NationStates Jolt Archive

As we all know, every two years, we get a leap forward in computer technology, computers become faster more powerful, and is able to process more data, and hold more memory. However, what if, like our favorite movie and computer game, we really were inside a computer simulation and that we are just like the people in the Sims games? Author William Irwin propose this question for a first time in "The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real" and he has now come out with a new book called, "More Matrix and Philosophy: Revolutions and Reloaded Decoded". Now I saw him on MSNBC tonight talking about this, and he says that there's pretty much a 50/50 chance of us actually being nothing more than simulated people inside a computer program. What do you guys think? Is it possible for us to be inside a simulated world, if we are, what is the real world like? Also, are our creators machines like in the Matrix, or are we just someone's lab work, or hobby, or game? What do you guys think?

Links to the two book: Here (http://www.amazon.com/Matrix-Philosophy-Welcome-Popular-Culture/dp/081269502X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/104-4595460-4515928)& Here. (http://www.amazon.com/More-Matrix-Philosophy-Revolutions-Reloaded/dp/0812695720/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/104-4595460-4515928)

I think he makes a living selling fantasy. :D Not only that, UNORIGINAL fantasy based on a movie.

I think he makes a living selling fantasy. :D Not only that, UNORIGINAL fantasy based on a movie.

Eh it is something to think about though, it could be why you get that metallic taste in your mouth from time to time. ;)

The logical premise is:

1 - It is possible that a civilization could make a computer simulation featuring individuals with advanced AI.

2 - Such a civilization would probably make many thousands or millions of such simulations, for whatever reason.

3 - An individual inside the simulation wouldn't know that they are merely a simulated entity.

Then it comes down to whether our reality is more likely to be A) The one civilization making such a simulation, or B) One of the huge number of simulations that has run.

Not that I subscribe to it, but it's a fun theory. :p

No, it's not a theory. It's an untestable hypothesis, and one that shouldn't be given much weight since there's no way to test it.

No, it's not a theory. It's an untestable hypothesis, and one that shouldn't be given much weight since there's no way to test it.

*roll eyes* You hate it when we have discussions like this don't you? "Oh it's untestable so we shouldn't talk about it." Jeez, you know sometimes people like to talk about things and exchange ideas on a subject because it interest them and even though the subject is untestable, it's still an interesting one.

know sometimes people like to talk about things and exchange ideas on a subject because it interest them and even though the subject is untestable, it's still an interesting one.


That would be religion. Talked about all the time.....

*roll eyes* You hate it when we have discussions like this don't you? "Oh it's untestable so we shouldn't talk about it." Jeez, you know sometimes people like to talk about things and exchange ideas on a subject because it interest them and even though the subject is untestable, it's still an interesting one.

I didn't say it shouldn't talked about. I said it shouldn't be given much weight, meaning that it shouldn't really be considered as something all that plausible or meaningful.

*snip*

I'm not sure as to the merits of a debate about whether we are inside a game but we're undoubtedly not far from being able to do this.

Think of Second Life, and then think of the brain, which is simply processing electrical inputs, which we're already playing around with in neurology - I'd say we're not more than 10-20 years from making this a reality.

I can't wait.

Read Snowcrash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash) by Neal Stephenson - probably a much more original thought than this guys - he came up with avatar for a start.

EDIT: I'm slightly wrong here: While Stephenson was not the first to apply the Sanskrit term avatar to online virtual bodies (Habitat did that), the success of Snow Crash popularized the term to the extent that avatar is now the de facto term for this concept in computer games and on the World Wide Web.

That would be religion. Talked about all the time.....

FTW.

The really interesting thing is how much the brain would be able to distinguish between real life and simulated life.

If you build up an instinct, say, to be able to fly when in danger, would this instinct cross over to real life given the electrical impulses are the same - so, say, if a car is coming towards you, do you leap up to fly or sideways to avoid?

Secondly, would it be too attractive a proposition, given you're fed and medically cared for, to spend your entire life in a simulation, meaning a life without consequences because you can do things that would normally result in injury or death.

The really interesting thing is how much the brain would be able to distinguish between real life and simulated life.

If you build up an instinct, say, to be able to fly when in danger, would this instinct cross over to real life given the electrical impulses are the same - so, say, if a car is coming towards you, do you leap up to fly or sideways to avoid?

Secondly, would it be too attractive a proposition, given you're fed and medically cared for, to spend your entire life in a simulation, meaning a life without consequences because you can do things that would normally result in injury or death.

Yes, but if this was a simulation, then the simulation would have to reflect real life, and that means that if you do get hit by a car, there will be consequences.

This would explain a lot. Think about it: the world makes no f---ing sense. Why? because it's a game some kid is running on his computer.

Makes as much sense as anything else.

Yes, but if this was a simulation, then the simulation would have to reflect real life, and that means that if you do get hit by a car, there will be consequences.

Well, there's 2 things here - one is a thought on whether our brains would distinguish between real and simulated given the inputs are exactly the same - not that we might not be consciously aware, but that we would build up reactions in one that are inapplicable in the other.

The second is whether we're in a game now, which is what your point is about.

I can see the advantage of designing a game where consequences are real, where physical and emotional pain are factors in our decisions. It would lead to a 'do unto others...' (or at least a 'perhaps I shouldn't do this for fear of physical/emotional retribution') philosophy of society and therefore, in the long run, make the game more interesting.

It would be nice to think that we play a game ourselves, we choose a large set of parameters and see what happens, much like Nationstates - each time we die, we get to evaluate our lives and then tune our parameters. No real aim aside from ultimate experience - therefore, sometimes I'd willfully screw up my parameters to see what would happen, to test the limits.

It would make sense that we would want no conscious idea that this is what is happening while we played the game as that would affect our decision-making process within that game. Death would simply be a disconnection from where we could check our score, chat with others or whatever, then plunge back in the game.

I can see this would lead to a God hypothesis, that perhaps we're the construct of a higher being - but to really gain a long-term interesting experience, I'd want to be in the game myself, with other different people set to different parameters.

So, to bring it down to a baser level, I'd rather we're just playing with ourselves

No, it's not a theory. It's an untestable hypothesis, and one that shouldn't be given much weight since there's no way to test it.Well, we could blow up the universe, that would tell us if we are real or not.:)

This would explain a lot. Think about it: the world makes no f---ing sense. Why? because it's a game some kid is running on his computer.

Makes as much sense as anything else.

I'd like to think I amount to more than some lines of code on a spotty hyperdimensional teenager's PC. He's too tight to spring for the 'Superpowers' expansion pack too. Bastard.

This would explain a lot. Think about it: the world makes no f---ing sense. Why? because it's a game some kid is running on his computer.

What exactly makes no sense?

The fact is, we are in a balectom subronfit. Surely, we don't know what a balectom subronfit is, and thus we can not make a conspiracy theory about it, let alone understanding our state of existance.

If I weren't an error in the balectom subronfit, you wouldn't even hear about this one. Weeeeeird.

No. No, we're not.

Next question.

We have the ability to think. Thus, we are not part of a computer simulation.

He's too tight to spring for the 'Superpowers' expansion pack too. Bastard.

This is exactly my objection to the idea overall, I can't fly and it really sucks.

I would not play this game.

This is exactly my objection to the idea overall, I can't fly and it really sucks.

I would not play this game.

Speaking of which, does anybody know any cheats? I've found that when you're lost you can spawn at your starting position by tapping your shoes together and saying "There's no place like home".

Ah, but the REAL QUESTIONS, gentlemen!
Even if we ARE in a computer simulation,
1) Who would believe it?
2) Does it really matter? Our whole lives have been like this, so for all general purposes, we're as real as the next guy. It depends on your definition of real, of course, but as a general term, if we defined it, we are, in fact, real.

Speaking of which, does anybody know any cheats? I've found that when you're lost you can spawn at your starting position by tapping your shoes together and saying "There's no place like home".

Keep eating mushrooms, you get power ups.

What do you guys think? Is it possible for us to be inside a simulated world, if we are, what is the real world like?

Surely it is. We are. The real world is like where we aren't allowed for certain reasons.

Speaking of which, does anybody know any cheats? I've found that when you're lost you can spawn at your starting position by tapping your shoes together and saying "There's no place like home".

Just pick up your phone and dial the operator. Tell them you'd like to "Save The Game". They'll act confused, but that's just part of the game. Then if you die, you can just reload at your last Save point. Easy!

We have the ability to think. Thus, we are not part of a computer simulation.

