Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Interesting Article On Simulation Theory * 2
    #25973946 -



I wanted to share an article with you guys today which I found stimulating and can be found below!  Since this is from the neuroscience and mind section of the site mentioned I will post it here.

MIT’s Rizwan Virk on Simulation Theory, AKA Intelligent Design
David Klinghoffer

Source

An MIT computer scientist, Rizwan Virk, has a new book out, The Simulation Hypothesis, making the case again that we live not in a “base reality” (a real world) but, more likely, in a computer simulation. What are the odds, in his view? “I would say it’s somewhere between 50 and 100 percent. I think it’s more likely that we’re in simulation than not.”

Scott Adams, a favorite commentator of mine, thinks so as well and concedes that this is amounts to a form of ID, albeit not the kind advocated by our more familiar design proponents. Says Adams, “The odds of us having an intelligent design, meaning we’re created by another species of humans, are pretty close to 100 percent.”

Alternative Versions of Simulation Theory
In an interview, Virk points out interestingly that the thesis comes in two forms.

The basic idea is that everything we see around us, including the Earth and the universe, is part of a very sophisticated MMORPG (a massively multiplayer online roleplaying game) and that we are players in this game. The hypothesis itself comes in different forms.

In one version, we’re all A.I. within a simulation that’s running on somebody else’s computer. In another version, we are “player characters,” conscious things that exist outside the simulation and we inhabit characters, just like you might take on the character of an elf or dwarf in a fantasy RPG.

A “Self-Refuting” Idea?
The first version of the idea, at least, would seem to be self-refuting, as neuroscientist Michael Egnor has noted here in the past.

We begin with this question: What is computation? Computation is a mapping of an input to an output according to a set of rules (an algorithm). The output is a function of the input, calculated for each independent variable in the input. For example, as I type this post, the electrical signal evoked by each keystroke is mapped to a pattern of electrons on my computer screen, according to the rules of the algorithm in my Microsoft Word program.

Note that the mapping is independent of the meaning of the input and the output signals. Microsoft Word pays no heed to the meanings conveyed by my keystrokes. The program doesn’t “care” whether I am typing an essay or a poem or a novel. It doesn’t even really care that I am typing anything at all. It merely maps the electrical signal generated by my keystrokes to electrical signals on my computer screen. It is an electro-mechanical process, not any kind of comprehension.  Computation is mapping of signals, and pays no heed to the meaning of the signals it maps. Computation pays no heed to the meaning of anything.

Now, the next question. What is the mind? What is the human ability by which we ask the question “Am I living in a computer simulation?” What is it about a thought that distinguishes a thought from other things, like physical objects? Nineteenth-century German philosopher Franz Brentano gave an answer that seems decisive: Thoughts are always about something, whereas physical objects are never (intrinsically) about anything. He called this aboutness of thoughts “intentionality,” using a word derived from the scholastic philosophers’ theory of mind that dates back to Aristotle.

Thoughts are intentional, in the sense that they always point to something — to a concept, to an object, to a person, etc. Our thoughts always have an object (conceptual or physical) to which they are intrinsically directed. Our thoughts always mean something.

So are we living in a computer simulation? As I noted above, meaning is precisely what computation lacks. The most fundamental human power — the power of thought to have meaning — is just what a computer simulation cannot do.

Computation is syntax, whereas thought is semantics. If we were living in a computer simulation, and our mind were computation, the one thing we couldn’t do is think.

We couldn’t ask the question “Are we living in a computer simulation?” if we were living in a computer simulation. The irony here is that, of all the possible fundamental truths of reality, the notion that we are living in such a simulation is the one we can rule out simply because it’s self-refuting.

If we are living in a computer simulation, we couldn’t think to ask the question.

That would seem to answer decisively Virk’s first version of the simulation theory. But the second, basically a highly persuasive virtual reality, may be a different story.

Like Adams, I’m given pause by how often stories in the news, especially the names of figures in the news, are so perfect, “on the nose,” or ironic that it appears to show the hands of the simulators. Or, simulation theory aside, it could also mean that the intelligent agent responsible for the design of our “base reality” has a sense of humor, which seems highly likely.


--------------------
©️

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: Lucis]
    #25974101 -

Mainstream media is run by large corporations with corporate agendas, a lot of what they do is scripted. You know, don’t rock the boat, keep the status quo.

Quote:
Thoughts are always about something, whereas physical objects are never (intrinsically) about anything


This seems misplaced, life has direction, trees, flowers, mosquitos etc. Rivers flowing and rocks eroding may be a stretch. Physical things do point to concepts, like how water does to the water cycle, and carbon to the carbon cycle etc. The Sun to fusion, the land to geology, the sea to marine biology.

And this kinda goes against the flow of things. It’s a response I haven’t seen before but am glad to have.
Quote:
Computation is syntax, whereas thought is semantics. If we were living in a computer simulation, and our mind were computation, the one thing we couldn’t do is think.

