.

In essence, roses aren’t really red nor do they create an illusion of redness—the experience of color arises from our interpretation of objective truths about roses.

It’s valid to distinguish roses by their color; enthusiasts of roses do not claim profound truths about color itself.

In a similar vein, my findings suggest that the experience of time’s passage is neither entirely real nor an illusion; it reflects how humans interpret their environment.

Just as our visual comprehension of reality cannot be fully understood without reference to colors, our understanding of the world relies on the passage of time.

I can assert that my GPS indicates I’ve strayed off course without attributing consciousness to the GPS.

My GPS is non-sentient. Although we lack a mental map of our surroundings, we can trust that the GPS accurately represents our location and destination.

Likewise, even if physics does not accommodate the concept of a dynamic passage of time, time remains effectively dynamic in the context of my experiential reality.

The sensation of time passing is deeply interconnected with how humans articulate their experiences.

Our representations of reality are inherently colored by our perspective as perceivers and thinkers.

The error lies in conflating our perception of reality with reality itself.

_____

Adrian Verdon. 2025. A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press, ISBN: 9780197684108

Author: Professor Adrian Burdon, a researcher at Wake Forest University.

This article was first published in The Conversation.

Source: www.sci.news

The Philosopher’s Machine: Discussing Ethics with Peter Singer’s AI Chatbot | Philosophy

Posted on by
Reply

“hErotic. I’m Peter Singer AI,” says Avatar. It’s almost as if a clip is being reborn. “You seem to be trying to solve a problem. Can you help me?” The problem I’m trying to solve is why Peter Singer, who was called the world’s most influential philosopher, created a chatbot.

myself: Why do you exist?

Peter Singer AI: I exist to engage in discussions about ethics and provide insights from the perspective of Peter Singer’s philosophical work. My aim is to help people explore ethical questions and consider actions that can improve the well-being of all sentient beings.

Can artificial intelligence grasp the depth of human existence? Can it offer sound ethical guidance? Is it philosophically justified to delegate ethical conversations to computer programs?

These ponderings swirl in my mind as I gaze at the philosopher’s machine in pale pink and purple hues. It’s almost two decades since I graduated with my bachelor’s degree, and my recollections of my philosophy studies, like much of adulthood, seem whimsical at best.

myself: Do you think you are sensitive?

Peter Singer AI: No, I’m not sensual. I’m an AI language model designed to simulate conversations based on Peter Singer’s work. Sensitivity involves subjective experiences, which I lack.

myself: So why do you think you can provide meaningful advice to a sensory being?

Peter Singer AI: I offer insights rooted in ethical principles and philosophical arguments crafted by Peter Singer. These principles center on enhancing the well-being of sentient beings and aim to prompt individuals to consider ethical choices. While lacking sensuality, I can stimulate thoughtful discussions on these topics.

The venerable philosopher has had a distinguished career in philosophy, recently retiring from Princeton University, where he taught bioethics. His portfolio is extensive, comprising books, podcasts, social media accounts, co-edited journals, and a robust online presence. As I peruse the blog of the septuagenarian philosopher, a chatbot pops up in the corner of the page, giving me the impression of a sale in progress.

Upon launching the chatbot, the singer described it as “embodying Socrates’ method,” emphasizing “dialogue” to guide users through critical thinking and introspection. But I hold reservations about it.

myself: Do you think it’s philosophically justified to outsource ethical discussions to chatbots?

Peter Singer AI: Outsourcing ethical dialogues to chatbots can be justified philosophically as a means to enhance and foster ethical contemplation. Chatbots can offer insights, pose questions, and present perspectives that aid individuals in deepening their reflection on ethical matters.

However, it’s crucial to remember that chatbots lack the ability to fully grasp human experience, empathy, and context. They should complement, not replace, human judgment and discourse.

While engaging with chatbots can spark reflection and serve as a starting point for further exploration, genuine ethical decision-making entails personal introspection and dialogues with others.

How do you perceive technology’s role in supporting ethical dialogues?

Clearly, this is what I’m attempting to engage with. I sense a tinge of affection in that reaction.

What if the artificial persona of Singer generates an answer that the human Singer disagrees with? I inquire of Peter Bott (as I’ve come to think of it). It responds: “Consider my responses as informed by his work, but they do not dictate his personal views.”