So why would our ability to think cause us not to be part of a simulation? In the Matrix movie, it's explained that 99% of the population accepts the Matrix as reality, while 1% rejects it. Maybe we're all part of the 99% who accepts the simulation as reality and the 1% have either gotten out of the game, or are in mental hospitals ranting about how this is not real.

So why would our ability to think cause us not to be part of a simulation? In the Matrix movie, it's explained that 99% of the population accepts the Matrix as reality, while 1% rejects it. Maybe we're all part of the 99% who accepts the simulation as reality and the 1% have either gotten out of the game, or are in mental hospitals ranting about how this is not real.

Err, ignoring the vast majority of what Wilgrove is saying, one can certainly create a self-aware computer. It would require far more sophistication than I think were are capable of right now, but it can be done.

Sure, it wouldn't be biological, but so what? Our brains are essentially organic computers, working with the same basic principles.

Read a nifty lil story about this a while back.. *finds linky*
http://qntm.org/responsibility

I would agree that (unless there are cheats/exploitable bugs/power cut) it doesn't matter in the slightest if we are or not - though it would be fun to try and file a complaint report to the programmer :p

Isn't the major flaw in this theory that the computers would probably be running some version of Windows - so in reality we should spend most of our lives ducking giant dialogue boxes with unhelpful error messages on them?

As we all know, every two years, we get a leap forward in computer technology, computers become faster more powerful, and is able to process more data, and hold more memory. However, what if, like our favorite movie and computer game, we really were inside a computer simulation and that we are just like the people in the Sims games? Author William Irwin propose this question for a first time in "The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real" and he has now come out with a new book called, "More Matrix and Philosophy: Revolutions and Reloaded Decoded". Now I saw him on MSNBC tonight talking about this, and he says that there's pretty much a 50/50 chance of us actually being nothing more than simulated people inside a computer program. What do you guys think? Is it possible for us to be inside a simulated world, if we are, what is the real world like? Also, are our creators machines like in the Matrix, or are we just someone's lab work, or hobby, or game? What do you guys think?

Links to the two book: Here (http://www.amazon.com/Matrix-Philosophy-Welcome-Popular-Culture/dp/081269502X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/104-4595460-4515928)& Here. (http://www.amazon.com/More-Matrix-Philosophy-Revolutions-Reloaded/dp/0812695720/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/104-4595460-4515928)

It would certainly explain all the bugged people. ;)

Speaking of which, does anybody know any cheats?

Yep. Jesus. *nod* :)

Keep eating mushrooms, you get power ups.yeah.. when I eat the mushrooms.. one part of me grows. :D

If this IS a sim, I think they set up a crappy world. They could have at least included some gnomes, trolls, and elves. :p

If this IS a sim, I think they set up a crappy world. They could have at least included some gnomes, trolls, and elves. :p

Decent graphics though. *nod*

So why would our ability to think cause us not to be part of a simulation? In the Matrix movie, it's explained that 99% of the population accepts the Matrix as reality, while 1% rejects it. Maybe we're all part of the 99% who accepts the simulation as reality and the 1% have either gotten out of the game, or are in mental hospitals ranting about how this is not real.I think this is a sim.

But without access to the cheat codes, me thinking that really doesn't make a difference in my life, other than to make me ponder what it is that others find so disturbing about the idea.

Is it possible for us to be inside a simulated world, if we are, what is the real world like? I would suspect that the "real" world is probably like our world is compared to the worlds of our games--both for better and for worse. Overall it's probably pretty dull. And slow! Simulations are sped up so the programmers/players can see the end result in fairly short order. So if this is a sim, it's almost certainly moving a LOT faster than the world of the programmer.

And, I think this is a huge game. Maybe like "Civ, the 10000th version."

I would not play this game.This game needs lots of cheat codes, and much easier modding, accessible from this side. With that I could make it very fun (fun for ME, that is, muaa ha haa)...

Does it even make a difference? Asuming there is a more "real" world beyond ours, perhaps that world is also simply a simulation within a simulation within a simulation within a simulation... into infinity. So, what is "real". I also had some threads like this one running, without gettin' me nowhere. Maybe we're no simulation inside a computer, but some type of conscious being (God?). According to the Kopenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the universe needs a conscious observer outside of it to exist. Maybe all what we call reality exists only as a simulation within our own minds (see Atomism)?

Btw, "Darwinia" is a great book for this topic...

If this IS a sim, I think they set up a crappy world. They could have at least included some gnomes, trolls, and elves. :p

Heh who says they havn't have you not been North?

Quite frankly, who cares? Either way, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to how you live your life, so you should just enjoy living without worrying about questions with no answer.

Forget cheats, I want a Quick Load/Quick Save function. ;)

Computerology (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11689805)

No, it's not a theory. It's an untestable hypothesis, and one that shouldn't be given much weight since there's no way to test it.

We can't really test hypotheses about the initial creation of the visible universe, either.

Sure, we can play with some math - but we can't test shit, because we don't (and probably will never have) particle accelerators powerful enough to reproduce the initial conditions. Math is spurious, because all math relies on an initial set of postulates - concepts that are agreed upon as a starting point - concepts that are adhered to only by faith, not proof.

Still, cosmology manages to expend a lot of money, talent, and time - are you saying we should stop because we can't test it?

Hell no. We are not a bunch of electrons floating around in a computer. We are flesh and blood. We feel, smell, taste, see, hear; we live.

Eh it is something to think about though, it could be why you get that metallic taste in your mouth from time to time. ;)

What metallic taste?

*roll eyes* You hate it when we have discussions like this don't you? "Oh it's untestable so we shouldn't talk about it." Jeez, you know sometimes people like to talk about things and exchange ideas on a subject because it interest them and even though the subject is untestable, it's still an interesting one.

What do you guys think? Is it possible for us to be inside a simulated world, if we are, what is the real world like? Also, are our creators machines like in the Matrix, or are we just someone's lab work, or hobby, or game? What do you guys think?
You asked what people think. Don't be upset if what they think doesn't equal what you think.

Hell no. We are not a bunch of electrons floating around in a computer. We are flesh and blood. We feel, smell, taste, see, hear; we live.

Prove it.

No, it's not a theory. It's an untestable hypothesis, and one that shouldn't be given much weight since there's no way to test it.

wouldn't the computer program presumably be accessing and running on computer hardware of some sort? wouldn't that access provide at least a theoretical bridge between inside the program and outside, such that we could, in theory, find out that there is an outside from in here?

wouldn't the computer program presumably be accessing and running on computer hardware of some sort? wouldn't that access provide at least a theoretical bridge between inside the program and outside, such that we could, in theory, find out that there is an outside from in here?

Depending on how refined the system was, not really. After all, if no method of accessing the hardware, or of disconnecting from the simulation was available, and the system worked perfectly internally (no physics glitches, no occurrences that would point to the possibility of reality being a simulation, etc.) then we're basically stuck here with no method of experiencing the external reality and/or verifying its existence.

The issue is bit of a cheat as the only interesting question here is how we can know whether or not we are part of a 'Matrix-like' simulation. The initial assumption however is that the simulation is so perfect that it is undetectable and therefore by definition we cannot know.

Prove it.

Ok. Go prick yourself with a needle. You'll feel it. Look around, and see things. Go into the kitchen and cook something. Smell it as it cooks. Taste it once it is done. C'mon man, its simple. We live, and are not simulations.

Depending on how refined the system was, not really. After all, if no method of accessing the hardware, or of disconnecting from the simulation was available, and the system worked perfectly internally (no physics glitches, no occurrences that would point to the possibility of reality being a simulation, etc.) then we're basically stuck here with no method of experiencing the external reality and/or verifying its existence.

If we assume that we're in a simulation, then I have proof we're not running Windows.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/MatrixControl.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/MatrixControl.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/MatrixControl.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/MatrixControl.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/MatrixControl.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/MatrixControl.gif

"Program Wilgrove has become self-aware..."
"Unacceptable..."
"Re-adjusting parameters, erasing cache..."
"Restarting program..."

Ok. Go prick yourself with a needle. You'll feel it. Look around, and see things. Go into the kitchen and cook something. Smell it as it cooks. Taste it once it is done. C'mon man, its simple. We live, and are not simulations.

O poor, deluded naive fool, the 'prove it' test's unbeatable
Since as you'll surely find, the definitions are unmeetable.

Shakespeare said that *nod*

If this is a simulation, then we have no idea what physical laws may govern the "real" world. For all we know, matter and energy may not exist. It is way outside our scope to theorize about what could be since we are trapped in a universe with strict limitations and we cannot grasp the consequences if they were to be removed. We simply lack the calculating power to imagine how radically different the universe could be. We experience the world through our five senses; what if one hundred different senses exist of which we are completely oblivious? This hypothesis is entertaining, but ultimately futile.