We couldn’t ask the question “Are we living in a computer simulation?” if we were living in a computer simulation. The irony here is that, of all the possible fundamental truths of reality, the notion that we are living in such a simulation is the one we can rule out simply because it’s self-refuting.

If we are living in a computer simulation, we couldn’t think to ask the question.


Despite all that, do you think anything would truly change if we were in fact living in a simulation?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: Lucis] * 1
    #25978250 -

there is no question that you are living in your own simulation of reality - one that is produced by your brain from sensation and memory.

your simulation is usually close enough that you can navigate the world and interact with people and things.

that is the scale of simulated reality.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: redgreenvines]
    #25978452 -

I believe.


--------------------
Hostile humankind
Can't you see you're fucking blind?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: beforethedawn] * 2
    #25979694 -

As above, many articles which pertain to asking the question 'Are we living in a simulation?', often miss the fundamental aspect and consequently miss the answer to the question.

By default, the egoic mind casts outside of itself the aspects and responsibilities which actually apply to itself.  We therefore envisage external controllers - as opposed to ourself being the controller.  With that delusion comes blame and relinquishment of responsibility.

We need only consider things that we create through the mind, to comprehend the condition of the mind.

At this current clime, the mind of individuals is replicating it's perceptual condition in the form of VR.

People, nonetheless are misunderstanding it.

This too fuels 'The Fear of AI' and similar notions, when infact, true to the trait of the ego, we are merely manifesting the mind. 

It's not about computers.

'Technology' is nothing more than an ongoing bid to express the full potential of the human mind.  The mind isn't merely the tool.  It is the tool which is being used to build, exploit and express itself.

Ergo, fear of AI is but a condition which ultimately recognises the destructive traits of ones own ego.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: Duncan Rowhl] * 1
    #25979909 -

All of these simulation theories are similar... 90%, 95%, very likely chance we're in a simulation but never explain how they derive the likelihood.

Of course reality is like a simulation because... simulations attempt to simulate... reality.

I don't discount the idea, but it's still just an idea AFAICT. It's kinda like the God argument. We can't explain reality so there must be a God, but then how to explain God? How to explain a base reality? Does there even need to be a base reality, or could life simulators exist in an infinite fractal pattern with no beginning?


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: Rahz] * 1
    #25979935 -

Thats true.

It's critical, as part of the hypothesis for the 'simulation' to actually be defined.

On a 'physical' level which is often believed to be the infinite, we could be subject to 'projections upon projections' and 'dreams within dreams', true to the Hollywood depictions.

On a spiritual, 'eternal' level however, it's often proposed that in that singular instance, everything that can be, is.  As such, all levels are amalgamated into a cohesion - The unmistakable 'truth' which leaves no margin for doubt or the existence of one to cast itself off into untrue tangents by way of it's own liberty to create.

That's deep theology, but that's a definition nonetheless.  :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: Duncan Rowhl] * 1
    #25981354 -

@ Rahz & @ Duncan Rowhl;
poetically speaking:
while spinning thread to make cloth, one observes the world making itself and one is making a part of the world at the same time.
there is a yin yang involvement with what is.
and there are  also plenty of non-causal associations that neither explain nor contradict what we experience and remember.

non-causal associations of things are always valid [to the extent that they appear together in a memory or in an idea] but this does not automatically imply that one thing must either cause the other, or the other way around - rather these associated memories are of things that are co-existent and developing and experienced concurrently.

misapprehension of synchronicity and simulation helps put the cart before the horse in most cases which leads to difficult uphill cart loads.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: Lucis]
    #25982151 -

Lucis said:
So are we living in a computer simulation? As I noted above, meaning is precisely what computation lacks. The most fundamental human power — the power of thought to have meaning — is just what a computer simulation cannot do.

Computation is syntax, whereas thought is semantics. If we were living in a computer simulation, and our mind were computation, the one thing we couldn’t do is think.

We couldn’t ask the question “Are we living in a computer simulation?” if we were living in a computer simulation. The irony here is that, of all the possible fundamental truths of reality, the notion that we are living in such a simulation is the one we can rule out simply because it’s self-refuting.

If we are living in a computer simulation, we couldn’t think to ask the question.




thought has no means of being observed, science cannot place a X value to it. it cannot be defined in empirical sense.

the thought process is pure, it is a viable way for the external to view the internal, two to view the one, without altering it.

observing with a thought process, is much like a computer simulation, no external imprint is applied.

external influence will alter the object being observed leaving a bias in the results.

the external, the internal, via technology, the two cannot be viewed as one.


what would the purpose of this simulation be?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: thealienthatategod]
    #25982215 -

a simulation of thought would be no different from thought IMO
- however it is not a critical determinant for the idea of us living in a simulation created by beings that exist in a more real type of existence.

the whole theory is a Russian doll exercise that is only worth engaging if you are certain there is a creator which probably implies a creator of a creator etc. AD INFINITUM.

