"Deep Thoughts"

myBrainHurts

  • (10 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »

141 Replies - 14036 Views - Last Post: 07 March 2010 - 07:33 AM

#1 absynthe  Icon User is offline

  • DIC Tease
  • member icon

Reputation: 28
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,807
  • Joined: 20-September 08

"Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 03:02 PM

I always loved the conversations had (usually while smoking pot) that involved really intense and deep topics. Things that made you really sit and say "hmmmm". This one I stumbled upon made my brain hurt. Especially after researching it a little more.

This was in the New York Times:

Quote

Findings
Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy’s Couch
By JOHN TIERNEY

Until I talked to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, it never occurred to me that our universe might be somebody else’s hobby. I hadn’t imagined that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims.

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.

This simulation would be similar to the one in “The Matrix,” in which most humans don’t realize that their lives and their world are just illusions created in their brains while their bodies are suspended in vats of liquid. But in Dr. Bostrom’s notion of reality, you wouldn’t even have a body made of flesh. Your brain would exist only as a network of computer circuits.

You couldn’t, as in “The Matrix,” unplug your brain and escape from your vat to see the physical world. You couldn’t see through the illusion except by using the sort of logic employed by Dr. Bostrom, the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford.

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.

There would be no way for any of these ancestors to know for sure whether they were virtual or real, because the sights and feelings they’d experience would be indistinguishable. But since there would be so many more virtual ancestors, any individual could figure that the odds made it nearly certain that he or she was living in a virtual world.

The math and the logic are inexorable once you assume that lots of simulations are being run. But there are a couple of alternative hypotheses, as Dr. Bostrom points out. One is that civilization never attains the technology to run simulations (perhaps because it self-destructs before reaching that stage). The other hypothesis is that posthumans decide not to run the simulations.

“This kind of posthuman might have other ways of having fun, like stimulating their pleasure centers directly,” Dr. Bostrom says. “Maybe they wouldn’t need to do simulations for scientific reasons because they’d have better methodologies for understanding their past. It’s quite possible they would have moral prohibitions against simulating people, although the fact that something is immoral doesn’t mean it won’t happen.”

Dr. Bostrom doesn’t pretend to know which of these hypotheses is more likely, but he thinks none of them can be ruled out. “My gut feeling, and it’s nothing more than that,” he says, “is that there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation.”

My gut feeling is that the odds are better than 20 percent, maybe better than even. I think it’s highly likely that civilization could endure to produce those supercomputers. And if owners of the computers were anything like the millions of people immersed in virtual worlds like Second Life, SimCity and World of Warcraft, they’d be running simulations just to get a chance to control history — or maybe give themselves virtual roles as Cleopatra or Napoleon.

It’s unsettling to think of the world being run by a futuristic computer geek, although we might at last dispose of that of classic theological question: How could God allow so much evil in the world? For the same reason there are plagues and earthquakes and battles in games like World of Warcraft. Peace is boring, Dude.

A more practical question is how to behave in a computer simulation. Your first impulse might be to say nothing matters anymore because nothing’s real. But just because your neural circuits are made of silicon (or whatever posthumans would use in their computers) instead of carbon doesn’t mean your feelings are any less real.

David J. Chalmers, a philosopher at the Australian National University, says Dr. Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis isn’t a cause for skepticism, but simply a different metaphysical explanation of our world. Whatever you’re touching now — a sheet of paper, a keyboard, a coffee mug — is real to you even if it’s created on a computer circuit rather than fashioned out of wood, plastic or clay.

You still have the desire to live as long as you can in this virtual world — and in any simulated afterlife that the designer of this world might bestow on you. Maybe that means following traditional moral principles, if you think the posthuman designer shares those morals and would reward you for being a good person.

Or maybe, as suggested by Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University, you should try to be as interesting as possible, on the theory that the designer is more likely to keep you around for the next simulation. (For more on survival strategies in a computer simulation, go to www.nytimes.com/tierneylab.)

Of course, it’s tough to guess what the designer would be like. He or she might have a body made of flesh or plastic, but the designer might also be a virtual being living inside the computer of a still more advanced form of intelligence. There could be layer upon layer of simulations until you finally reached the architect of the first simulation — the Prime Designer, let’s call him or her (or it).

Then again, maybe the Prime Designer wouldn’t allow any of his or her creations to start simulating their own worlds. Once they got smart enough to do so, they’d presumably realize, by Dr. Bostrom’s logic, that they themselves were probably simulations. Would that ruin the fun for the Prime Designer?

If simulations stop once the simulated inhabitants understand what’s going on, then I really shouldn’t be spreading Dr. Bostrom’s ideas. But if you’re still around to read this, I guess the Prime Designer is reasonably tolerant, or maybe curious to see how we react once we start figuring out the situation.

It’s also possible that there would be logistical problems in creating layer upon layer of simulations. There might not be enough computing power to continue the simulation if billions of inhabitants of a virtual world started creating their own virtual worlds with billions of inhabitants apiece.