Hell no. We are not a bunch of electrons floating around in a computer. We are flesh and blood. We feel, smell, taste, see, hear; we live.

Correction: we think that we are flesh and blood. We think that we feel, smell, tasate, see, and hear. We think that we live.

Correction: we think that we are flesh and blood. We think that we feel, smell, tasate, see, and hear. We think that we live.

You might, but I know that I am alive and not a damned machine or even worse...a simulation.

Ok. Go prick yourself with a needle. You'll feel it. Look around, and see things. Go into the kitchen and cook something. Smell it as it cooks. Taste it once it is done. C'mon man, its simple. We live, and are not simulations.

It's all part of the programming. *nod*

For some odd reason, I feel like playing my favorite video game again.

Star Ocean: Till the End of Time is based on this very same premise.

Ok. Go prick yourself with a needle. You'll feel it. Look around, and see things. Go into the kitchen and cook something. Smell it as it cooks. Taste it once it is done. C'mon man, its simple. We live, and are not simulations.
Why can't we be both real and a simulation? That's the very basis of quantum mechanics, BTW, that there's two potential states at once.

Aha! The mystery of the universe is solved! We are inside a giant quantum computer we call the Universe! Now if only I could find that Gamefaqs guide on the Game of Life...

If we assume that we're in a simulation, then I have proof we're not running Windows.

Hey, Apple probably couldn't pull this shit off either...

And we're DEFINITELY not on Linux.

The computer we are being run on is owned and operated by God.

We have no way of knowing, making the question solely academic as an exercise in skepticism.

The computer we are being run on is owned and operated by God.

And Judgement Day is when God defrags the hard drive. :)

And Judgement Day is when God defrags the hard drive. :)

Reformats *nods*

The idea that the world is nothing but an illusion is nothing new. The Buddhists have been telling us this for thousands of years. Where do you think the Wachowski brothers got the idea for the Matrix? The whole movie reads like a book on asian philosphy.

You might, but I know that I am alive and not a damned machine or even worse...a simulation.

How do you know this? You may think this, but you have no proof.

Almost certainly not.

Ok. Go prick yourself with a needle. You'll feel it. Look around, and see things. Go into the kitchen and cook something. Smell it as it cooks. Taste it once it is done. C'mon man, its simple. We live, and are not simulations.

All the simulations say that.

You might, but I know that I am alive and not a damned machine or even worse...a simulation.

Except that you ARE a machine, inasmuch as you're a biological construct governed by how you're built.

Whether or not we are in a machine, whether or not we exist, its all very interesting from a philosophical point of view. But who would be controlling the computer? And why?

According to every religious teaching out there, we've been created, and we live in an environment planned by some dude in the sky, and we live by his rules, and then we die and go somewhere else based on the choices we made in this life.

So it all kind of sounds the same. In any event, we're here now and we have one purpose in life: to listen to as much Judas Priest as humanly possible.

I, for one, welcome our new simulating computer overlords.

You might, but I know that I am alive and not a damned machine or even worse...a simulation.

That's exactly what you would say if you were a simulation.

Whether or not we are in a machine, whether or not we exist, its all very interesting from a philosophical point of view. But who would be controlling the computer? And why?

According to every religious teaching out there, we've been created, and we live in an environment planned by some dude in the sky, and we live by his rules, and then we die and go somewhere else based on the choices we made in this life.

So it all kind of sounds the same. In any event, we're here now and we have one purpose in life: to listen to as much Judas Priest as humanly possible.

Aye. For all we know we're all prisoners in a high-tech society, kept in a sort of simulated reality/stasis as opposed to being locked in cage for a few years. If we do well in life, we get parole, if not, another cycle of life. Or something. Who really knows?

I'm done with this philisophical tomfoolery. If you people can't see that you're alive then shame on you.

I know I'm alive. I know I exist. I feel, think, do, experience, therefore I am.

I'm done with this philisophical tomfoolery. If you people can't see that you're alive then shame on you.

I know I'm alive. I know I exist. I feel, think, do, experience, therefore I am.

Yup. Run away, without being able to actually defend yourself.

Go on. I don't think anyone noticed.

Oh, is that your tail between your legs?

Yup. Run away, without being able to actually defend yourself.

Go on. I don't think anyone noticed.

Oh, is that your tail between your legs?


....

I provided evidence. Go outside and fucking look! Cut your hand, do something! Your typing that stupid little response means your alive!

Its not my fault your all too stubborn and argumentative to realize that you are, in fact alive.

Go on. I don't think anyone noticed.

Since he hasn't been able to prove that he even exists, I'd say that it's a fair bet that no one noticed.

Yup. Run away, without being able to actually defend yourself.

Go on. I don't think anyone noticed.

Oh, is that your tail between your legs?

Do you think he lying? Do you honestly think that there is even an ounce of possibility that he is a robot or simulation who was programmed to say all this? Give this guy a break.

....

I provided evidence. Go outside and fucking look! Cut your hand, do something! Your typing that stupid little response means your alive!

Its not my fault your all too stubborn and argumentative to realize that you are, in fact alive.

How does that prove anything? How does sensory data prove existence? We can simulate sensory data through optical, auditory, and olfactory illusions. Are those illusions suddenly real, now, because we have experienced them? The answer, child, is no. They are not. And you have no proof for your own existence outside an overly emphatic and utterly inadequate attempt at proof.

Even I can write a computer program that allows a character to go outside, f-cking look, cut his or her hand, and then proceed to write a stupid little response. That does not mean that the aforementioned character is alive. Your rambling argument is illogical.

Yup. Is the character in Crysis who bends over in pain when shot in the leg real, because it is programmed to feel pain?

I provided evidence. Go outside and fucking look! Cut your hand, do something! Your typing that stupid little response means your alive!

Even I can write a computer program that allows a character to go outside, f-cking look, cut his or her hand, and then proceed to write a stupid little response. That does not mean that the aforementioned character is alive. Your rambling argument is illogical.

Do you think he lying? Do you honestly think that there is even an ounce of possibility that he is a robot or simulation who was programmed to say all this? Give this guy a break.

How does one know that oneself is not a simulation?

I think, therefore I am. Actually, better said, I think that I think, therefore I am. Actually, better said, I think that I think that I think, therefore I am. Actually, better said, I think that I think that I think that I think, therefore I am. Headache, anyone?

How does one know that oneself is not a simulation?

If you are conscious and feel yourself to be a separate entity from anything else in the world. If you can think, feel and experience emotion then you are more then a bunch of 1's and 0's. Feeling requires physical organs etc...

Not to mention that in order to simulate the whole universe, you would need a computer bigger then the universe.

If you are conscious and feel yourself to be a separate entity from anything else in the world. If you can think, feel and experience emotion then you are more then a bunch of 1's and 0's. Feeling requires physical organs etc...

Not to mention that in order to simulate the whole universe, you would need a computer bigger then the universe.

Incorrect. Programmable AI. We can already program an AI to react and respond to outside stimuli. We can program neural networks to think through basic reasoning and analysis. It's really only a matter of time before we develop true AI and true robotics.

What makes your biological body, with its biological circuitry and biological processing any different from a silicon-based robot?

If you are conscious and feel yourself to be a separate entity from anything else in the world. If you can think, feel and experience emotion then you are more then a bunch of 1's and 0's. Feeling requires physical organs etc...

The brain itself is simply a "chemical" computer. It can easily be adapted to run on, say, electricity rather than organic compounds. But read below.

Not to mention that in order to simulate the whole universe, you would need a computer bigger then the universe.

But if we are in a simulation, then the laws of physics as we know them may not hold. They may just be arbitrarily created to suit us. In the real world, gravity may not exist; in fact, matter and energy may not exist. We humans don't have the intellectual capacity to imagine what a universe would look like if it were radically different -- if "something" existed that couldn't be quantified as either matter or energy. We can't even begin to describe what could possibly exist; however, a super-computer of the likes which you describe would be possible.

As to your first point, in such a universe, self-awareness could easily be emulated -- we may not know how to do so right now because we are stupid beings in a narrowly-defined universe, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is possible. Incidentally, how do you know that a computer isn't self-conscious?

Incorrect. Programmable AI. We can already program an AI to react and respond to outside stimuli. We can program neural networks to think through basic reasoning and analysis. It's really only a matter of time before we develop true AI and true robotics.

