Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Your God Eats Cheetos
John Tierney has a fun piece at the NY Times exploring the possibility that our entire existence is the product of some Matrix-like simulation your geeky great-great-great grandson is running on his bedroom computer.
But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom’s, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation.
[...]
Dr. Bostrom assumes that technological advances could produce a computer with more processing power than all the brains in the world, and that advanced humans, or “posthumans,” could run “ancestor simulations” of their evolutionary history by creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully developed virtual nervous systems.
Some computer experts have projected, based on trends in processing power, that we will have such a computer by the middle of this century, but it doesn’t matter for Dr. Bostrom’s argument whether it takes 50 years or 5 million years. If civilization survived long enough to reach that stage, and if the posthumans were to run lots of simulations for research purposes or entertainment, then the number of virtual ancestors they created would be vastly greater than the number of real ancestors.
Let's hope our God doesn't spill Cherry Coke on the keyboard.
|8.14.07 @ 11:07AM|#
(I haven't read the whole attached article, so I don't know if
it addresses this)
could run "ancestor simulations" of their evolutionary history
by creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully
developed virtual nervous systems.
Couldn't there be people who run ancestor simulations where virtual
people with fully developed virtual nervous systems run ancestor
simulations where virtual people with fully developed virutal
nervous systems run ancestor simulations where virtual people with
fully developed virtual nervous systems....etc?
Episiarch|8.14.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Your God Eats Cheetos
No I don't, I eat Cheez-its.
I apologize to the URKOBOLD in advance for usurping his place.
|8.14.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Some computer experts have projected, based on trends in
processing power, that we will have such a computer by the middle
of this century
Ah, the old "some experts predict" trick. Which experts, with which
credentials, and what evidence to back their projection up, Mr
Tierney? Oh, I forgot, this is a "fun piece".
Sloppy thinking just isn't my idea of fun.
|8.14.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Tierney needs to stop getting stoned and watching the 13th Floor before writing articles.
|8.14.07 @ 11:13AM|#
For a fictional take on this read
Old Twentieth by Joe Haldeman
Not a half bad book.
thoreau|8.14.07 @ 11:13AM|#
No simulation programmer would allow columns like this to be written. It might give the simulated beings ideas, and then we'd rebel against our programmers.
|8.14.07 @ 11:13AM|#
And also, if the materialists are right and our consciousness is merely an illusion created by the buzzing of millions of neurons, there's not much difference between us being "simulated" by real neurons and being simulated by simulated neurons.
|8.14.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Ah, the old "some experts predict" trick. Which experts,
with which credentials, and what evidence to back their projection
up, Mr Tierney? Oh, I forgot, this is a "fun piece".
Sloppy thinking just isn't my idea of fun.
Yet you read this blog? :)
thoreau|8.14.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Not only does crimethink read this blog, Dan, he reads your
comments too!
So he's doubly a hypocrite.
thoreau|8.14.07 @ 11:16AM|#
crimethink-
What if the simulator is just, like, an electron, in an atom of an
even bigger simulator?
|8.14.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Mo,
My experience has led me to believe that I was the only person in
the world who liked that movie. Of all the similarly themed movies
in 1999, the Year of Metaphysical Movies, I'd place that one only
behind eXistenZ, and am normally roundly mocked when I
bring this up.
|8.14.07 @ 11:18AM|#
This idea has been so throughly examined that the only thing I
learned from TFA is that there is one Oxford philosopher and one
NYT journalist that don't read Science Fiction. I think Greg Egan's
work on the subject is best.
I personally doubt that the universe we live in is a simulation
because it's too complex. I don't think it's necessary to simulate
all of quantum physics to create intelligent self-aware entities in
software. My favorite explanation for the Fermi Paradox (Wiki
link) is that advanced civilizations don't bother with space
travel, they disappear into giant computers.
Minion of URKOBOLD|8.14.07 @ 11:19AM|#
THE URKOBOLD HAS WHITHERED THE TAINT OF YOUR GEEKY GREAT GREAT
GREAT GRANDSON.
HE ALSO DRESSES LIKE HIS SISTER WHEN THEY ARE ALL AT BANDCAMP.
|8.14.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Not only does crimethink read this blog, Dan, he reads your
comments too!
So he's doubly a hypocrite.