If that’s true, it’s bad news for the futurists who think we’ll have a computer this century with the power to simulate all the inhabitants on earth. We’d start our simulation, expecting to observe a new virtual world, but instead our own world might end — not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a message on the Prime Designer’s computer.

It might be something clunky like “Insufficient Memory to Continue Simulation.” But I like to think it would be simple and familiar: “Game Over.”


Kind of explains why God sucks so much.

Another link:
The Dark Side of the Simulation Argument


Things like this get me going. Love the stuff!

This post has been edited by absynthe: 19 February 2010 - 03:12 PM


Is This A Good Question/Topic? -1
  • +

Replies To: "Deep Thoughts"

#2 no2pencil  Icon User is offline

  • Toubabo Koomi
  • member icon

Reputation: 5224
  • View blog
  • Posts: 26,990
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 03:04 PM

DOCOTOR MY BRAIN HURTS!
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#3 Gloin  Icon User is offline

  • Expert Schmexpert...
  • member icon

Reputation: 235
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,489
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 04:08 PM

View Postabsynthe, on 19 February 2010 - 10:02 PM, said:

I always loved the conversations had (usually while smoking pot) that involved really intense and deep topics. Things that made you really sit and say "hmmmm". This one I stumbled upon made my brain hurt. Especially after researching it a little more.

This was in the New York Times:


Quote

Findings
Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy’s Couch
By JOHN TIERNEY

Until I talked to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, it never occurred to me that our universe might be somebody else’s hobby. I hadn’t imagined that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims.

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.

This simulation would be similar to the one in “The Matrix,” in which most humans don’t realize that their lives and their world are just illusions created in their brains while their bodies are suspended in vats of liquid. But in Dr. Bostrom’s notion of reality, you wouldn’t even have a body made of flesh. Your brain would exist only as a network of computer circuits.

You couldn’t, as in “The Matrix,” unplug your brain and escape from your vat to see the physical world. You couldn’t see through the illusion except by using the sort of logic employed by Dr. Bostrom, the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford.

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.

There would be no way for any of these ancestors to know for sure whether they were virtual or real, because the sights and feelings they’d experience would be indistinguishable. But since there would be so many more virtual ancestors, any individual could figure that the odds made it nearly certain that he or she was living in a virtual world.

The math and the logic are inexorable once you assume that lots of simulations are being run. But there are a couple of alternative hypotheses, as Dr. Bostrom points out. One is that civilization never attains the technology to run simulations (perhaps because it self-destructs before reaching that stage). The other hypothesis is that posthumans decide not to run the simulations.

“This kind of posthuman might have other ways of having fun, like stimulating their pleasure centers directly,” Dr. Bostrom says. “Maybe they wouldn’t need to do simulations for scientific reasons because they’d have better methodologies for understanding their past. It’s quite possible they would have moral prohibitions against simulating people, although the fact that something is immoral doesn’t mean it won’t happen.”

Dr. Bostrom doesn’t pretend to know which of these hypotheses is more likely, but he thinks none of them can be ruled out. “My gut feeling, and it’s nothing more than that,” he says, “is that there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation.”

My gut feeling is that the odds are better than 20 percent, maybe better than even. I think it’s highly likely that civilization could endure to produce those supercomputers. And if owners of the computers were anything like the millions of people immersed in virtual worlds like Second Life, SimCity and World of Warcraft, they’d be running simulations just to get a chance to control history — or maybe give themselves virtual roles as Cleopatra or Napoleon.

It’s unsettling to think of the world being run by a futuristic computer geek, although we might at last dispose of that of classic theological question: How could God allow so much evil in the world? For the same reason there are plagues and earthquakes and battles in games like World of Warcraft. Peace is boring, Dude.

A more practical question is how to behave in a computer simulation. Your first impulse might be to say nothing matters anymore because nothing’s real. But just because your neural circuits are made of silicon (or whatever posthumans would use in their computers) instead of carbon doesn’t mean your feelings are any less real.

David J. Chalmers, a philosopher at the Australian National University, says Dr. Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis isn’t a cause for skepticism, but simply a different metaphysical explanation of our world. Whatever you’re touching now — a sheet of paper, a keyboard, a coffee mug — is real to you even if it’s created on a computer circuit rather than fashioned out of wood, plastic or clay.

You still have the desire to live as long as you can in this virtual world — and in any simulated afterlife that the designer of this world might bestow on you. Maybe that means following traditional moral principles, if you think the posthuman designer shares those morals and would reward you for being a good person.

Or maybe, as suggested by Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University, you should try to be as interesting as possible, on the theory that the designer is more likely to keep you around for the next simulation. (For more on survival strategies in a computer simulation, go to www.nytimes.com/tierneylab.)

Of course, it’s tough to guess what the designer would be like. He or she might have a body made of flesh or plastic, but the designer might also be a virtual being living inside the computer of a still more advanced form of intelligence. There could be layer upon layer of simulations until you finally reached the architect of the first simulation — the Prime Designer, let’s call him or her (or it).

