|
The world we live in is just an illusion, created by our minds. Our physical senses, feelings and
emotions are just sensations we trick ourselves into believing in. Having said that, I believe it is
fairly obvious that there are far too many REAL people populating this illusion, and I hope
computers stay out of the business of creating more fake ones; indeed, what would be the point? This
is really just another "robot war" scenario, and usually the machines are getting rid of or feeding
on humans, not using valuable energy to create fake ones. Or maybe this will be the natural
evolution of worldwide video gaming in simulated realities... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This would explain why Earthquakes occur, as the God who is playing this game would want some fun.
Peace is boring. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I very much doubt that we are living in a computer simulation. As for the future...well, only time
can tell. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's an interesting question with no definitive answer. I'm only posting against because there is no
neutral side. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That is pretty disturbing and I'm also pretty sure we are not a simulation... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Assuming that as a society we developed that level of interest in complex simulations. Assuming that
we still exists as a society long enough to develop the technology and interest.
Assuming that it is actually possible to simulate the complex physiological interaction that is the
illusion of self awareness.
Assuming all these things what would be the education or recreational point in simulating Britney
Spears. No I think she is proof we are in the middle of regular, actual, dumb as dirt life. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's not so much that I'm disagreeing with the motion; more so the debate.
This is impossible to dispute - there is no evidence for either side.
If you can provide me with some, I may revise my post... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bostrom's logic is valid, but his conclusion is unwarranted, this is mainly due to the fact that
some of his premises are unknown or false. However, I enjoyed thinking about it--not to say I
understood all of it.
1. I believe his premise that computers have limitless power is unwarranted. I'm a bit computer
challenged so far from expert in this area. I cannot absolutely say that computer power is limited,
because one has to admit that almost anything could be possible. I just think his extrapolation of
computer capacity is unwarranted.
2. His notion that "philosophy of the mind" meaning consciousness is adequately explained on a
materialist/physicalist basis is not true. Most brain centers don't even tackle the problem of
consciousness anymore. He does say that this view is widely accepted and perhaps he uses that as
evidence that it is true.
3. His basic argument is a bit flawed with his self-excepting fallacy. Let's say for example, that
his thesis is true, that we are most-likely living in computer simulation. Why isn't he? Is his
thesis part of the program or is he claiming his thesis is objectively true by his own mind and not
the computer? He implies that his thesis is the exception to the rule, and that he is really making
an objective claim about the rest of existence and he is somehow sitting outside to give us this
overview of what existence is. Why is he so privileged?
4. It brings up some interesting questions like: Maybe it's computers all the way down. In other
words, may be we are the x to nth software generation of the human simulation. Maybe in the
beginning it was a computer and all of existence including life is and always has been a computer
simulation?
This is only some rough comments after reading through it. Not sure I got all of it--so inviting
your criticisms of my criticisms. If I was a cynic, his topic would probably attract major
grant-funding, and maybe this has something to do with it. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
04 May 2008 17:05
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