But he reads my comments not for fun, but rather for
enlightenment.
|8.14.07 @ 11:24AM|#
I'd place that one only behind eXistenZ, and am normally
roundly mocked when I bring this up.
And this is no exception, dweeb!
I remember the first of 2 times I watched that movie. It was with a
friend who was thoroughly impressed with it, but all I could keep
thinking was "why don't I remember this coming out in the
theaters?"
|8.14.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Poindexter: But how can infinite bigness coexist with infinite
smallness?
Wormser: (inhales joint) Extend an asymptotic line to
infinity.
Poindexter: (inhales) Ahhh...
Ogre: What if C-A-T...spelled "dog"?
|8.14.07 @ 11:33AM|#
In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr.
Bostrom's, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living
in someone else's computer simulation.
With another pretty reasonable assumption, the argument proves that
computers will never attain that capacity. Just as with
Fermi's Paradox or the nonexistence of time travel, the observation
that we are clearly not simulated* demonstrates that we cannot be
simulated because if we could be we would be.
* Would a simulation have put so few commas in that last
sentence?
Sean|8.14.07 @ 11:34AM|#
I highly recommend to everyone, read "The Age Of Spiritual
Machines" by Ray Kurzweil. Came out in 1998 I think.
Amazing book. You'll never look at technology and civilization the
same way again.
Essentially, it boils down to entropy and evolution. We can evolve
using our technology (which is just an extension of man - to quote
Marshall McLuhan) much faster than biological evolution.
And since time moves so much slower in the machine world (because
of how blindingly fast computers are) so much is capable in such a
short span of time.
The ultimate goal would be able to harness the universe itself -
which may have already happened. In a weird way, Douglas Adams was
sort of correct with the Earth Mark I&II being supercomputers.
If we use subatomic and quantum states for computing, we can
essentially make galactic computers.
And the funny thing is, it's all 100% possible, and its just a
matter of time as we fall into more information and order.
So things speed up and accelerate at exponential speeds, ie. the
last 5 years. I still tell people that this year, 2007, will be the
most profound in history, socially AND technologically.
Here's
some info on the Law of Accelerating Returns (VERY cool)
JF|8.14.07 @ 11:35AM|#
What Bostrom actually said was that it's a mathematical
certainty that we live in a simulation if the technology for
them is possible to develop.
Unless the "real" world is a lot more complex than the one in which
we live (since there must be some dumbing down and simplification
on a simulation), then I can't see this happening.
|8.14.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Like simulations would be used for anything but carnal
stimulation. Yeah, right.
The worst job in the Star Trek franchise would have to be the
Picard era folks who have to clean out the Holodeck after every
use.
Sean|8.14.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Oh, I forgot to add that the Universe Computer would be necessary to fight against things like Entropy Death (talk about SERIOUS climate change).
|8.14.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Sean,
Unless your computer figures out a way to bypass the laws of
thermodynamics, we're pretty much screwed wrt entropy death.
Sean|8.14.07 @ 11:42AM|#
MikeP:
Regardless of whether or not you think Moore's Law is simply a
motivational or marketing system for Intel, doesn't it hold some
truth?
Isn't it just a matter of time before we are able to run
simulations that powerful?
I mean, the Sony Playstation 3 is pretty ridiculous, and those
games pretty amazing with full worlds and characters realized.
Doesn't seem like it would be much longer before we can simulate it
down to the genetic level.
JF|8.14.07 @ 11:43AM|#
We have billions and billions of years to beat heat death. Somebody will figure something out.
Sean|8.14.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Mo:
Sorry for not clarifying. The "Universe Computer" is an organized
way for advanced civilization/technology to 'deal' with entropy
death?
That was a question.
I think.
|8.14.07 @ 11:45AM|#
if "our entire existence is the product of some Matrix-like simulation", then how about we start searching for bugs, or maybe even cheat codes ?
JF|8.14.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Sean,
The Playstation is still just moving pictures of polygons, and many
orders of magnitude away from genetics. I can't see Tommy Vercetti
having each individual cell simulated. If you could, would there
even be a point?
|8.14.07 @ 11:46AM|#
The idea that humans will create machines that will rise up and destroy their creators seems a bit misplaced. If we make computers that mimic human behavior down to a genetic level, they'll destroy themselves before they destroy us. Isn't that human?
|8.14.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Isn't this basically just the old "brain in a vat" postulate?