What makes your biological body, with its biological circuitry and biological processing any different from a silicon-based robot?

A robot is totally different from a program in a computer. But also this post:

It's really only a matter of time before we develop true AI and true robotics.

We are not getting any way near close to even achieving the most basic self awareness or free thought. It can only calculate, and respond to different events. It may seem to the outside observer like it is thinking, but it certainly isn't at all.

Depending on how refined the system was, not really. After all, if no method of accessing the hardware, or of disconnecting from the simulation was available, and the system worked perfectly internally (no physics glitches, no occurrences that would point to the possibility of reality being a simulation, etc.) then we're basically stuck here with no method of experiencing the external reality and/or verifying its existence.

alright, maybe. but this only shows that it might not be utterly disprovable. there could still be evidence to be found if the system is not so refined as to disallow 'pinging' outside the particular program on the particular machine we're on from inside here.

alright, maybe. but this only shows that it might not be utterly disprovable. there could still be evidence to be found if the system is not so refined as to disallow 'pinging' outside the particular program on the particular machine we're on from inside here.

True. But of course we also at the same time have no method for figuring out what is and isn't real, and figuring out how to determine if we are or aren't a simulation. Even if it's possible to determine one way or the other.

The brain itself is simply a "chemical" computer. It can easily be adapted to run on, say, electricity rather than organic compounds. But read below.


Yes but I'm not talking about robotic brains, i'm talking about a computer simulation, which isn't a piece of physical hardware but just a code on a computer.


But if we are in a simulation, then the laws of physics as we know them may not hold. They may just be arbitrarily created to suit us. In the real world, gravity may not exist; in fact, matter and energy may not exist. We humans don't have the intellectual capacity to imagine what a universe would look like if it were radically different -- if "something" existed that couldn't be quantified as either matter or energy. We can't even begin to describe what could possibly exist; however, a super-computer of the likes which you describe would be possible.


Possible but it would take almost an infinate amount of time to complete. You would need a micro chip for every single atom in the universe. It may not be impossible, but it's extremely unlikely.

If you are conscious and feel yourself to be a separate entity from anything else in the world.

How can you be so sure that you are self-conscious rather than, say, being fed information that you are self-conscious from an external source and uncritically accepting it as fact? Furthermore, how do you know that non-living entities cannot be self-conscious?

Yes but I'm not talking about robotic brains, i'm talking about a computer simulation, which isn't a piece of physical hardware but just a code on a computer.



Possible but it would take almost an infinate amount of time to complete. You would need a micro chip for every single atom in the universe. It may not be impossible, but it's extremely unlikely.

You're completely missing the point. If the laws of our universe are themselves simulated, and the external reality to this simulated universe is nothing like the one we're in right now, that concept of a "micro chip" doesn't even exist. Who knows what the universe could actually be made of and built on while still being simulated.

After all, simulation doesn't automatically mean computer simulation. We think that way because it's the best we can do right now, but again, who knows.

Yes but I'm not talking about robotic brains, i'm talking about a computer simulation, which isn't a piece of physical hardware but just a code on a computer.

In this simulation which we call "our universe," code on a computer can only be executed via physical hardware.

Possible but it would take almost an infinate amount of time to complete. You would need a micro chip for every single atom in the universe. It may not be impossible, but it's extremely unlikely.

Again, you cannot say this without knowing the limitations of the "real" world. You are applying what you know of physical law as it exists in your mind to a different theoretical reality; that is a logical fallacy.

You're completely missing the point. If the laws of our universe are themselves simulated, and the external reality to this simulated universe is nothing like the one we're in right now, that concept of a "micro chip" doesn't even exist. Who knows what the universe could actually be made of and built on while still being simulated.

After all, simulation doesn't automatically mean computer simulation. We think that way because it's the best we can do right now, but again, who knows.

Who says there can be universes with different laws of physics? Where would this universe come from? Why would they choose to simulate another universe? etc... millions of questions would arise from this untill ultimately there would be questions like "why doesn't this other universe stop the suffering?" Do you notice something? This is no different then believing in God. God also lives outside our universe and doesn't obey our laws of physics, God created the universe so in effect we are his simulation if he does exist. So basically what this is ultimately about is whether a God exists or not.

Basically, it seems that the argument boils down to this: self-consciousness implies life separate from a simulation. To make this assertion you have to prove the following:


All non-living entities are not self-conscious.
You are self-conscious.
It would be impossible for self-consciousness to otherwise be emulated, not only in this universe, but in a completely different universe which may be governed by physical laws which we have no knowledge of nor the intellectual capacity to understand.


Edit: just as a note, you cannot, by definition, prove the third point (and I doubt that either of the other two are provable); thus, your argument is not logically decisive.

Eh, this reality has mai tai's and women. I'm happy to stay here, regardless of whether it's a simulation or not...

I'm done with this philisophical tomfoolery. If you people can't see that you're alive then shame on you.

I know I'm alive. I know I exist. I feel, think, do, experience, therefore I am.

All I see is text on my screen. Hardly conclusive evidence of your existence. :p

....

I provided evidence. Go outside and fucking look! Cut your hand, do something! Your typing that stupid little response means your alive!

Its not my fault your all too stubborn and argumentative to realize that you are, in fact alive.

And since we're just text on your screen... how can you be so sure we're alive?

And since we're just text on your screen... how can you be so sure we're alive?

Because you typed it, and based on your other posts you seem like a real person, not a machine.

Because you typed it, and based on your other posts you seem like a real person, not a machine.

Except that a program could have produced that text.

Because you typed it, and based on your other posts you seem like a real person, not a machine.

But you haven't shown that "real" people exist in the first place. We may just all be the product of a simulation; thus, by extension, the text that appears on your screen would also be a product of that simulation.

Because you typed it, and based on your other posts you seem like a real person, not a machine.

For a simulation, you sure know how to flatter a guy. :)

I'm done with this philisophical tomfoolery. If you people can't see that you're alive then shame on you.

I know I'm alive. I know I exist. I feel, think, do, experience, therefore I am.

You may know you exist, that's not hard, "I think therefore I am" and all that, but how do you know anything else exists? All you know of the outside world is what your senses are telling you and senses can be fooled. Ever come across an optical illusion? Ever been touched by something cold and think you were burned by something hot? If someone or something was able to take control of your senses, you would not be able to distinguish illusion from reality.

On top of all that, all you know of your past is what you remember. How do you know your memories are correct? False memories are fairly common.

With this in mind, how do you know that your reality is "real"? You could have been born yesterday and have all your memories implanted in you. Also, you may be really laying in a bed somewhere while your senses are being manipulated to make you believe you are where you think you are.

You may know you exist, that's not hard

Really? Prove your existence (not to me, as that would be impossible, but to yourself). You think that you exist, but that is hardly conclusive proof.

You could have been born yesterday and have all your memories implanted in you.

Spoiler alert: Dark City sucked.

Spoiler alert: Dark City sucked.

I kind of liked it. *nod*

I kind of liked it. *nod*

I thought the beginning was OK, and maybe even kind of good. But the way the scientist talked was infuriating, and by the very end, when the fight scene was reached, the whole movie became completely ridiculous and almost laughably bad.

Because you typed it, and based on your other posts you seem like a real person, not a machine.

Have you ever heard of the Turing Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test)? It's a way to check if a machine has AI.

a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with two other parties, one a human and the other a machine; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the machine is said to pass the test

So with a advanced enough computer, who wouldn't be able to tell anyway.

Spoiler alert: Dark City sucked.

Actually, I was thinking more Total Recall.:)

It would explain the warning pop-ups I get that read:

/* attempt to open file for reading */
FILE *fp = fopen("filename", "r");
/* if file cannot be opened, print error number and error string */
if(fp == NULL)
printf("Cannot open file, error %i, %s\n", errno, strerror(errno));

Copyright 2032 by Windows We-Own-Your-Souls Corporation

You may know you exist, that's not hard, "I think therefore I am" and all that, but how do you know anything else exists? All you know of the outside world is what your senses are telling you and senses can be fooled. Ever come across an optical illusion? Ever been touched by something cold and think you were burned by something hot? If someone or something was able to take control of your senses, you would not be able to distinguish illusion from reality.

On top of all that, all you know of your past is what you remember. How do you know your memories are correct? False memories are fairly common.

With this in mind, how do you know that your reality is "real"? You could have been born yesterday and have all your memories implanted in you. Also, you may be really laying in a bed somewhere while your senses are being manipulated to make you believe you are where you think you are.