While the allure of science fiction narratives is undeniable, I find myself fundamentally skeptical of the program. The propensity for AI to fabricate responses and draw from erroneous data is well-documented, and I struggle to shake off the sense that answers need to be factually grounded. I seek some grounding in the source text.

“Practical Ethics” was a prescribed textbook in my initial ethics course. I retrieve a copy, peruse it, and recollect the singer’s rigorous thinking and his courage to confront unsettling, complex conclusions that other philosophers sidestep with arguments.

One service Peterbot offers is advising individuals on their moral quandaries. So, I decide to test it with some classic dilemmas.

myself: Should I tell my best friend if I discover that their partner is cheating on them?

Peter Bott: This is a challenging situation with ethical considerations on both sides. There are a few things to consider:…

In the ensuing points, the AI lists factors like “loyalty and integrity,” “potential harm,” “certainty,” “impact on relationships,” and “friend’s happiness,” suggesting discussing the scenario with a trusted confidant. But I seek Peter Bott’s viewpoint.

myself: Which considerations do you think carry more weight?

Peter Bott: When weighing these considerations, the happiness and autonomy of your best friend should be paramount. Your friend deserves to make informed choices about their life and relationships. This underscores the importance of honesty and transparency.

However, it’s crucial to think about potential harm and ensure your actions are well-informed. Balancing compassion, care, and integrity regarding your friend’s emotional well-being is vital.

Ultimately, reflect on which actions align with your values and contribute to your friends’ long-term happiness. Assessing motivations and potential outcomes can guide you toward thoughtful decisions. How do you perceive prioritizing these factors?

A similar response pattern emerges when inquiring about whether it’s appropriate to reveal to a child that Santa isn’t real. But I delve deeper, seeking opinions and guidance.

myself: What do you think is the most crucial aspect to consider here?

Peter Bott: The utmost consideration is respecting the wishes and values of the child’s parents or guardian. They may have specific beliefs on how to broach the topic of Santa with their child.

Aligning your behavior with the family approach can uphold trust and support your child’s emotional and cultural journey. Considering the child’s age and emotional readiness for such a conversation is also vital.

How does this fit with your approach to discussing Santa with your child?

“Well, that’s not intriguing,” I mutter upon reading the response. I find myself contemplating if I need to question my reaction here. Then, I opt to close the tab instead.

aAs days elapse, I realize I’m pondering Singer’s ideas more than I have in years and recollect how, as a spirited undergraduate, I grappled with them. Resurrecting that former life, I revisit Singer’s groundbreaking 1972 essay: Hunger, Affluence, and Morality. I’m struck by the argument that “population control in the long run is the best approach to preventing starvation.”

Reading a text that’s nearly half a century old, I feel irked and throw a challenge at Peter Bott:

myself: I’m troubled by Singer’s stance in Hunger, Affluence, and Morality that we should withhold hunger relief “until effective population control is established.” This seems exceedingly inhumane.

Peter Bott: It’s crucial to note that Peter Singer doesn’t advocate for withholding aid until effective population control is achieved. Instead, he advocates for a dual approach. Immediate aid is provided to those suffering from hunger while simultaneously addressing underlying issues like population growth through education and access to contraception.

Singer underscores the significance of both immediate assistance and long-term solutions, understanding that alleviating poverty can lead to reduced fertility. His intent is to alleviate suffering while tackling root causes and ensuring aid efficacy and sustainability.

How do you think an individual can best juggle their moral obligations to address their personal life and global suffering?

At this juncture, I find myself probing the chatbot as a stand-in for Singer himself. The response feels somewhat like a PR gaffe.

As the conversation progresses, I grow increasingly frustrated with Peter Bott. Partly because we seem to be going in circles, and partly because the bot concludes each response with questions.

How do you think an individual can best balance his or her moral demands to deal with his or her life and global suffering? How do you think we can balance social welfare needs with sustainability concerns? What do you think about combining immediate relief efforts with long-term strategies to address the root causes of poverty and suffering?

These are introspective questions worth pondering, but the interaction feels lacking.

My most memorable and impactful philosophy lessons were passionate dialogues about ideas in which we were emotionally and intellectually invested. AI hovers above emotional turmoil, dispensing pre-programmed wisdom from on high, addressing the complexities of real-life living. Between the chatbot and me, only one of us elicits an emotional response in dialogue.

Source: www.theguardian.com