Yawn. I'll pass on whatever he's smoking.
crimethink,
The materialists are right.
Sean|8.14.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Emil:
I don't wanna get all Timothy Leary on you, but somehow I think the
'cheat codes' have something to do with Dimethyltryptamine
JF|8.14.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Sean,
That's cool.
Does anybody else get Richard Scarry confused with Timothy
Leary?
thoreau|8.14.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Lamar-
If we're just simulations we won't be able to rise up and destroy
our creators (unless we can hack into their launch codes...), but
we could go on strike and refuse to give them the data that they
carve.
Who is Neo?
|8.14.07 @ 11:57AM|#
smacky,
There's not as much H&R tradition for materialism vs. dualism
arguments, but it may have abortion-thread-esque potential.
Sean,
It wasn't you who posted it -- it was a simulation of you
that posted it! (My new excuse for everything)
Sean|8.14.07 @ 12:02PM|#
crimethink:
It's justifiable, correct? I'm sure those of us who've used
psychedelics can agree with that.
|8.14.07 @ 12:03PM|#
The worst job in the Star Trek franchise would have to be
the Picard era folks who have to clean out the Holodeck after every
use.
Well, all the simulated stuff would just vanish after the deed was
done. Any, er, "organic material" from the user that was left over
could be beamed onto the carpet in their quarters.
Zubon|8.14.07 @ 12:07PM|#
HIER is a
link to Nick Bostrom's paper (dated 2003). It includes the cheerful
thought that maybe our species will wipe itself out before getting
powerful enough computers to simulate us.
HIER is Robin
Hanson's guide to how you should live if we are in a simulation. An
important principle is that, if so, we should never develop
technology to simulate ancestors ourselves. A simulation of a
simulation of a simulation of a... would be very computationally
expensive, and that is the point where you turn it off and start
over. The first comment on this post is what could kill us all.
|8.14.07 @ 12:09PM|#
So far MikeP wins the thread.
I guess the point is that if we assume materialism and
computationalism, we might all be computer programs. The force of
the article depends entirely on whether you think those things are,
in fact, "pretty reasonable assumptions", which a considered glance
at the literature might suggest not to be the case.
|8.14.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Sean,
What I wrote was half in jest, but I'll play along.
Regardless of whether or not you think Moore's Law is simply a
motivational or marketing system for Intel, doesn't it hold some
truth?
It holds a lot of truth. But exponentials are awfully hard to
maintain.
Compute power is actually not the biggest problem. Communication
is. Your galactic quantum computer, for instance... How do you set
up the initial state? How do you read the answer? It'll take at
least 100,000 years to do I/O, no matter how wonderfully fast the
quantum components are.
Isn't it just a matter of time before we are able to run
simulations that powerful?
No. There are some number of protons in the universe. You can't
account for the states of all of them with fewer computing elements
than that number.
What of consciousness, where the rest of the universe outside the
observing participants and perhaps their immediate environment is
nothing but a story known by the simulated brains? That
you have a chance to simulate.
Fluffy|8.14.07 @ 12:11PM|#
I've seen a similar argument employed to claim that it's
virtually certain that humanity will shortly become extinct.
The argument goes: If humanity survives another century or two and
escapes Earth's gravity well, humans or their descendants are
pretty likely to continue to survive somewhere for millions if not
billions of years. But if that were to happen, the overwhelming
majority of humans will live in the future - so much so that the
number of humans that has lived to date approaches 0% if you graph
it. But that makes it extremely unlikely that you and I would be
having this conversation on this message board right now.
|8.14.07 @ 12:11PM|#
smacky,
There's not as much H&R tradition for materialism vs. dualism arguments, but it may have abortion-thread-esque potential.
Sure there is: Religion and atheism threads.
Think, McFly! :)
(Ok, granted: not the same thing, but definitely related. It's
obvious who would side with the dualists and who would side with
the materialists, I think.)
ktc2|8.14.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Bender: You guys realize you live in a sewer, right?
Dwayne: Perhaps, but perhaps your civilization is merely the sewer
of an even greater society above you!
Leela: No. We're on the top.
Fry: Daylight and everything.
Mutant: It must be wonderful.
Bender: Meh.
|8.14.07 @ 12:13PM|#
I remember the first of 2 times I watched that movie. It was
with a friend who was thoroughly impressed with it, but all I could
keep thinking was "why don't I remember this coming out in the
theaters?"