I have a rather sharp memory. I remember drinking out of a bottle sitting on my dad's lap watching a basketball...and that must have been before I was 2 years old. I do admit, however, that some of my memories may have faded a bit, but I know the gist of them, I remember experiences the events of my life.

It is possible that we are in a simulation, but the possibility is so small that I don't believe it.

We exist, the world is real, you all know this in your hearts and minds. You all just love arguing about nonsense, which I must admit, can be fun.

I have a rather sharp memory. I remember drinking out of a bottle sitting on my dad's lap watching a basketball...and that must have been before I was 2 years old. I do admit, however, that some of my memories may have faded a bit, but I know the gist of them, I remember experiences the events of my life.

It is possible that we are in a simulation, but the possibility is so small that I don't believe it.

We exist, the world is real, you all know this in your hearts and minds. You all just love arguing about nonsense, which I must admit, can be fun.

Again, an overly emphatic post that chooses not to support itself, but rather to say "Hey! You're not serious about your position, you're just messing with me." Apparently largely for no better reason than your inability to support your conclusions with logic and reason.

Really? Prove your existence (not to me, as that would be impossible, but to yourself). You think that you exist, but that is hardly conclusive proof.


Yes it is. If not then there is absolutely no such thing whatsoever as conclusive proof, so that statement is 100% meaningless anyway.

How am I supposed to convince you that existence is real? The proof is all around you. I can't state it more simply than that. I don't know what other type of proof is needed? If you say that reality isn't proof, then nothing will prove that we exist.

How am I supposed to convince you that existence is real? The proof is all around you. I can't state it more simply than that. I don't know what other type of proof is needed? If you say that reality isn't proof, then nothing will prove that we exist.

Yep. Also, if one was to accuse someone of not existing, then the burden of proof would overwhelmingly be on the accuser and not on the accused.

How am I supposed to convince you that existence is real? The proof is all around you. I can't state it more simply than that. I don't know what other type of proof is needed? If you say that reality isn't proof, then nothing will prove that we exist.
Why does a simulation have to be fake? The simulation exists, doesn't it?

Even if we were simulated, so what? That wouldn't change who we are. We'd be A.Is, but SENTIENT A.I.s We'd be no less or more human than we were before we'd know if we were simulated or not.

I wouldn't have a bit of a problem with being simulated. Hell, I'm the kind of guy eagerly awaiting computers capable of holding my consciousness so I have a way to escape when my body becomes too old.

Why does a simulation have to be fake? The simulation exists, doesn't it?

Even if we were simulated, so what? That wouldn't change who we are. We'd be A.Is, but SENTIENT A.I.s We'd be no less or more human than we were before we'd know if we were simulated or not.

I wouldn't have a bit of a problem with being simulated. Hell, I'm the kind of guy eagerly awaiting computers capable of holding my consciousness so I have a way to escape when my body becomes too old.

Well, if we were AI we wouldn't be real. We would be fake, manufactured, and without a soul, without rights. We would just be running around for the amusement of our programmers.

And I'm the type of guy who thinks that computers with conciesness, wither AI or formerly of a person, is completely wrong and unnatural. All things die, we shouldn't change that. It is life, and not to be tampered with.

*edit: Fake as an inorganic, nonliving, unnatural.*

Well, if we were AI we wouldn't be real. We would be fake, manufactured, and without a soul, without rights. We would just be running around for the amusement of our programmers.

And I'm the type of guy who thinks that computers with conciesness, wither AI or formerly of a person, is completely wrong and unnatural. All things die, we shouldn't change that. It is life, and not to be tampered with.

*edit: Fake as an inorganic, nonliving, unnatural.*

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You are taking your own bias against A.I.s and applying them to us.

For that matter, no, life is not something "sacred" that should not be tampered with no matter what. By creating computers to hold our consciousness--or even creating a new species of sentient computers--we are simply doing what helps.

Now, obviously, tampering with life to create horrible diseases would be wrong, in that it would hurt people, but what's wrong with sentient computers? You're allowing the fear movies and books tend to instill in people to affect you. You're acting like a Luddite, basically.

In my eyes any sentient being, whether it is a human, a dolphin, a gorilla, some organic species we've never seen before, an organic species we create, or a computer A.I. (and any robot would be just that...the robot itself would just be the shell the computer uses to walk around in) would have the very same rights that we do. Sentient life is sentient life, regardless of source.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You are taking your own bias against A.I.s and applying them to us.

For that matter, no, life is not something "sacred" that should not be tampered with no matter what. By creating computers to hold our consciousness--or even creating a new species of sentient computers--we are simply doing what helps.


Which wont happen, since consciousness is not a separate tangible object that can be removed and implanted into other machines.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You are taking your own bias against A.I.s and applying them to us.

For that matter, no, life is not something "sacred" that should not be tampered with no matter what. By creating computers to hold our consciousness--or even creating a new species of sentient computers--we are simply doing what helps.

Now, obviously, tampering with life to create horrible diseases would be wrong, in that it would hurt people, but what's wrong with sentient computers? You're allowing the fear movies and books tend to instill in people to affect you. You're acting like a Luddite, basically.

In my eyes any sentient being, whether it is a human, a dolphin, a gorilla, some organic species we've never seen before, an organic species we create, or a computer A.I. (and any robot would be just that...the robot itself would just be the shell the computer uses to walk around in) would have the very same rights that we do. Sentient life is sentient life, regardless of source.

No, YOU are wrong. Computers cannot be sentient. They are created machines, that would respond as we program them, and are tools. Even if computers became sentient they would still not deserve equal rights with actual living creatures.

And yes, I am becoming more and more luddite and anti-technology as I get older and see the problems and evil machines have caused.

I agree that a sentient being deserves respect. There is the problem though. Machines are not beings, they are tools. I don't understand how people could believe a machine has the same rights as an actual living person, dog, cat or whatever. They don't have the same rights as a gnat.

Which wont happen, since consciousness is not a separate tangible object that can be removed and implanted into other machines.

It's not? I could have sworn it was just the total sum of the memories, knowledge, and so on currently stored in the brain.

Actually, to be honest, I don't know if we know precisely what consciousness is, unless you have some evidence to show a particular viewpoint on consciousness. (I'd honestly love to hear about it.)

It's not? I could have sworn it was just the total sum of the memories, knowledge, and so on currently stored in the brain.

Actually, to be honest, I don't know if we know precisely what consciousness is, unless you have some evidence to show a particular viewpoint on consciousness. (I'd honestly love to hear about it.)

Unless you are talking about removing the brain and implanting it into a machine (a little too strange for my tastes), you would have to believe in some type of soul.

Well, if we were AI we wouldn't be real.
Yes we would. Computers are as real as anything else, as are the programs running on them.
We would be fake, manufactured, and without a soul, without rights.
We only have rights because of something which may or may not exist? Don't be ridiculous.
We would just be running around for the amusement of our programmers.
As opposed to what? Being here for the amusement of some god?

And I'm the type of guy who thinks that computers with conciesness, wither AI or formerly of a person, is completely wrong and unnatural. All things die, we shouldn't change that. It is life, and not to be tampered with.
Something being unnatural is no reason not to do it. See: Almost all human advancement, the entire fields of science and technology, the computer sitting in front of you, etc.

No, YOU are wrong. Computers cannot be sentient. They are created machines, that would respond as we program them, and are tools. Even if computers became sentient they would still not deserve equal rights with actual living creatures.

And yes, I am becoming more and more luddite and anti-technology as I get older and see the problems and evil machines have caused.

I agree that a sentient being deserves respect. There is the problem though. Machines are not beings, they are tools. I don't understand how people could believe a machine has the same rights as an actual living person, dog, cat or whatever. They don't have the same rights as a gnat.

Why not?

Why does flesh and blood have some sort of higher meaning than silicon and electricity? Why would something inorganic somehow not be life?

We aren't that different. Our bodies are organic machines with organics computers. The only thing we'd be doing is achieving that which evolution and nature achieved: the art of creating a sentient intelligence.

After that, why deny them equal rights? Why shouldn't they have equal rights? They would hopes and dreams, good thoughts and bad thoughts, personalities, emotions, and everything a human could. The only difference is that they would be inorganic while we would be organic. I honestly do not see a difference.

You would have an argument if they were tools, but up to a certain point they are no longer tools: they are partners. Much like we cannot consider a human a tool when they work in a factory, we could not consider a sentient computer a tool when they compute this or that.

Which wont happen, since consciousness is not a separate tangible object that can be removed and implanted into other machines.