That seems a mad game.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: redgreenvines] * 1
    #25982350 -

it would make sense if the simulation worked on fractals,

each layer of simulation a fragmented and reduced part of the whole,

to condense information for processing.

(electron atomic models look like a solar system

or brain cells that look like the universe

our tongue is made up of tiny tongues)



every cell in our body could be an entire universe.

achieving infinite complexity would be founded in the simplicity of self-similarity.

we can see this in the logarithmic spiral - the phenomenon that is connected to life and growth

that has led to the development of an infinite diversity of everything.

from a spiral galaxy to a nautilus shell.

if there is no start or end, then it must be an infinite loop,

and the creator would have to be outside of the infinite,

possessing the code for the exit condition.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: thealienthatategod]
    #25982411 -

^ Great post.

Similarly, I follow the notion of observing the simple principle such as the Golden Spiral, in a bid to understand the greater expanse.

I believe all the pieces of the puzzle are present in our own hands now.


Quote:
possessing the code for the exit condition.


Proposed in some cases, to be inherent to our DNA (which is a fragment of 'creator'), which contains the code itself to free ourselves from the infinite. :thumbup:

Edited by Duncan Rowhl (05/09/19 05:13 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: Duncan Rowhl] * 2
    #25982685 -

Duncan Rowhl said:
^ Great post.

Similarly, I follow the notion of observing the simple principle such as the Golden Spiral, in a bid to understand the greater expanse.

I believe all the pieces of the puzzle are present in our own hands now.


Quote:
possessing the code for the exit condition.


Proposed in some cases, to be inherent to our DNA (which is a fragment of 'creator'), which contains the code itself to free ourselves from the infinite. :thumbup:


it's mental chopped herring
tasty but meaningless


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: redgreenvines] * 2
    #25982725 -

Meaning is in the mind of the bearer. :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: Duncan Rowhl] * 2
    #25984004 -

We are the main programmers of our own mind

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: Duncan Rowhl]
    #25984139 -

i wonder if we are all participating in the same shared simulation,

or if each of us runs an individual simulation, that only overlaps when "shared rendering" is absolutely necessary.

is your simulation running simultaneously to mine right now, or do we each posses our own inertial frames with simultaneity being an illusion?

we have experiences based on the properties of the world that we measure around us, but those properties can only be defined from our perspective.

the world is nothing more than our experiences of it.

and i wonder how much of that experience is shared?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: thealienthatategod] * 2
    #25984351 -

thealienthatategod said:
i wonder if we are all participating in the same shared simulation,

or if each of us runs an individual simulation, ...


if you are the creator of your own simulation, then the answer is "no, each person creates their own simulation continuously, and each is different than every other one.
When you realize that, you can have very enchanting experiences with other people.

however, you may consider that only one simulation is happening, and while puzzling through that problem, you will miss a lot of ongoing 'simulated' life with other people - all self simulating in real time, and many not noticing.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory *DELETED* [Re: thealienthatategod] * 1
    #28140186 -

Post deleted by doolhoofd

Reason for deletion: No one cares.


--------------------
Penny: 'What are you and Professor FussyFace up to tonight?'
Leonard: "Star Wars on Blu-ray."
Penny: 'Haven't you seen that movie like, a thousand times?'
Leonard: "Not on Blu-ray. Only twice on Blu-ray."
Penny: 'Oh, Leonard...'
Leonard: "I know. It's high-resolution sadness."
- The Big Bang Theory, S07E09

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: doolhoofd]
    #28140821 -

"Computation pays no heed to the meaning of anything."

I don't buy this argument. Meaning is given or abstracted from computation as in the composition of thought. A question is can a machine simulate sentience? Of course it can. As in the argument about will and determination, our sentience here is a composition of computation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Interesting Article On Simulation Theory [Re: syncro]
    #28140910 -

I think meaning is all association, not computation.

Computers do not associate they compute or execute instructions.
The instructions, however, could simulate association, so computers could simulate meaning, but they do not at this juncture in technology actually compute meaning.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Interesting Article On Fungal Evolution RebelSteve33 770 2 02/10/03 05:39 PM
by RebelSteve33
* Interesting article about Aliens/Washington Post
( 1 2 all )		 We_come_in_peace 2,706 20 07/24/02 09:43 PM
by Amoeba665
* Interesting article Xlea321 813 5 08/08/02 07:02 PM
by Anonymous
* AI: the simulation objection Sclorch 1,645 10 10/20/02 09:16 AM
by Nomad
* Humans, computers, and the superorganism skaMariaPastora 1,487 11 04/03/02 05:07 PM
by Anonymous
* reality theory
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 1stimer 8,556 92 10/05/02 09:59 PM
by Calen
* The New Model ... I find it interesting- -very Crobih 2,455 14 10/17/01 04:14 PM
by Crobih
* A Theory of Psychedelics
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 pattern 25,447 66 01/04/20 05:45 PM
by sudly

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
960 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 18 queries.