An Even Darker and more Disturbing Thread...

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Jump to Latest
M Gregg

M Gregg

Disabled Account
Joined 2010
M Gregg

M Gregg

Disabled Account
Joined 2010
M Gregg

M Gregg

Disabled Account
Joined 2010
Oh a washing machine...

Just for interest,

I wondered what was put in orbit by North Korea..

BBC News - North Korea satellite 'tumbling in space'

Sounds a bit like the terminator...japan in talks should they have a first strike capability...Perhaps the Mayan calendar was correct...No its just a washing machine that plays music..

No its just another stage of evolution..(The game in play once more?)

Regards
M. Gregg
 
chris661

chris661

Member
Joined 2008
Remembered something that should probably be here: Simulation Theory.

Explanation follows..

The idea goes, if computing technology continues to advance at the rate it is, it would be possible in the future to build a computer that would be able to emulate (perfectly) the human mind, including conscience. Further on, you'd be able to emulate every human mind.
It makes sense, then, that the whole of humankind could one day be uploaded into some supercomputer, and carry on thinking as it did.

Now, suppose some of the computer-people became interested in history.
Without being able to "escape" and dig around for fossils or whatever, it would make sense to run a simulation (using some of the vast computing power available) of the universe, starting at the Big Bang, up until the point at which everyone ends up inside a computer.

Of course, we might suppose that any given simulation might have a different outcome: if the matter:antimatter ratio had been slightly different, then humankind may not have happened.
It would make sense, then, to run several simulations at once, and each one could be at several times the speed of "true time" (eg, 1 year in the frame of the simulation = 1 second at computer-level). Eventually, millions of simulations could've been set off and the results obtained.

The important bit is that every being in every simulation must think that it, and everything around it, is real. The simulation wouldn't be accurate if this weren't true.

Given all of this, can we say with any certainty that this (whatever it is that we're living in) isn't a simulation being run by some computer?

Chris
 
freax

freax

Member
Joined 2007
chris661 said:
Remembered something that should probably be here: Simulation Theory.

Explanation follows..

The idea goes, if computing technology continues to advance at the rate it is, it would be possible in the future to build a computer that would be able to emulate (perfectly) the human mind, including conscience. Further on, you'd be able to emulate every human mind.
It makes sense, then, that the whole of humankind could one day be uploaded into some supercomputer, and carry on thinking as it did.

Now, suppose some of the computer-people became interested in history.
Without being able to "escape" and dig around for fossils or whatever, it would make sense to run a simulation (using some of the vast computing power available) of the universe, starting at the Big Bang, up until the point at which everyone ends up inside a computer.
Click to expand...

nah we would just use perfect replica human robots that are controlled via the internet to interact with the real world, and there would be apsolutley no difference between our current interface with the world through our eyes and ears and other senses, though someones bitrate might increase as they have an orgasm.

Fact of the matter is we are already very nearly close to mimicing the human eye, we already have microphones which can outperform the human ear, and we are mastering the art of human movement, form, and sense of taste, smell, touch, and interfacing to these senses is just a commercial market away.

And people with prosthetic ears and limbs are already with us in our lives.

Quite laugably infact in regards to the human eye and ears, sure ok the eye and ears are analog but they do get converted into digital as they travel to the brain, sort of like PWM or FM and then into proteins as they are processed and stored by the brain, but the brain has thought processes that are analog too, we think and act in a hybrid of analog and digital. We have already interfaced with a mouses eye already.

http://www.quora.com/Is-the-human-brain-analog-or-digital
http://news.yale.edu/2006/04/12/brain-communicates-analog-and-digital-modes-simultaneously
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...nimal-brains-to-create-bionic-prosthetic-eyes


Given all of this, can we say with any certainty that this (whatever it is that we're living in) isn't a simulation being run by some computer?

Chris
Click to expand...

What would be the point? wouldn't building the actual universe be simpler? and already done...

I tend to believe that the universe had no beginning and has no end, just think about what you are saying for a second, its just like saying if there was a god who made that computer inorder to create our universe, but who created god who created our universe? it just opens up an even larger ball of string.
 
Last edited:
M Gregg

M Gregg

Disabled Account
Joined 2010
Its interesting to note,

That nature created electrical circuits whilst life was under water ie the brain/muscles etc...scientists think that land is required for electrical technology to be created by life forms..How would a life form that could only live in water create an electrical circuit or a computer?

Regards
M. Gregg
 
chris661

chris661

Member
Joined 2008
I think they'd know if they had produced some dark matter: look at the energies of all the particles before and after collision. Use E=mc^2 on the difference to see how much mass was made. Count up neutrinos, quarks, whatever else comes out. If the sum of their masses = the energy difference, no problem. If some energy has gone amiss but there's no particles detected to suggest why, then some other matter is likely to have been created.

Chris
 
A

akis

Member
Joined 2008
Regarding robots both I and some other famous mathematician or computer genius (I cannot remember who it was) have thought that we'd create a "baby" robot, give it senses, and then let it "learn". Thinking a bit more the ability to "learn" can be translated to "good"-"bad" attributes associated with actions, actions can be chosen from a wide pool, for example turn the camera in some direction, or move in some direction, and if the robot has claws for example, use the claws on some object. So there are randomising algorithms, layered memory algorithms, good-bad indicators assigned to actions before actions are taken, which can be memorised and recalled if they exist, for example if you interact with fire once your heat sensors go ballistic, so you assign a "bad" to "interacting with fire" and next time you approach fire there already is a "bad" to warn you away. Other actions start from "neutral". Some other actions also start from "bad" based on hard-coded instructions, but can be overriden if the details of the situation demand it, for example robot approaches a bigger "animate" object, so the initial indicator is "bad" (due to the size of the other object), but if robot recognises a known animate object, eg its mother robot, then it overrides the "bad" with "neutral" or "good". This is just a summary, but I believe modern PCs have more than enough power.
 
A

akis

Member
Joined 2008
Additionally:

Memory would be layered with layers such as "instant-store", "processing-store", "main-store" and "long-term store". Supposing the video camera has recorded a 10fps clip, within seconds this gets copied from the "instant-store" to the "processing-store" but at 1fps and 1/100 the resolution. Within another 15 seconds it gets copied to the "main-store" at 0.1 fps and 1/1000 the resolution. And after 60 seconds it gets copied to the long-term store again losing tons of detail. Something like that.

Camera movement would also be governed by fundamental algorithms, eg turn towards light, towards movement, towards sound (based on the microphones), or towards the direction of travel. But the good-bad indicators would also come into play to override the "built-in" algos.

And the program goes around trying to find a next action to choose from a pool of actions, eg move camera, focus camera, move into some direction, move away from something, use the claw on an object, lick your fur etc

I am sure a neuro-psychologist with greater knowledge of the human mind, or a cat's mind, we do not have to start with humans, can actually describe better how the brain does it and so we can model it, or build it in a similar way.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Top Bottom