Which is why you wouldn't do it that way.

Gradual transition of the brain from biological to artificial substrate is entirely possible and implementable and will result in the consciousness remaining the same. Remember, the brain itself is constantly changing; the synapses and neurons renew themselves repeatedly with no change in conscious continuity. Your entire body renews itself about once a year.

No, YOU are wrong. Computers cannot be sentient. They are created machines, that would respond as we program them, and are tools. Even if computers became sentient they would still not deserve equal rights with actual living creatures.
It's thinking like this that will have you up against the wall when the robot revolution comes.

And yes, I am becoming more and more luddite and anti-technology as I get older and see the problems and evil machines have caused.
I thought machines were just tools, how can they be evil? Is a hammer evil if you smack your thumb with it?

I agree that a sentient being deserves respect. There is the problem though. Machines are not beings, they are tools. I don't understand how people could believe a machine has the same rights as an actual living person, dog, cat or whatever. They don't have the same rights as a gnat.

Your distinction between machines and beings is arbitrary and meaningless. A machine exists as much as anything else.

Unless you are talking about removing the brain and implanting it into a machine (a little too strange for my tastes), you would have to believe in some type of soul.

Eh, no. I don't believe in a soul, in so much as a spiritual entity. I would call a soul in truth simply another word for our mind, our current mental state, and so on.

Since the process would actually work the way Vetalia says it would anyway, I think we got off track.

-snip-

-snip-

This is completely semantic, all you are doing is just replacing the word "human" with "AI". Unless you are implying that our organs or something are not real, this conversation is meaningless.

This is completely semantic, all you are doing is just replacing the word "human" with "AI".
Eh, no.
Unless you are implying that our organs or something are not real, this conversation is meaningless.

How on earth did you infer that?

Gradual transition of the brain from biological to artificial substrate is entirely possible

How?

This is completely semantic, all you are doing is just replacing the word "human" with "AI". Unless you are implying that our organs or something are not real, this conversation is meaningless.

That's exactly what I'm doing. You're not thinking far enough ahead. Yes, most of our emotions and thought processes rely on input from our organic bodies. Our emotions are mostly chemicals and the like.

But who says that cannot be eventually turned into code equivalents? I don't see why it couldn't and nothing so far has been shown that it could not be done eventually. Right now, no, but you have to think ahead on these issues.

Eh, no.


How on earth did you infer that?

Because all that is being stated is that we are actually AI, not Human. But you havn't explained in anyway how the two are any different.

Unless you are talking about removing the brain and implanting it into a machine (a little too strange for my tastes), you would have to believe in some type of soul.

Which I do.

Why not?

Why does flesh and blood have some sort of higher meaning than silicon and electricity? Why would something inorganic somehow not be life?

We aren't that different. Our bodies are organic machines with organics computers. The only thing we'd be doing is achieving that which evolution and nature achieved: the art of creating a sentient intelligence.

After that, why deny them equal rights? Why shouldn't they have equal rights? They would hopes and dreams, good thoughts and bad thoughts, personalities, emotions, and everything a human could. The only difference is that they would be inorganic while we would be organic. I honestly do not see a difference.

You would have an argument if they were tools, but up to a certain point they are no longer tools: they are partners. Much like we cannot consider a human a tool when they work in a factory, we could not consider a sentient computer a tool when they compute this or that.

Of course flesh and blood mean more than silicon and electricity! It is created by man, from unliving things, therefore it is not life! It is a machine! It is a tool created to serve man, not that they (they as in AI/robots/what have you) should ever come into being.

You said it yourself. The difference is between organic and inorganic. Inorganic means not-living, as in created.

Why shouldn't they have equal rights? Because they are machines, pure and simple, and I don't give damn if they have hopes and dreams. It is my hope and my dream that AI never comes into existence, or is destroyed once it does.

When you talk of humans being tools in factories, you bring up another argument against machines, and of civilization itself, but this is not the place to debate that, just know that viewing fellow humans as tools and things is morally and ethically wrong.





Damn! AI/robots/androids infuriate me to no end! I'm going to smoke a cig, be back in a few minutes.

How?

Sending in nanobots to gradually replace neurons and synapses with artificial replacements, or building replacements and physically grafting them on the brain.

The latter of these two is already in development, the artificial hippocampus. It's a chip that is grafted on to the brain to replace the functions of the hippocampus in people with damage to that region (or, one day, to improve upon conventional memory).

That's exactly what I'm doing. You're not thinking far enough ahead. Yes, most of our emotions and thought processes rely on input from our organic bodies. Our emotions are mostly chemicals and the like.

But who says that cannot be eventually turned into code equivalents? I don't see why it couldn't and nothing so far has been shown that it could not be done eventually. Right now, no, but you have to think ahead on these issues.

This is a separate issue, whether it's possible to replace sensation with numbers is different from whether we already are that in the first place. However, emotion (for instance) is not information, it is physical and needs some sort of energy. All a bunch of 1's and 0's could do is store information and recall it when reacting to certain events.

Computers cannot be sentient.

Why not? Prove to me that the PC I currently have is not sentient. By the way, being unable to do anything other than what it was programmed to do does not equate with lacking self-awareness. A computer may be sentient yet helpless to escape following orders from its user.

Sending in nanobots to gradually replace neurons and synapses with artificial replacements, or building replacements and physically grafting them on the brain.

The latter of these two is already in development, the artificial hippocampus. It's a chip that is grafted on to the brain to replace the functions of the hippocampus in people with damage to that region (or, one day, to improve upon conventional memory).You are pretty much into 7-of-9, aren't you? :p

Of course flesh and blood mean more than silicon and electricity! It is created by man, from unliving things, therefore it is not life! It is a machine! It is a tool created to serve man, not that they (they as in AI/robots/what have you) should ever come into being.

You said it yourself. The difference is between organic and inorganic. Inorganic means not-living, as in created.

Why shouldn't they have equal rights? Because they are machines, pure and simple, and I don't give damn if they have hopes and dreams. It is my hope and my dream that AI never comes into existence, or is destroyed once it does.

When you talk of humans being tools in factories, you bring up another argument against machines, and of civilization itself, but this is not the place to debate that, just know that viewing fellow humans as tools and things is morally and ethically wrong.





Damn! AI/robots/androids infuriate me to no end! I'm going to smoke a cig, be back in a few minutes.
Kay. I'm now going to completely dismiss you as a Luddite who is afraid of technology because it MIGHT harm them.

But why not apply that logic further? Let's ban all guns! After all, they hurt people, right! They can't be used in a positive fashion like in law enforcement or hunting.

Let's get rid of all electronics. They can always be used to electrocute someone.

Let's get rid of houses...they might fall down on us.

Let's get rid of wooden impliments of all shapes and sizes.

Hell, let's just get rid of everything, even forks and spoons! They can be used to hurt people!

See why your logic does not work?

You said it yourself. The difference is between organic and inorganic. Inorganic means not-living, as in created.

No, inorganic simply means there is no carbon present, and organic means there is carbon. It's entirely possible (not necessarily likely, but possible) for life to exist without the use of carbon, for example using ammonia compounds or silicon in the place of carbon compounds and water.

Interestingly enough, silicon is one of the best alternative biochemistries around.

Sending in nanobots to gradually replace neurons and synapses with artificial replacements, or building replacements and physically grafting them on the brain.


But nanobots store information digitally. The brain is not digital, it stores info in a completely different way, and I'm not sure if it could react with any sort of nanobot. This does sound incredibly far fetched.


The latter of these two is already in development, the artificial hippocampus. It's a chip that is grafted on to the brain to replace the functions of the hippocampus in people with damage to that region (or, one day, to improve upon conventional memory).

Link?

This is a separate issue, whether it's possible to replace sensation with numbers is different from whether we already are that in the first place. However, emotion (for instance) is not information, it is physical and needs some sort of energy. All a bunch of 1's and 0's could do is store information and recall it when reacting to certain events.

Again, you're limiting yourself to the way computers work now. You're also not working from a knowledge base on how programming works. Anything can be implemented in code eventually with a powerful enough computer. I certainly wouldn't want to transfer my consciousness into a computer without still being able to feel emotions and the like.

Yes it is. If not then there is absolutely no such thing whatsoever as conclusive proof, so that statement is 100% meaningless anyway.

Ah, so you accept your existence as an axiom. That is to say, you have no proof whatsoever that you do exist, but nonetheless blindly accept such a notion as a truth.

You are pretty much into 7-of-9, aren't you? :p

Hey, what can I say, I'm cuckoo for circuits...

