i think we are a computer program

  • dommyinlosang...

    Posts: 261

    Dec 29, 2013 11:54 PM GMT
    according to a study i read just a year or 2 ago... with technology doubling every so many years... there will reach a point where we can have large enough memory and power that we can create artificial intelligence inside a computer program which would be as real to those living inside the program as life would be for us... (matrix like) then life within that program would develop the same technology and so on and so on... eventually there would be endless universes...

    then when they calculated the odds of us being the original it came out to like 20 something percent... meaning we are one of the copies...

    does it really matter? not sure
  • Paperless_Pen

    Posts: 573

    Dec 29, 2013 11:55 PM GMT
    dvsinla saidaccording to a study i read just a year or 2 ago... with technology doubling every so many years... there will reach a point where we can have large enough memory and power that we can create artificial intelligence inside a computer program which would be as real to those living inside the program as life would be for us... (matrix like) then life within that program would develop the same technology and so on and so on... eventually there would be endless universes...

    then when they calculated the odds of us being the original it came out to like 20 something percent... meaning we are one of the copies...

    does it really matter? not sure


    Yeah, a hologram... from the holographic principle. Kinda scary
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 12:05 AM GMT
    dvsinla said
    then when they calculated the odds of us being the original it came out to like 20 something percent... meaning we are one of the copies...

    does it really matter? not sure



    Yeah? I would suggest you read Descartes first.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 12:09 AM GMT
    Being a computer programmer and knowing how hard it is to write software, I seriously doubt it. This kind of stuff is typically written by journalists who don't know what they're talking about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 12:18 AM GMT
    Well, eventually we should able to do *anything*.
    Along those lines, I'm a little concerned about all the science programs I watch about how preoccupied science is with creating sentient robots. I can't see what the purpose of this would be other that creating a new race of slaves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 12:21 AM GMT
    JohnSpotter saidWell, eventually we should able to do *anything*.
    Along those lines, I'm a little concerned about all the science programs I watch about how preoccupied science is with creating sentient robots. I can't see what the purpose of this would be other that creating a new race of slaves.


    That is why there are Public Policy analysts such as myself (actually I am studying to become one). We won't allow that to happen icon_biggrin.gif so don't worry
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 12:22 AM GMT
    Lumpyoatmeal saidBeing a computer programmer and knowing how hard it is to write software, I seriously doubt it. This kind of stuff is typically written by journalists who don't know what they're talking about.

    I was writing an artificial intelligence simulation on the computer once and it was just amazing to me how the amount of memory needed grew exponentially just to have the computer speak a few simple sentences.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Dec 30, 2013 12:29 AM GMT
    Lumpyoatmeal saidBeing a computer programmer and knowing how hard it is to write software, I seriously doubt it. This kind of stuff is typically written by journalists who don't know what they're talking about.

    Lumpy knows what he's talking about. Before anything like the OP describes we'd have to develop direct neurological interfaces (ala eXistenZ). Right now our tech is digital; our brains are not.

    That said, I think "programs" can be a metaphor for how we *are* socialized to perceive the raw-data of experience. The reality you perceive around you is created in your brain. All sensation is nothing but electromagnetic impulses. We do not "see" light, for example, but the neurological consequences of light quanta impacting our optic rods and cones, which is translated into electromagnetic impulses. The "light" we perceive is a consequence of brain activity.

    We're all also figments of our own imagination, too, but that's another story.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 12:31 AM GMT
    Okajuurou said
    JohnSpotter saidWell, eventually we should able to do *anything*.
    Along those lines, I'm a little concerned about all the science programs I watch about how preoccupied science is with creating sentient robots. I can't see what the purpose of this would be other that creating a new race of slaves.

    That is why there are Public Policy analysts such as myself (actually I am studying to become one). We won't allow that to happen icon_biggrin.gif so don't worry

    Thank you!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 12:36 AM GMT
    JohnSpotter said
    Lumpyoatmeal saidBeing a computer programmer and knowing how hard it is to write software, I seriously doubt it. This kind of stuff is typically written by journalists who don't know what they're talking about.

    I was writing an artificial intelligence simulation on the computer once and it was just amazing to me how the amount of memory needed grew exponentially just to have the computer speak a few simple sentences.

    Yes. But today that much memory isn't a limitation.

    I think what confuses journalists is that there's a huge difference between computer programs that mimic human behavior and appear intelligent versus ones that truly embody human thinking.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 12:38 AM GMT
    Answer is no.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 12:39 AM GMT
    MikeW said
    Lumpyoatmeal saidBeing a computer programmer and knowing how hard it is to write software, I seriously doubt it. This kind of stuff is typically written by journalists who don't know what they're talking about.

    Lumpy knows what he's talking about. Before anything like the OP describes we'd have to develop direct neurological interfaces (ala eXistenZ). Right now our tech is digital; our brains are not.