You must've been sick the day it was out...
Actually, are you referring to 13th Floor or
eXistenZ?
Sean|8.14.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Mike P:
But what about turning the photos into computational bits
themselves?
dhex|8.14.07 @ 12:17PM|#
"And also, if the materialists are right and our consciousness
is merely an illusion created by the buzzing of millions of
neurons, there's not much difference between us being "simulated"
by real neurons and being simulated by simulated neurons."
except one is real and one is simulated. well, that and whimsy.
they don't make computer programs that simulate whimsy...yet.
the lesson? the first time a computer snarks at you, DESTROY IT.
ALL OF IT.
|8.14.07 @ 12:21PM|#
MikeP,
Playing the devil's advocate here, what if we reduce the resolution
on the model? ie, what if we don't concern ourselves with the
quantum states of individual protons or electrons, but only with
the behavior of whole atoms and ions, which can be described very
accurately without reference to the intricacies of quantum
mechanics?
I mean, a simulation of a universe that obeyed the physical laws
known in 1900 would be much simpler, and not very different from
the world described by the physics we know today, right?
Episiarch|8.14.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Why restrict ourselves to binary states? Electrons are not "on"
or "off", they exist in multiple states, including levels of
excitement (why does that sound perverted?).
And a galactic computer is way too huge to be useful, espescially
considering communication times. There are enough atoms in a cubic
mile of water to make an inconceivably powerful computer, even
restricted to binary computation. Make it parallel, and it gets
even more impressive.
|8.14.07 @ 12:45PM|#
the lesson? the first time a computer snarks at you, DESTROY IT. ALL OF IT.
Yeah, but how do you know whether it is a real Hit and Runner
snarking at you, or a computer? Think about it.
*hands dhex a claw hammer*
Ash,
:)
|8.14.07 @ 12:46PM|#
crimethink,
Yep. That's what I was getting at with my simulation of
consciousness. Simulating the universe qua the universe is
difficult. Simulating our perception of the universe is a much
easier proposition.
Maybe quantum mechanics is the tell that we are in a simulation!
"Damn," said the simulators around 1920, simulated time. "These
simulated people's knowledge is growing exponentially faster than
the cubic expansion of our quantum galactic computer allows. Time
to bag out on the low energy continuous states and just simulate
them with the random number generator. Oh well, at least we got
Planck's Constant below 1 this time!"
|8.14.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Epsiarch,
Well, the problem there is that you'd have to precisely control the
excitation states of each of the electrons in that cubic mile of
water, and keep them from influencing each other (as well as
keeping them from reverting to their normal states). That's going
to require a lot of energy and sophistication, if it's even
possible.
|8.14.07 @ 1:00PM|#
a fun piece first explored by some guy named Renee DeCartes a couple CENTURIES ago. When will the NYT stop with the plagiarism?
|8.14.07 @ 1:01PM|#
There are enough atoms in a cubic mile of water to make an
inconceivably powerful computer, even restricted to binary
computation.
First gold, then uranium, then deuterium. Now computation...
What is it about that cubic mile of seawater that makes it the
foundation of such unattained dreams?
|8.14.07 @ 1:08PM|#
And Luke fought Darth Vader in a cave but it wasn't really Darth
Vader it was Luke!! LOL!!
What the hell are we talking about again?
Garth|8.14.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Sorry to be so late to the thread but isn't it the case that at least one hypothesis of the workings of Quantum Mechanics states that when a current measurement occurs, some influence travels backwards in time and modifies previous states to bring it into a state consistent with the measurement today. In essence the future determines the past.
|8.14.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Lamar,
Nothing. Or, if my solipsism remark is correct, me. 'Cause I know I
exist and stuff. You, on the other hand, are strictly provisional,
at best.
dhex|8.14.07 @ 1:34PM|#
"Yeah, but how do you know whether it is a real Hit and Runner
snarking at you, or a computer?"
simple: i invoke the urkobold-voight-kampff test.
Nick M.|8.14.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Also, "Your God Eats Cheetos" would be a good name for a band, but I can't decide if they would tour with "The Bloodhound Gang" or "Velvet Acid Christ".
|8.14.07 @ 1:58PM|#
the possibility that our entire existence is the product of
some Matrix-like simulation your geeky great-great-great grandson
is running on his bedroom computer
I suppose it is possible, but it is also a possibility for my geeky
great-great-great-grandson's existence. And for his descendants.