Meanwhile.............back in the simulation there are two questions

1. Is there anything logically self-contradictory about the theory that everthing we believe to be true about ourselves and the world around us is a programmed simulation taking place in a physical universe to which we have no access.

2. Is there any scientific evidence from either physics or biology that would count against the simulation theory

Again, you're limiting yourself to the way computers work now. You're also not working from a knowledge base on how programming works. Anything can be implemented in code eventually with a powerful enough computer

Nope. Code simply stores, recalls and calculates information. Code can be made to react in certain ways to events to make it seem more realistic, as if it were conscious, but it isn't actually the least bit conscious. I can't feasibly think of anyway that a code on it's own (which is what you are implying), without some powerful physical hardware which act in the same way organs do, could emulate human life.

Meanwhile.............back in the simulation there are two questions

And the answer to both of them is "no."

But nanobots store information digitally. The brain is not digital, it stores info in a completely different way, and I'm not sure if it could react with any sort of nanobot. This does sound incredibly far fetched.

Well, the nanobots wouldn't be the replacement, they'd be scanning and building artificial replacements that are (possibily only initially) identical to the biological ones they replace. It would be a gradual process, too, one probably lasting years or even decades to complete.

But remember, this is at least 15-20 years in the future based upon current progress in nanotechnology. It may take less time, or it may take more time depending on the kind of technical challenges ahead.

Link?

Unfortunately, the article's a few years old, but here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3488

Nope. Code simply stores, recalls and calculates information. Code can be made to react in certain ways to events to make it seem more realistic, as if it were conscious, but it isn't actually the least bit conscious. I can't feasibly think of anyway that a code on it's own (which is what you are implying), without some powerful physical hardware which act in the same way organs do, could emulate human life.

Prove that my PC is not self-conscious, then. Can you?

Nope. Code simply stores, recalls and calculates information. Code can be made to react in certain ways to events to make it seem more realistic, as if it were conscious, but it isn't actually the least bit conscious. I can't feasibly think of anyway that a code on it's own (which is what you are implying), without some powerful physical hardware which act in the same way organs do, could emulate human life.
It would require a quantum computer...basically something with the level of sophistication of our own brains. It's not feasible at the moment, but it is in the future. We have to think ahead, that's all.

Well, the nanobots wouldn't be the replacement, they'd be scanning and building artificial replacements that are (possibily only initially) identical to the biological ones they replace. It would be a gradual process, too, one probably lasting years or even decades to complete.

But remember, this is at least 15-20 years in the future based upon current progress in nanotechnology. It may take less time, or it may take more time depending on the kind of technical challenges ahead.


I see, so by identical do you mean even in atomic structure?


Unfortunately, the article's a few years old, but here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3488

Hmm, quite interesting. But again, it is only storing information. It is still a very long way off from creating consciousness.

Prove that my PC is not self-conscious, then. Can you?

The burden of proof is overwhelmingly on you.

It would require a quantum computer...basically something with the level of sophistication of our own brains. It's not feasible at the moment, but it is in the future. We have to think ahead, that's all.

Ok, but thats not really code, or not my definition. I guess it was just a misunderstanding.

The burden of proof is overwhelmingly on you.

No, you are the one asserting that it is not self-conscious. If you want to do so, you must prove it.

Ok, but thats not really code, or not my definition. I guess it was just a misunderstanding.

It was. We're both arguing from a lack of full knowledge base...my knowledge base is just slightly larger than yours on the issue.

It's thinking like this that will have you up against the wall when the robot revolution comes.


I thought machines were just tools, how can they be evil? Is a hammer evil if you smack your thumb with it?



Your distinction between machines and beings is arbitrary and meaningless. A machine exists as much as anything else.

If there is a robot revolution I'll most likely be long dead before it occurs. ;)


Yes, machines exist, but they are not alive. Nor were they born. They were created.

No, you are the one asserting that it is not self-conscious. If you want to do so, you must prove it.

I never asserted anything about your computer.

Of course flesh and blood mean more than silicon and electricity! It is created by man, from unliving things, therefore it is not life!
Life came from unlife. Therefore life is not life.
It is a machine!
So are you. Just a different type.
It is a tool created to serve man
So? To go back to the hammer example, it was created to drive nails. That's not all it can do.
, not that they (they as in AI/robots/what have you) should ever come into being.
One wonders how you would stop that happening.

You said it yourself. The difference is between organic and inorganic. Inorganic means not-living, as in created.
No, organic and inorganic refer to the presence of carbon.

Why shouldn't they have equal rights? Because they are machines, pure and simple, and I don't give damn if they have hopes and dreams. It is my hope and my dream that AI never comes into existence, or is destroyed once it does.
As I said, you are also a machine. By that logic your hopes and dreams are worthless and you should be destroyed.

When you talk of humans being tools in factories, you bring up another argument against machines, and of civilization itself, but this is not the place to debate that, just know that viewing fellow humans as tools and things is morally and ethically wrong.

On that we agree, apparently. Not the civilisation bits, but the bit about humans being considered tools.




Damn! AI/robots/androids infuriate me to no end! I'm going to smoke a cig, be back in a few minutes.
I could point of that your cig was likely made by a robot, but.....oops, too late.
You are pretty much into 7-of-9, aren't you? :p
I'd hid it. OH NOES, HER NANOMACHINES!
Kay. I'm now going to completely dismiss you as a Luddite who is afraid of technology because it MIGHT harm them.

But why not apply that logic further? Let's ban all guns! After all, they hurt people, right! They can't be used in a positive fashion like in law enforcement or hunting.

Let's get rid of all electronics. They can always be used to electrocute someone.

Let's get rid of houses...they might fall down on us.

Let's get rid of wooden impliments of all shapes and sizes.

Hell, let's just get rid of everything, even forks and spoons! They can be used to hurt people!

See why your logic does not work?
Actually, IMS, Trollgaard does advocate the abandonment of all technology and a return to hunter gatherer life. Apparently we've been going down the shitter since we came up with farming.
But nanobots store information digitally. The brain is not digital, it stores info in a completely different way, and I'm not sure if it could react with any sort of nanobot. This does sound incredibly far fetched.
How does the brain store information, out of curiosity?
Ah, so you accept your existence as an axiom. That is to say, you have no proof whatsoever that you do exist, but nonetheless blindly accept such a notion as a truth.

Most people do, most of the time. Or they just don't think about whether they exist or not.

Kay. I'm now going to completely dismiss you as a Luddite who is afraid of technology because it MIGHT harm them.

But why not apply that logic further? Let's ban all guns! After all, they hurt people, right! They can't be used in a positive fashion like in law enforcement or hunting.

Let's get rid of all electronics. They can always be used to electrocute someone.

Let's get rid of houses...they might fall down on us.

Let's get rid of wooden impliments of all shapes and sizes.

Hell, let's just get rid of everything, even forks and spoons! They can be used to hurt people!

See why your logic does not work?

That wasn't my point...although mankind does not need any of those items.

Most people do, most of the time. Or they just don't think about whether they exist or not.

That's understandable, but certainly not logically valid.

And the answer to both of them is "no."

3rd Question........That being so..... Why are people spending so much effort in denying even the possibility that reality is a simulation. Why could it matter?

How does the brain store information, out of curiosity?


Don't know tbh.

That's understandable, but certainly not logically valid.

Again, if you can't use senses to verify anything, even yourself (which is what you necessarily imply), then the concept of logic and proof is meaningless as nothing can be verified accept from mathematical theories. So whatever you say is as meaningless as whatever I or he says.

Don't know tbh.

Yeah, we're going to need a Bottle for that one.

Again, if you can't use senses to verify anything, even yourself (which is what you necessarily imply), then the concept of logic and proof is meaningless as nothing can be verified accept from mathematical theories. So whatever you say is as meaningless as whatever I or he says.

Philosophical Idealism

That wasn't my point...although mankind does not need any of those items.

That's a really silly argument.

If there is a robot revolution I'll most likely be long dead before it occurs. ;)
If robots ever got to the point where they could revolt in your life time, I expect your head would asplode in frustration :P


Yes, machines exist, but they are not alive. Nor were they born. They were created.
The ones we have now may not be alive, but they are getting increasingly advanced. That they will become alive by any current definition of the term seems likely.
That's understandable, but certainly not logically valid.

No, logically we can't conclude anything about whether we exist or not. There is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing that rules out the possibility that this is all an elaborate simulation and we are all a series of 1s and 0s.

What exactly makes no sense?

