Nicholas Schroeder

AI superintelligence and adroit mobile robots at scale are fast approaching. And the time frame is getting closer and closer. It would not be unreasonable to expect this to occur as early as 20 years from now. The problem is humans have no plan if things go wrong. The best I've seen is talk of value alignment. But this has no teeth and will likely go awry. We can't even get our own value alignment right. And it's doubtful philosophers will miraculously deliver the right ethics within the next two decades. This is serious existential threat to humanity. We need a plan. And fast. I have a contingency plan, if we (humans) can stomach it. This piece is about making an existential Deal with superintelligent robots (or some other type of advanced non-organic being).

An existential threat to humanity is that we might never be able to travel intergalactically and will eventually go extinct from some inevitable disaster in our own galaxy. In the short paper, dressed as a type of constructive dilemma, I argue that we can use stationary time travel into the far past as a means of intergalactic travel. I also consider non-stationary time travel into the past, but conclude this type of time travel is extremely limited. The means for intergalactic travel—stationary time travel to the far past—that I'm proposing is far-fetched, even fanciful. But we must first propose the right question before we can get the right answer. And I take the question proposed to be a worthy question to ponder, about a problem that many consider to have no answer.

The harmony thesis claims that a virtuous agent will not experience inner conflict or pain when acting. The continent agent, on the other hand, is conflicted or pained when acting virtuously, making him inferior to the virtuous agent. But following Karen Stohr’s counterexample, we can imagine a case like a company owner who needs to fire some of her employees to save her company, where acting with conflict or pain is not only appropriate, but necessary in the situation. This creates a problem for virtue ethicists because the virtue/continence distinction cannot easily be drawn in the case. One solution offered by Stohr is to claim that a virtuous agent will respond with an intensity of feeling corresponding to her correct judgment, whereas a continent agent will miss the mark: he will feel too much or too little pain in response to his correct judgment of value. This demarcation, I argue, is too strict because it entails something like a mean resembling a moral virtue or vice regarding pain, being inconsistent with our ordinary understanding of continence. In dealing with the difficulty, I argue that Aristotle’s virtue of endurance is better suited to account for the problem case. The following move explains why the case of the company owner is problematic: the company owner was missing a virtue on which we did not have the conceptual resources to elaborate. This points to a deeper problem in virtue ethics that needs to be addressed

Are we living in a computer simulation? Some philosophers say it's very likely we are. Some philosophers say that even if we're not in a simulation, we could never know for sure. In this short piece I would like to respond to a more practical question: that is, whatever the case may be, ontologically or epistemically, how do we actually escape (or break) a simulation? I propose a rather simple and sure-fire way to escape a computer simulation—whether we're in one or not. I also connect my solution to the Fermi Paradox.

Philosophy is a unique discipline. Central to philosophy is the concept of Mind. By following the development, nature, and influence of Mind in all its forms—past, present, and future—I argue that we can build a spiritual base. Such a base can function as a replacement for religion or as a means to fill a spiritual void. This has always been the ultimate goal of philosophy. The book-length essay offers a path to achieve this goal, or at least understand the goal, which might be taken as a type of philosophical mysticism.

Jaegwon Kim’s argument against non-reductive physicalism is well known. Many philosophers take Kim’s argument to also apply to emergentism. But this does not necessarily follow. In this paper, I will first briefly show why Kim’s argument against non-reductive physicalism need not apply to emergentism. Next, I will present a physicalistic account of emergentism offered by Jason Megill in his paper “A Defense of Emergence.” This will be followed by an examination of some of the limitations of Megill’s account, in particular, his failure to adequately account for the causal powers of higher level physical properties independent of realization. Finally, I will offer a suggestion on how Megill might avoid the difficulties raised by appealing to the concept of wide realization espoused by Robert Wilson in his paper “Two Views of Realization.” The overarching theme of the paper centers on the idea that the realization requirement is where the action is, in terms of making emergentism compatible with physicalism, and is capable of being tinkered with by the emergentist and physicalist alike