Interesting story from theorists and philosophers. I don't really think its possible to go into the extreme detail of real life in a machine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?ei=5090&en=22bfff4070a81187&ex=1344744000

We could make some very interesting 'Sims' if you will, but down to the molecular structure of everything on the planet being different and being able to store that data and change it every millisecond. The amount of computing power behind that would be completely incomprehendable.

I only skimmed through it, and I found it utterly stupid.

Two words, self awareness.
Another word, vanity.
A final word, choice.

We don't think like computers, that make a decision based off of a random value influenced by met or unfulfilled conditions. Sure this can be improved and made more real, but the complexity and individuality of each and every single one of human beings is far too much information and data for any imaginable computer to store, and process.

Don't we though? You read this post, consider your knowledge of the subject(s) at hand, and compile a response if satisfactory said 'knowledge' is present. I'm not saying we ALWAYS think like computers, because we have something that really cannot be programmed. Emotion.

That's my thought exactly. The immense amounts of variables PER PERSON in a virtual environment such as that would take up beyond rediculous amounts of space. Let alone the processing power to run that many variables through that many scenarios at the pace it would require to make it work. Besides, what about errors, all computer software has them, wouldn't we have noticed some oddity by now? (speculations)

This is retarded.

It's just monotheism but with computers.

And makes less sense. Computers aren't self aware.

Neither is the data contained and processed by them, which is my own point. Computers don't have emotions, but can simulate them, to a point, but are quickly recognized as false.

Yeah computers today. You speak of emotion as if it's some intangible thing, but it's just chemical reactions in the brain, which computers can, and will, be able to simulate one day.

And as far as self-awareness, we AREN'T self-aware. We think we're people, not computer simulations.

Haha, this is going to be fun.

I've seen this argument before. It pisses me off because it makes sense, but really seems like it shouldn't. Kind of like God's Debris, which makes sense even though I know it's not supposed to be sound.

Don't try to degrade emotion, as we only know that the physical feeling and change of perception is caused by a chemical reaction, however there is ALOT more too it than that.

Do you even what self awareness is? Because the second argument sounds totally retarded, no offense.

There isn't a lot more to it than that. Everything in the universe has the potential to be simulated by a computer one day.

And I mean that if we were self-aware, we would realize that we're bits in a computer simulation. Instead we see ourselves as humans, which according to this theory, we aren't.

Even though I do not believe this to be possible, just for the sake of argument, there are a lot of factors that have been left out.

We assume that this simulation device would be nearly impossible, due to the massive requirements in processing power and speed. If this were, in fact, a simulated reality that we currently live in, who's to say that one second of our time is equal to one second in 'their' time? Just because we feel as if we've been in Wal-Mart (ugh) for 10 minutes, doesn't really mean that we really have. The simulation device could be operating on a different (if not changing) time speeds, when comparing this so called 'real universe' to the 'virtual universe.' In addition, it could be possible that there are multiple machines running in parallel.

Also, you must be aware that there are other processes for computation and storage other than our current-day 'conventional' machines. Such include, but are not limited to; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_computer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computerand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing. Also, we may think of our universe as infinite, but perhaps that is only what we see and think, when it is in fact finite (and conveniently stored on someone's futuristic hard disc, might I add).

As for software glitches and errors; how would we know what is a 'glitch' or just a part of our virtual environment? Perhaps once we see a glitch or error, it is fixed, and memories of it are suppressed.


Having spoken 'pro-theory' on all of this, it would be very hard to prove or disprove this theory, since you would have to obtain proof of this so called 'administrator,' or -dare I say- 'creator.' Thus it would require an amount of faith to believe in the administrator, the system, and everything else. It, quite simply, is a theory that can not be proven, and as far as we're concerned, this is reality. If it is true, we probably will never know it, as I doubt a huge windows dialogue will open up that says, "CONGRADULATIONS: YOU HAVE WON THE PRIZE."

In addition to the need to store data on personalities and all of that whatnot, do not forget that it would (possibly) also have to include both humans and animals.


[derail] Emotions are caused by chemical reactions in sections of the brain. These chemical reactions occur in response to surrounding environment, to our 'hardwired' instincts, and are often involuntary. The brain has special sections for each process, and just because it is a physical biological process, does not mean that it can be controlled that easily. Not to 'degrade' emotion, but it is true. [/derail]

btw... if it is true, we need pray to the great administrator to give us agents and cool stuff like that

Hey man don't let your emotions get in the way of your logic.

But our understanding of such a machine would be based on our knowledge of this universe, a universe which perhaps has many fundamental difference from the one in with the computer running the simulation would exist. The only real issue is weather, fundamentally, humans have souls in them or weather they are entirely organic, in which case we are machines.

EDIT: Well, actually we're machines either way, but with a soul, there's something else really pulling the strings at some level, and the "we" is attached more to our soul than our bodies.

This is true. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant luddite.

Humans are nothing more than complex biological machines. Software will eventually be able to describe and simulate all aspects of life, including emotion.

I have always found the AI argument completely unfounded. A computer is only as smart as its creator? What? You mean to tell me that if we had the processing power to build a brain, nanotechnology to cause chemical reactions, and dynamic self-construction that the robot would suddenly stop working after it figured out as much as the joe blow that made it?

Our body is a system. The only difference between what a robot/simulation could be compared to us is the materials. Otherwise there's NOTHING different. It'd be even easier for all of us to be a simulation.

It's funny to me that Christians absolutely refute this concept despite the fact that it's essentially what the bible teaches. There's absolutely no difference. It makes sense too, considering most videogames have horrible plots to begin with. Zombie savior? Right.

Prove it.

Prove what, that we have a soul?

That would be a) idiotic to try given the very definition of a soul
and b) totally off topic. If you care to read my post you'll find I was not trying to scientifically prove the existence of a soul.

It wouldn't be off topic. We're discussing that ridiculous article, and how machines can/will/are approaching "life" and whatnot. You saying that we have a soul that is more "we" than our machine-like bodies is still on topic, and I'm just curious as to why you didn't say something like "I have faith that that the thing that will always separate man and machine is our soul" or something, instead of just injecting that as if it were obvious that "duh, we have souls, machines don't."

The whole thing is, is that a computer is a tool, it cannot create a unique work of art without someone with the talent to create it.

Therefore, simulating emotion through a computer would be limited to the programming gone into it.

Everyone reacts differently to emotion, it cannot be precisely predicted/simulated with 100% accuracy in any single case, at least not by a computer, an inanimate object that follows a series of commands.

Anyhow, you always have you're punch line, that the software is too advanced for our current comprehension. Sort of like catholics and their whole "its a mystery" punch line.

I think you underestimate computers entirely. Do you understand the concept of a system? Computers cannot do something they aren't programmed to do. However, programming a group of systems that interact and then take in data and react to that data is hardly difficult, only compounded and complex. Plus the architecture of a reacting brain would instantly propel the computers into our world. The brain is, on a basic level, simply a weighted randomization system. I have a choice between pudding and yogurt. My experiences with yogurt, combined with the current taste I'm experiencing, combined with billions of connections and understandings in my brain weight one of the other. The decision is simply the experience/logical paths taken. There's nothing special about emotions, just something complex.

Not going into the whole philosophical / pseudo-religious aspect of this, but I'd like to point out that a virus was simulated last year right down to the atomic level. Therefore (assuming Moore's Law can continue for a sufficient period of time [and this is a big assumption but of no consequence to the argument that we might be living in a "matrix" because our universe would necessarily be contained inside a computer that could simulate it, in some larger more complex universe]) it will eventually (i.e. soon) be possible to simulate other forms of life such as bacteria, mice, humans, etc. Actually it's technically possible now, but the simulation would have to run really really slowly and would require data that we don't have, as well as a heck of a lot of hard drives.

So there is nothing physically precluding the possibility that we *could* be living in a simulation, though it would be impossible to tell the difference (unless somebody found a bug in the programming!).

I would just like to say that proving that people have souls is just as difficult as proving we are a computer simulation.

.

That is possibly the funniest thing I have ever heard in my life.

considering the fact that you would most definitely fail any double-blind turing test I don't think you should be talking about this subject

This made me laugh.

Oh, except I was giving two hypothetical situations only one of which involved a soul. Way to fail at reading comprehension. I'm pretty sure the word "soul" was the only thing in my post that you bothered to read, to which you instantly felt compelled to respond with the inane, "prove it!"

For those going "IMPOSSIBLE!" or "Computers can't do that!", I think you mean that they currently can't. Wouldn't such things merely require sufficiently advanced technology and programming? Who's to say we aren't physically jacked in like in The Matrix and doing most of the processing ourselves?

If this were true, I want whoever's up there to download some mods. Life is kinda boring at the moment.

****ing programmers