Current mood:	sleepy
Current music:	DI.fm - Trance Channel

Separate Realities
One interesting and difficult problem about constructing artificial intelligence is the fact that in reality, and in our heads, all information is tied to a specific domain. We, humans, are surprisingly good at discerning the topic being discussed: instead of storing all our memories sequentially, we categorize and tag them, and "write them out" into the appropriate database, a.k.a. domains. The complication comes from the fact that these databases themselves need to be categorized.

And different people have different ways of dealing with this task. Suppose you're reading Stephenie Meyer's latest noel, and you realise that instead of burning in the sunlight, the vampires simply shimmer. Being an avid vampirologist, you realise that it's bollocks, but you want to continue reading the novel nonetheless. While you have a couple of options, the route you'll take most likely will involve a construction of a separate reality. You'll say, "While usually the vampires burn, when I'm in the domain of Twilight, vampires shine." Upon closing the book, you'll tear down this new reality and return to the current one. And when someone asks you, "Why do vampires avoid the sunlight?", you will now first have to figure out which vampires the person is referring two, because there are otherwise two valid answers to the question.

The alternative, of course, is to deny the existence of multiple realities, and to choose only on truth to hang on to. It's much more succinct, requires less imagination, but can be limiting. If you can think of this as one extreme of the spectrum, then you'll be correct placing me onto the other.

I noticed this about myself a few months ago: almost every time I encounted some information that contradicts with what I accept as the truth, I split off a new thread of reality and incorporate the new factoid into it. I always try to minimise the imaginary reality, but I also try not to lose anything. More importantly, following the principle of lazy argument evaluation, I don't verify the validity of the statements in one reality against other realities: I can simultaneously be thinking two opposite forces, provided that they're contained in different worlds.

It's passive. It lets me play along and interact with people I wouldn't otherwise be interacting with. It allows me to build an adapter for others' thoughts, and communicate with them. Partially a defense mechanism, I communicate out of my world only with people I'm close to--since that would require me to reveal the truths that I hold dear. It does present philosophical dilemmas about truth and honesty, since those are no longer absolute. (Technically speaking, nothing has ever been absolute, but this is even less absolute.) At the same time, it helps resolve them.

A paradox? Not in the least. How many of you, Gentle Readers, have been frustrated and irritated in the past? Anger and willingness to break objects may seem like best responses at the time, but thinking back suggests that violence is not the best answer. Am I a different person when I'm annoyed? Am I unstable if my mood ever swings? No: I'm just subconsciously swapping one reality for the other... And so does everyone else... And since I can't be certain about what others believe, the only way I can understand them is by creating these realities.

Now, if only I didn't lose so much sleep to these musings...