Then again, maybe the Prime Designer wouldn’t allow any of his or her creations to start simulating their own worlds. Once they got smart enough to do so, they’d presumably realize, by Dr. Bostrom’s logic, that they themselves were probably simulations. Would that ruin the fun for the Prime Designer?

If simulations stop once the simulated inhabitants understand what’s going on, then I really shouldn’t be spreading Dr. Bostrom’s ideas. But if you’re still around to read this, I guess the Prime Designer is reasonably tolerant, or maybe curious to see how we react once we start figuring out the situation.

It’s also possible that there would be logistical problems in creating layer upon layer of simulations. There might not be enough computing power to continue the simulation if billions of inhabitants of a virtual world started creating their own virtual worlds with billions of inhabitants apiece.

If that’s true, it’s bad news for the futurists who think we’ll have a computer this century with the power to simulate all the inhabitants on earth. We’d start our simulation, expecting to observe a new virtual world, but instead our own world might end — not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a message on the Prime Designer’s computer.

It might be something clunky like “Insufficient Memory to Continue Simulation.” But I like to think it would be simple and familiar: “Game Over.”


Kind of explains why God sucks so much.

Another link:

The Dark Side of the Simulation Argument


Things like this get me going. Love the stuff!


FIXED!!
Was This Post Helpful? 4
  • +
  • -

#4 Dogstopper  Icon User is offline

  • The Ninjaducky
  • member icon



Reputation: 2870
  • View blog
  • Posts: 11,025
  • Joined: 15-July 08

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 04:20 PM

Nice Gloin... :)
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#5 GenHornet18  Icon User is offline

  • Darken the Radar

Reputation: 36
  • View blog
  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 05:08 PM

Smooth Gloin, smooth...

@OP: Ya this doesn't get me thinking at all very much. I accepted long ago that I will believe in a God and an afterlife for my soul. I'm not really religious and personally could care less about the differences between them, but I'd rather have the small glint of hope that after my bodies rotting in the ground I'm not null. Your take on it all really.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#6 BenignDesign  Icon User is offline

  • holy shitin shishkebobs
  • member icon




Reputation: 5999
  • View blog
  • Posts: 10,421
  • Joined: 28-September 07

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 05:11 PM

That was very John Cusack-esque.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#7 absynthe  Icon User is offline

  • DIC Tease
  • member icon

Reputation: 28
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,807
  • Joined: 20-September 08

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 05:58 PM

It was just too "deep" for you guys. Kiss my Posted Image :)
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#8 BenignDesign  Icon User is offline

  • holy shitin shishkebobs
  • member icon




Reputation: 5999
  • View blog
  • Posts: 10,421
  • Joined: 28-September 07

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:03 PM

:crazy:

I think the word "ass" would have sufficed.

This post has been edited by BenignDesign: 19 February 2010 - 06:04 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#9 absynthe  Icon User is offline

  • DIC Tease
  • member icon

Reputation: 28
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,807
  • Joined: 20-September 08

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:06 PM

Sorry! And I hear there's a new mod around.......hmmmmmmm
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#10 AdamSpeight2008  Icon User is offline

  • MrCupOfT
  • member icon


Reputation: 2250
  • View blog
  • Posts: 9,432
  • Joined: 29-May 08

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:07 PM

absynthe: That'll take all day.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#11 absynthe  Icon User is offline

  • DIC Tease
  • member icon

Reputation: 28
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,807
  • Joined: 20-September 08

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:09 PM

Talking about reading my post or my butt being big?? *checks the mirror*
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#12 BenignDesign  Icon User is offline

  • holy shitin shishkebobs
  • member icon




Reputation: 5999
  • View blog
  • Posts: 10,421
  • Joined: 28-September 07

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:10 PM

Both? :bananaman:
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#13 absynthe  Icon User is offline

  • DIC Tease
  • member icon

Reputation: 28
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,807
  • Joined: 20-September 08

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:15 PM

:) Well they're both good entertainment. Just take the time to read and pucker!
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#14 baavgai  Icon User is offline

  • Dreaming Coder
  • member icon

Reputation: 5795
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,627
  • Joined: 16-October 07

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:28 PM

Descartes is considered the father of modern philosophy. He offered that the only reality we had was our senses and possessed no way of knowing if our experiences were consistent with our perceived reality or we were just a brain in a jar.

Bishop Berkeley agreed with Descartes to a point, but felt that the our jarred brains had a shared reality and the crafter of that reality was necessarily God. Else that reality would have no consistent rules, etc.

The rambling "Deep Thoughts" are nothing new. To launch into such a discourse and not mention either of those two gentlemen is a strange omission. I honestly get the sense of some Intelligent Design agenda in this.

I don't know if this counts not agreeing with absynthe. Will there be another body part involved... :P
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#15 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4502
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,408
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: "Deep Thoughts"

Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:33 PM

anytime things like this get posted it just reminds me that http://en.wikipedia...._and_Simulation has been on my reading list for a solid 4 years now.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (10 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »