Convince me I'm not in a Simulation.

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:12 PM, Fred McGriff said:

I think that it is likely we are part of a simulated universe and not the real universe.

This is a very old idea. The most ancient sanskrit texts bring up the concept of millions and millions of worlds existing alongside ours. In a subject like this it's very risky to bring up the word real. If this universe is simulated, does that automatically make it not "real"? What are the criteria for a real universe? A parent to all others? What if there is no such thing? Maybe the "real thing" is a hodgepodge of universes and beings simulating themselves into existance?

Personally I've always felt that this universe is a bit of a joke. It's obvious it's an illusion, everything is when you're a conscious being. I mean that there are too many paradoxes, too much conflict between the self and the other. It feels not real precisely because it is so real - the perfect disguise. Almost as if it is trying to compensate for low self esteem.

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:16 PM, Hoodie said:

you can't prove or disprove something like that, unless you figure out that our universe or whatever our universe is apart of is infinite. in that case, it's impossible that we're a simulation because math (something can't be infinite if there is something greater than it).

Even in math there are different kinds of infinities, but if there was a parent reality to this one, it wouldn't necessarily have to follow "our" math.

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:25 PM, eugene said:

something somewhat related jumped into my mind..

why the fake matrix universe in the film wasn't utopia but the same gay-ass world we are living in right now ? was that just a plot device or was there an explanation ?

i sure as fuck wouldn't mind being butt plugged to provide electricity for a machine that would grant me many decades of happiness.

The machines made utopia at first but humans didn't buy it precisely because it was utopia.. Not "real" enough.

oh ok, how would the humans know what's real and what's not, though..i guess the film assumed some inherent human traits.

I don't believe in technology very much. All this simulation business seems a bit religious, as it tries to make you feel inadequate and awkward with yourself. I think we have become maters of making up universes, that are still very limited, as we are limited with our knowledge. All this internet and stuff, I can't believe any of this makes real sense.

Guys, we need to try to find a connection with real stuff again. Dirt, water, cold, hunger, love, hardship and tenderness, these thing feel so much more real than all virtual universes we make up. But it's easy to make them up.

Outside.

side thought: and this pertains to digital versus analogue in a way. say that the human brain is analogue or continuous in that it cannot be broken down into separate fundamental building blocks. in this case a perfect simulation would be impossible because you could drill down infinitesimally into the brain's constituents, but never accurately program them into your simulation. you would have to cut off the scale at some point or the computer would crash. so simulating the human brain is destined to always be an approximation. it's like trying to program pi into the simulation. so maybe because of that approximation, you can never simulate consciousness. but i guess you can't get smaller than the planck length? is that proven? in this case I think we are more likely to be in a simulation since the universe we inhabit is digital. in which case we are not self-aware. FUCK.

<:-@

aren't the particles that make up a microprocessor, for example, are just as infinite as the particles that make up human brain ? it's the modules, so to say, of those not-completely-understood particles that make up something functioning.

(i could be talking complete rubbish btw cos i know absolute fuck all about physics and chemistry and all that stuff, lol.)

we have already had this discussion a while back: http://forum.watmm.com/topic/58790-reality-isnt-real/

scientists are saying there is a 20% chance we are living in a computer simulation, right now

  On 2/8/2012 at 8:39 PM, chax said:

we have already had this discussion a while back: http://forum.watmm.c...lity-isnt-real/

 

scientists are saying there is a 20% chance we are living in a computer simulation, right now

How did they work out the 20% part?

I think we will be able to let a simulation run a brain as if it were real. But probably not within our lifetime. Our brain is not infinitely complex. But we do need much, much more processing power and models that can act like a real brain.

Here's a cool paper by IBM who built a huge supercomputer to simulate the interaction of a large amount of neurons and synapses: http://www.mo4dha.org/C2S2/2009/11182009/content/SC09_TheCatIsOutofTheBag.pdf That's mostly just hardware and theory though, nowhere near real "cognition" or anything.

  On 2/8/2012 at 8:41 PM, Pennywise said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 8:39 PM, chax said:

we have already had this discussion a while back: http://forum.watmm.c...lity-isnt-real/

 

scientists are saying there is a 20% chance we are living in a computer simulation, right now

 

How did they work out the 20% part?

57.3% of statistics are made up, experts say

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:41 PM, encey said:

The very idea of being in a simulation presupposes that there is something being simulated, which is to say, a 'real world' of which you have no knowledge. And in that sense, you would have to be comfortable with the idea of being massively deceived about what is true in order not to be bothered by the possibility of being in a simulation.

!!!! the man encey is here to throw down mighty.

Yo Fred, check dis oot:

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

  On 2/8/2012 at 8:41 PM, Ego said:

I think we will be able to let a simulation run a brain as if it were real. But probably not within our lifetime. Our brain is not infinitely complex. But we do need much, much more processing power and models that can act like a real brain.

 

Here's a cool paper by IBM who built a huge supercomputer to simulate the interaction of a large amount of neurons and synapses: http://www.mo4dha.or...OutofTheBag.pdf That's mostly just hardware and theory though, nowhere near real "cognition" or anything.

you sure this link is right? it seems broken when I try to clicky

  On 2/8/2012 at 8:41 PM, Pennywise said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 8:39 PM, chax said:

we have already had this discussion a while back: http://forum.watmm.c...lity-isnt-real/

 

scientists are saying there is a 20% chance we are living in a computer simulation, right now

 

How did they work out the 20% part?

I don't know I'm not a scientist, that's just what was quoted in the nytimes article

  On 2/8/2012 at 8:41 PM, Ego said:

I think we will be able to let a simulation run a brain as if it were real. But probably not within our lifetime. Our brain is not infinitely complex. But we do need much, much more processing power and models that can act like a real brain.

 

Here's a cool paper by IBM who built a huge supercomputer to simulate the interaction of a large amount of neurons and synapses: http://www.mo4dha.or...OutofTheBag.pdf That's mostly just hardware and theory though, nowhere near real "cognition" or anything.

yeah, the brain is definitely finite & i think that when we are able to simulate a brain, it will be self aware. but you have to ask--what type of awareness will it have if it lacks inputs and outputs? only part of the brain deals with conscious awareness. so if you essentially map out all the neurons, synapses, etc. in a brain and press "run" on your simulator, it would be a consciousness in a black void without a body or sensory input (well, maybe the benevolent scientists would hook a webcam up to their computer and figure out how to let their simulation use it). we know that people who have limbs amputated have weird sensory malfunctions that occur because the part of the brain that deals with that limb is still running even though the limb is not there... so what would happen if you took the entire body away?

not to mention the problems associated with embodied cognition.

also, you have the question: is it ethical to turn the simulation off?

we should probably figure out what consciousness is before trying to make a complex one of our own, imo.

Hilary Putnam is a philosopher who claims to be able to prove that you are not in this situation. Many other philosophers don't think you can actually proove it. Well. I think that it is a stupid question not worth thinking about. Who cares ?

(This a very ethical point of view, although it may seems like an ignorant one).

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:08 PM, Babar said:

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

yeah exactly. it's a fucking joke, isn't it?

I think the discussion becomes more and more valid and current as we develop quantum computing.

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:08 PM, Babar said:

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

there's no difference really

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:08 PM, Babar said:

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness.

Honestly, it all really boils down to how nice your shoes are. Think about it.

  On 2/8/2012 at 8:52 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 8:41 PM, Ego said:

I think we will be able to let a simulation run a brain as if it were real. But probably not within our lifetime. Our brain is not infinitely complex. But we do need much, much more processing power and models that can act like a real brain.

 

Here's a cool paper by IBM who built a huge supercomputer to simulate the interaction of a large amount of neurons and synapses: http://www.mo4dha.or...OutofTheBag.pdf That's mostly just hardware and theory though, nowhere near real "cognition" or anything.

 

yeah, the brain is definitely finite & i think that when we are able to simulate a brain, it will be self aware. but you have to ask--what type of awareness will it have if it lacks inputs and outputs? only part of the brain deals with conscious awareness. so if you essentially map out all the neurons, synapses, etc. in a brain and press "run" on your simulator, it would be a consciousness in a black void without a body or sensory input (well, maybe the benevolent scientists would hook a webcam up to their computer and figure out how to let their simulation use it). we know that people who have limbs amputated have weird sensory malfunctions that occur because the part of the brain that deals with that limb is still running even though the limb is not there... so what would happen if you took the entire body away?

 

not to mention the problems associated with embodied cognition.

 

also, you have the question: is it ethical to turn the simulation off?

 

we should probably figure out what consciousness is before trying to make a complex one of our own, imo.

I think the "inputs" will be something we can figure out much sooner than the brain itself. It seems to me that the nervous system outside the brain is not as complex as that of the brain. I've read about some experiments where they hooked a low resolution camera up to the brain of a blind man which gave him very low resolution sight.

I don't know about the ethics of it. I guess there is no way to do be completely ethical about it since you create a being which you'll have to turn off again at some point. But we can't really stop a curious scientist from creating an immortal child from his bedroom can we?

And yeah the link is broken. Here's an article about it: http://seekingalpha.com/article/174134-ibm-makes-progress-toward-thinking-computing-system Some scientists have said it is a big overestimation though.

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:10 PM, tokn said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:08 PM, Babar said:

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

 

yeah exactly. it's a fucking joke, isn't it?

no it's not a joke, it's like how eskimos have 300 different words for snow.

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:10 PM, tokn said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:08 PM, Babar said:

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

 

yeah exactly. it's a fucking joke, isn't it?

no.

a dog, for instance, would have consciousness but it is not self-aware. it cannot recognize that it has a self (ex. mirror test).

a person, for instance, has consciousness and is self-aware.

self-consciousness is not relevant to this discussion, because it's more of the degree to which you notice your actions and analyze them (often overanalyze them). i've never heard it related to ai. it's more psychological.

*tosses uncarved block of wood into thread...backs out quietly*

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:15 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:10 PM, tokn said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:08 PM, Babar said:

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

 

yeah exactly. it's a fucking joke, isn't it?

 

no.

 

a dog, for instance, would have consciousness but it is not self-aware. it cannot recognize that it has a self (ex. mirror test).

 

a person, for instance, has consciousness and is self-aware.

 

self-consciousness is not relevant to this discussion, because it's more of the degree to which you notice your actions and analyze them (often overanalyze them). i've never heard it related to ai. it's more psychological.

thank you.

So a dog is conscious because it experiences some kind of inner life (has feelings etc). What about a lizard ? An ant ? A computer program ? Where's the limit ?

also : who the fuck is Holy Cow ? How does he fucking know about my awe-fucking-some shoes. Seriously?. SERIOUSLY azoh hdz oalhjdza Am I being stalked ?

paranoia score : 2/10

paranoia relevancy : 2/100

edit: I should make a topic about pragramatic paranoia. It's really different from UFO-conspiracy-global-mind-control paranoia, since this kind of paranoia can yield positive results.