    That said, I think "programs" can be a metaphor for how we *are* socialized to perceive the raw-data of experience. The reality you perceive around you is created in your brain. All sensation is nothing but electromagnetic impulses. We do not "see" light, for example, but the neurological consequences of light quanta impacting our optic rods and cones, which is translated into electromagnetic impulses. The "light" we perceive is a consequence of brain activity.

    We're all also figments of our own imagination, too, but that's another story.

    Yes. And we barely even understand how the human mind works.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 12:53 AM GMT
    Lumpyoatmeal said
    JohnSpotter said
    Lumpyoatmeal saidBeing a computer programmer and knowing how hard it is to write software, I seriously doubt it. This kind of stuff is typically written by journalists who don't know what they're talking about.

    I was writing an artificial intelligence simulation on the computer once and it was just amazing to me how the amount of memory needed grew exponentially just to have the computer speak a few simple sentences.

    Yes. But today that much memory isn't a limitation.

    I think what confuses journalists is that there's a huge difference between computer programs that mimic human behavior and appear intelligent versus ones that truly embody human thinking.

    This is very true.
    I saw a "Through the Wormhole" ( I think) where they were making a fuss over the beginning stages of artificial intelligence but after a while it seemed like the robots were just reciting prepared responses to different questions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 7:46 AM GMT
    Hang on, what I recall is a debate about whether we are all living inside of a computer simulation. There was a column by John Tierney in 2007 that generated a lot of discussion, though a number of authors have made the same argument prior to that. According to this argument, it is "almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation."

    Read the Tierney column, see the links to further reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?pagewanted=all

    More debate: http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/do_we_live_in_a_computer_simul/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 7:50 AM GMT
    dvsinla saidaccording to a study i read just a year or 2 ago... with technology doubling every so many years... there will reach a point where we can have large enough memory and power that we can create artificial intelligence inside a computer program which would be as real to those living inside the program as life would be for us... (matrix like) then life within that program would develop the same technology and so on and so on... eventually there would be endless universes...

    then when they calculated the odds of us being the original it came out to like 20 something percent... meaning we are one of the copies...

    does it really matter? not sure


    Hey maybe we are the 20%!!!!!!! Do we honestly think a computer programmer would allow such freedom to have that Britney Jean album come out -- I don't think so bro no-homo (sorry it rhymed and yes I find men hot, sometimes). If we do create such a world I imagine we'd put certain provisions in it. We've seen the craziness humans are capable of.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 7:54 AM GMT
    _zed_ saidHang on, what I recall is a debate about whether we are all living inside of a computer simulation. There was a column by John Tierney in 2007 that generated a lot of discussion, though a number of authors have made the same argument prior to that. According to this argument, it is "almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation."

    Read the Tierney column, see the links to further reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?pagewanted=all

    More debate: http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/do_we_live_in_a_computer_simul/

    OMG, where the hell YOU been? Happy Hogmanay!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 8:10 AM GMT
    Aristoshark said
    OMG, where the hell YOU been? Happy Hogmanay!

    Hah, still here, mostly lurking---unless I can find something useful to contribute to a conversation. Happy Hogmanay to you too!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 8:43 AM GMT
    Say........ WTF NOW! ( 0_0)

    NOPE!... My Jesus Won't Let This Happen!

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 12:40 PM GMT
    They have a WORMHOLE about this subject and they repeat it often on SCI channel. I remember Morgan saying that many scientists already believe this is a simulation.
    (According to this series, scientists believe *anything* so they can make more programs.)
    As for me, I'm fairly confident life is an illusion in the mind of God.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 1:31 PM GMT
    I put my cat in a box and now it is neither alive nor dead icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 4:32 PM GMT
    All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2013 4:48 PM GMT
    I was discussing with a retired physics prof the other week whether or not exists free will, to which I introduced the quantum self, that even if we seem nothing much more but mechanical beeps and whistles now--that even if all of our perceptions and thoughts and actions are not a matter of free will but, instead, predetermined, that we might not be aware of any possible programming that went into setting up a system which would look as if no free will exists but might have existed then, that there might be some form of energies working through the machine so unimaginably randomly combined as to negate predisposition. Oh no, what then?

    So then it comes down the a question of what are we, who am I as if in the history of mankind no one ever contemplated that before. We are so original and unique.

    In this infinite loop we call life, we ask the same questions in any various languages whether be about free will or of whom is the I of I am or in the language of fortran.

    GAMRican saidAll of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.

  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Dec 30, 2013 6:54 PM GMT
    Ohno saidI put my cat in a box and now it is neither alive nor dead icon_eek.gif

    Hell, man, in Schrödinger's box we can't even be sure it's still a cat! icon_eek.gif