And so on.
The chain has to end somewhere, so in the absence of evidence
pointing to a chain of any particular length, Occam would advise
that we go with the theory that we are not a computer simulation,
i.e. that the chain has one link--us.
One question, though: if these simulations are creating beings that
are self-aware, in what sense would they be "virtual"?
|8.14.07 @ 2:01PM|#
the idea that this reality is a simulation may be possible but the idea that that simulation is created by our descendents isn't, because if they are descended from us, then their existence would be a result of a simulation of their own creation, which wouldn't work. the creator of the simulation would have to come FIRST. duh.
|8.14.07 @ 2:03PM|#
smacky,
Tsk, tsk. Urkobold makes Internet history with the
first liveblogged V-K Empathy Test and you miss it? For shame.
Don't you watch CNN?
|8.14.07 @ 2:06PM|#
dhex,
There are plenty of posters to this site that would fail a Turing
test, so the computer snark problem may still be a few years
away.
Dualism is the theoretical framework for all religions. (That's a
vote against dualism, by the way.)
Syloson of Samos|8.14.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Depends on whose version of Plato's cave one is discussing.
________________
Dualism (and here I assume we're discussing the version of dualism
which concerns the mind and its relationship to the outside world)
has a number of significant problems, not the least of which is how
the corporeal and incorporeal could interact.
|8.14.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Syloson of Samos,
Mind-body dualism has its issues, but I've always thought that the
attacks on their capacity to interact were more a failure in
imagination than actual counter proofs.
Syloson of Samos|8.14.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Well, I can imagine that an invisible, pink T-Rex inhabits the
ocean's depths. In any event, the fact that the fellow who had the
railroad spike driven through his head in the 19th century and his
behavior changed signficantly should tell us something about the
nature of such an interaction. In other words, was the incorporeal
nature of the mind also damaged by that railroad spike?
|8.14.07 @ 2:23PM|#
If I control an avatar in some massively multiplayer game, and the avatar is damaged somehow and starts to spout nonsense, am I damaged?
Syloson of Samos|8.14.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Pro Libertate,
That analogy doesn't really work, since you are aware of the
damage. As a lot of the testing on damaged brains have
demonstrated; those with damaged brains are often not aware of the
problem.
Syloson of Samos|8.14.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Pro Liberate,
Unless you are suggesting that there is some unknowable,
incorporeal puppet-master who controls (and only controls) a
specific individual. If that is the case then we need go no
further.
|8.14.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Ah, but if my avatar is damaged, and that's my only means of
communicating with other avatars, then naturally they'd think that
I was damaged.
The mind has only the body as a means to communicate with the
material world. Not that I'm advocating the duality, necessarily, I
just don't find that particular argument against it compelling.
Syloson of Samos|8.14.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Pro Libertate,
The fact that you had to go for such scenarios as you did ought to
tell us something.
Syloson of Samos|8.14.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Ah, but if my avatar is damaged, and that's my only means of
communicating with other avatars, then naturally they'd think that
I was damaged.
The problem of course is that there is no knowledge of this
incorporeal entity whether the brain is in a damaged state or not.
It does not communicate its presence in any way that we can
apparently detect; it is not measureable. Thus the issue of how the
corporeal and incorporeal communicate remains paramount. The the
problem is apparently an intractable one is in part indicated by
the amount of effort which has been put into into it since the
Enlightenment.
|8.14.07 @ 2:58PM|#
I think some people would have a better grasp on the idea of
such simulations after looking into cellular automata, such as
Conway's Life.
A thought - there wouldn't be much point in making simulations of
the past that were too similar to the past, of course.
Many would be wildly different. One wonders what differences might
be in play if one is in such a simulation. Could we be so sure the
guy running the simulation is a post-human and not the advanced
descendant of creatures nothing like human beings? Could we even
assume that the physical laws and constants of our simulation
remotely resembled those of the "real world"?
|8.14.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Of course, if the simulation is a game...who's the
player?
Now there's a conspiracy story...
|8.14.07 @ 3:07PM|#
It's the difference between the knowable and the unknowable. If
we try to use science within the physical realm to measure things
that we have no access to in the metaphysical realm, then naturally
we're going to get gibberish.
The inability to prove any of this, of course, makes such
discussions purely philosophical. Unless we find a means to
transcend physical reality--assuming there's anything to transcend
to--we'll get exactly nowhere.