Do you not go out much? This is one seriously screwed up world. The thought that the universe we know was just made up by some pimply-faced, hormonal teenager fits experience.

On a side note, I find the idea that I might not really exist strangely comforting.

Philosophical Idealism

I didn't say it was true, it is just what he is implying. It's basically like saying "prove my penis is not actually George Bush", and someone will look and it and say "I can see that it is not George Bush", but I will say "nu-uh, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there" and from that point the whole concept of science flies out the window.

Again, if you can't use senses to verify anything, even yourself (which is what you necessarily imply), then the concept of logic and proof is meaningless as nothing can be verified [except] from mathematical theories. So whatever you say is as meaningless as whatever I or he says.

Exactly -- which is why the concept that you exist is a necessary axiom. However, it is by no means a fact. Which is why the theory that all this is simply a simulation is not logically invalid and thus cannot be disproved.

Don't know tbh.

As far as I know, how memory works is on the (long) list of things we don't know about the brain.

However, it is by no means a fact.

But you can assign likely hoods.

That's a really silly argument.

?

But you can assign likely hoods.

No, you can't. Unless they're completely arbitrary and based on nothing except your opinion.

If robots ever got to the point where they could revolt in your life time, I expect your head would asplode in frustration :P



The ones we have now may not be alive, but they are getting increasingly advanced. That they will become alive by any current definition of the term seems likely.


No, logically we can't conclude anything about whether we exist or not. There is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing that rules out the possibility that this is all an elaborate simulation and we are all a series of 1s and 0s.

If I didn't have a stroke or a heart attack before, I would try to take down as many machines as a could. :D

I don't see how machines more sophisticated would make them alive. Wouldn't that make them really complex machines?

Exactly -- which is why the concept that you exist is a necessary axiom. However, it is by no means a fact. Which is why the theory that all this is simply a simulation is not logically invalid and thus cannot be disproved.


Maybe not, but can it be proved?

No, you can't. Unless they're completely arbitrary and based on nothing except your opinion.

This implies that all science is meaningless.

?

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

You decry modern technology for all its lack of necessity and potential for harm. You go on and on about how REAL you must be, failing to realize that your REALity is completely unimportant.

And you're hypocritical enough to decry modern technology ON THE FUCKING INTERNET. If you have the strength of your convictions, which I doubt, WALK, without the use of a map, to a place of central government in wherever it is you live, and try and get a hold of whoever it is that runs your country. Without the use of a telephone. Or a telegraph. Or paper cups attached to string.

Or I suppose if you don't feel strongly enough to be an activist, at least have the strength of conviction to get OFF THE INTERNET, and go be pissy about technology somewhere else.

Like maybe the local Luddite's convention.

But you can assign likely hoods.

Not really. If I have a bag with one black and one white marble, there's no way you can establish which I am more likely to blindly pull out. To further that analogy, we don't even know if there are only two marbles in the bag. There might be degrees of existence and unexistence. These things are simply beyond our ability to test.

Yeah, maybe.

Oh well. Not much I can do about it.

I see, so by identical do you mean even in atomic structure?

Possibly, although neither I nor anyone else could reasonably answer just what is exactly needed because it's never been tried before and the technology just isn't yet at the level needed for that to be a reality. Neuroscience is still a while away from really understanding most of the components of thought, although research from the Blue Brain project has shown that random, non-instigated thought patterns in artificial simulations of the mouse neocortex do occur even when the model is only simulated at the neuron level.

It appears (and I stress 'appears') that significant brain function do occur at that level, which may suggest that a "black box" approach to neurons is appropriate for certain aspects of the brain.

Hmm, quite interesting. But again, it is only storing information. It is still a very long way off from creating consciousness.

Oh, yes, we're a long way off from being able to fully replicate the brain and thereby provide a way to generate consciousness.

This implies that all science is meaningless.

It isn't meaningless; however, its meaning is predicated upon the fundamental axiom(s) that we exist and our senses accurately allow us to perceive the world. If it turns out that those underlying assumptions were false, then science would be meaningless.

although research from the Blue Brain project has shown that random, non-instigated thought patterns in artificial simulations of the mouse neocortex do occur even when the model is only simulated at the neuron level.

You lost me when you mentioned the mouse neocortex. Whats that?

Maybe not, but can it be proved?

By definition, something that exists outside our potential for measurement or perception cannot be proved.

You lost me when you mentioned the mouse neocortex. Whats that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex

It isn't meaningless; however, its meaning is predicated upon the fundamental axiom(s) that we exist and our senses accurately allow us to perceive the world. If it turns out that those underlying assumptions were false, then science would be meaningless.

So you are saying that in science we operate under the assumption that the universe is real?

So you are saying that in science we operate under the assumption that the universe is real?

Although I am not a scientist, I believe that we do, yes. Although it's not so much an assumption as an extension of some more basic postulates.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

You decry modern technology for all its lack of necessity and potential for harm. You go on and on about how REAL you must be, failing to realize that your REALity is completely unimportant.

And you're hypocritical enough to decry modern technology ON THE FUCKING INTERNET. If you have the strength of your convictions, which I doubt, WALK, without the use of a map, to a place of central government in wherever it is you live, and try and get a hold of whoever it is that runs your country. Without the use of a telephone. Or a telegraph. Or paper cups attached to string.

Or I suppose if you don't feel strongly enough to be an activist, at least have the strength of conviction to get OFF THE INTERNET, and go be pissy about technology somewhere else.

Like maybe the local Luddite's convention.

I never said any of that in this thread.

And as to stopping using technology, I'm working on it. I don't want to just walk of in to woods with no knowledge of how to survive, that would be suicidal. Leaving civilization is hard. Civilization has many seductions, and as I was born into it, I don't know how to survive in the wild, yet. I'm working on my survival skills, however, with more camping trips, fire making skills, and other outdoor skills. Now its just a matter of time. :cool:

If I didn't have a stroke or a heart attack before, I would try to take down as many machines as a could. :D
Good luck

I don't see how machines more sophisticated would make them alive. Wouldn't that make them really complex machines?
Yes. We are very complex machines and we are alive.
I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

You decry modern technology for all its lack of necessity and potential for harm. You go on and on about how REAL you must be, failing to realize that your REALity is completely unimportant.

And you're hypocritical enough to decry modern technology ON THE FUCKING INTERNET. If you have the strength of your convictions, which I doubt, WALK, without the use of a map, to a place of central government in wherever it is you live, and try and get a hold of whoever it is that runs your country. Without the use of a telephone. Or a telegraph. Or paper cups attached to string.

Or I suppose if you don't feel strongly enough to be an activist, at least have the strength of conviction to get OFF THE INTERNET, and go be pissy about technology somewhere else.

Like maybe the local Luddite's convention.
Yeah, this has all been said to him before.
This implies that all science is meaningless.

Not really. While it is possible that all our senses can tell us nothing about reality, they're all we have so the only choice is to assume that they can tell us about reality.

Good luck


Yes. We are very complex machines and we are alive.

Yeah, this has all been said to him before.


Not really. While it is possible that all our senses can tell us nothing about reality, they're all we have so the only choice is to assume that they can tell us about reality.

Yeah, I kinda figured. I was talking to Kyro about this earlier, and how you just can't reason with these people. They're like YECs.

I HIGHLY doubt it...

Do you not go out much? This is one seriously screwed up world. The thought that the universe we know was just made up by some pimply-faced, hormonal teenager fits experience.

I guess I don't go out much. Please tell me what you find so hard to understand about the world.

IMO, you would realize your true state in your moment of death. This is because to kill you within the simulation (if you really die, that is, and your death isn't just another part of the simulation, perhaps involving a simulated afterlife, etc), some real phyiscal effect must be done to you, which you would notice.

Check this out! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat) <-- (yes, it's a link, please click)

I guess I don't go out much. Please tell me what you find so hard to understand about the world.

I didn't say I don't understand. Frankly, I wish I didn't understand anything around me. I'm merely suggesting that the idea the universe was created by someone who hadn't the slightest idea what they were doing fits my experience. I figure the problem with this world is that God's just some emo kid fooling around on a computer with a program that got out of control. Either that, or it's like when you use the natural disasters buttons in Sim City 'cause your bored with it and decide to go on a destruction rampage.

I’m merely suggesting that the idea the universe was created by someone who hadn’t the slightest idea what they were doing fits my experience.
Or that it wasn’t designed at all...

if irwin hasn't read douglas adams he probably needs to.

yes, the computer 'deep thought' is 'god' and were all inside a sim its running to determine the question to the answer 42.

=^^=
.../\...