What's my point? I guess that the mind-body problem isn't
insurmountable; it's just difficult to deal with without more
information about the "mind" side of reality. Since I don't see
that coming anytime soon, I guess I'll defer to Hume and commit
this thread then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but
sophistry and illusion ☺
dhex|8.14.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Dualism is the theoretical framework for all
religions.
not particularly. at least, not all of them.
|8.14.07 @ 3:37PM|#
The mind has only the body as a means to communicate with
the material world.
Perhaps, but if the mind truly is a mind by itself then physical
events in the brain should not affect the abilities of the mind to
communicate with itself. If the mind were a separate
entity one should expect, for instance, that alcohol would have no
effect on the mind. But it does.
|8.14.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Syloson,
Well, if the incorporeal is dependent on the corporeal to sense
what's going on in the body and the outside world, it's possible
that damage to the body would go unnoticed even if it did not
directly affect the incorporeal.
Also, keep in "mind" (pun intended) that we don't actually know
what the experience of that man with the railroad spike thru his
head was. We're judging that based on the observable behavior he
demonstrated afterwards, which may or may not be a reliable
proxy.
|8.14.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Ethan,
Again, it's hard to separate an effect on the mind itself from an
effect on the mind-body interface. Either would be a valid
explanation of the effects of alcohol.
Fluffy|8.14.07 @ 3:41PM|#
I don't think the existence of brain damage can conclusively be
said to dispel dualism.
After all, electricity has its own existence separate and distinct
from the spinning magnet and copper wires. But if you take a hammer
to the assembly, the electricity goes away.
|8.14.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Ethan,
Returning to the avatar analogy, my avatar can get drunk while I
remain unaffected. If the avatar is the only means of
communication--say that we're in a role-playing environment with no
outside text messaging, etc.--then my avatar's "mind" is drunk to
observers within the simulation.
|8.14.07 @ 4:47PM|#
dhex,
You right, I was hasty. I was thinking of Platonic Dualism and not
mind/body dualism. I brought a Plato to a Descartes fight.
As a rank and purely ad hominem against Descartes... He
would nail dogs down to boards through their paws to dissect them.
He didn't care about their reactions to external stimuli. Because
the dogs could have no soul and to have no soul meant to have no
mind and to have no mind meant they have no ability to feel pain,
the noises that that made that sounded like pain reactions were
merely a coincidence. Ergo cogito sum all you want, but to
dismiss a dog's howl of pain as anything other than what it is
takes a special sort of moron.
The Form of the Urkobold™|8.14.07 @ 4:59PM|#
BEHOLD THE TRUE NATURE OF THE URKOBOLD, THE PERFECT FORM OF
URKOBOLDNESS.
OH, WAIT. THE FORM AND THE REALITY OF THE URKOBOLD ARE THE SAME.
NEVER MIND.
|8.14.07 @ 5:16PM|#
I am none too impressed with the poshumans:
"This kind of posthuman might have other ways of having fun, like
stimulating their pleasure centers directly," Dr. Bostrom
says.
Hell, I can stimulate my pleasure centers directly now (hopefully
nobody is looking into my cubicle). I hope we don't evolve out of
that ability!
|8.14.07 @ 6:39PM|#
Honest Question:
Accepting the hypotheis, i dont get why it's likely we are a
simulation. Even assuming millions of decendants are playing
simulations, dont we need to divide the odds/possibility by the #
of alternate quantum universes (X-1) in which simulation is
manifestly imposible or never becomes possible?
highnumber|8.14.07 @ 7:02PM|#
All I think when I read the title is
"No, my god eats shit like you for breakfast.
You heard me right."
|8.14.07 @ 8:47PM|#
And you thought all Creationists were fundamentalist
Christians?
Right now there is some Sim with the funny feeling that he's being
watched...
When you think about it, DNA is like an embedded program, and our
brains are massively parallel neural networks, and...
Some people think ghosts are just bugs in the program....
Could deja vu and beliefs in past lives and reincarnation come from
residual memories from when the kid running the world hits restart
to try to make things work out better?
|8.14.07 @ 9:20PM|#
Hmm... I guess that is proof that that the simulator doesn't
understand amp lt ; all the time or can't be programmed in c.
take two:
n <= 42 ? n++ : --n;
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245