POLL: Are we Living in a Computer Simulation?

[Sri Lanky]

I had a discussion with a dude who liked the analogy of the white cell. The white cell or T-cell being the immune agent in our blood that kills everything in it's path.

He said that we are like T-cells and in this way we were agents of God <gasp>.

Pathogens and psychopaths.

[Jäeger]

fliflop:

As some of you may have guessed already I have a very pessimistic view of the human species in general, we are a nasty bunch of cunts compared to most other species. So, naturally I must go for self-obliteration before we can build technologically advanced computers that are powerful enough to run these simulations. As individuals plenty of people are ok, as groups and tribes we are venal, greedy, despotic, irrational, murderous and not worth bothering about. We will find a way of killing ourselves off, god knows we've tried hard enough up to now.

If we accept the notion of an infinite multiverse unbounded by linear time and space, humanity is already necessarily extinct in a number of the dimensions and necessarily survives in others. So, your vote is as valid as any other.

However, if we accept this universe and some form of linear time for the sake of argument, you may be off the mark in your pessimism. While the collective species may be pretty nasty at this time (due to being biologically evolved to survive in circumstances that are rapidly changing), for there to be an inevitable self-caused extinction (I think an external cause like an asteroid more likely) at a future time based upon the projection of our current foibles requires that we assume no progression in the species. I think this is not very realistic. Advances in technology, cybernetics and genetic engineering seem to make it highly probable that a "man" of the future would not be recognisable as a member of the same species to a present-day man. We are reaching the state where we can control and direct our own evolution and this cannot be dismissed lightly. The future "man" may be closer to machine than biological organism or may even be displaced by a superior synthetic lifeform like AI. If the latter occurs, it may be correct to say that "man" is technically extinct but the new form of synthetic life is the natural outcome of the evolutionary process that could only be achieved with the impetus of man and would in fact be a more perfect "man" and succesor of traditional man.

I still love the scenario in "The Terminator" - where our Frankenstein's monster, Skynet, finally achieves Turing's dream of AI and becomes sentient. But the twist in "The Terminator" is ingenious, and it's certainly not what Turing would have wanted - no cuddly R2-D2 here folks.

Thinking of these things as Frankenstein-type "monsters" is probably in error. It's only a monster if you attach some meaning to the preservation of "life" in our biological bodies. Very existential of you, but if the search is for truth instead of meaning, it may be a desired outcome for the more perfect lifeform to continue its existence instead of us.

The fantastic bit about this twist on the AI idea is that Skynet, instead of helping us all out and ushering in Utopia, this artificial equivalent of Genghis Khan realises what a waste of time us slimy pieces of meat really are and sets about dispatching us without feeling, emotion, malice or understanding - it just goes about it's business like a toaster or a food mixer - brilliant.

Other great examples of the genre are HAL in "2001: A Space Odyssey", and my personal favourite - Fred Saberhagen's "Berserkers" - man those puppies like them a bit of human ass (and every other form of life in the universe).

Wouldn't this actually lead to vote more along the lines of an option 2 outcome?

Skynet, HAL and the berserkers would be created by and be an extension of man. They could be said to be more perfect and rational lifeforms (with us as an evolutionary ancestor) who have conquered all of the inherent biological weaknesses of man, including death itself. It then becomes very likely that our creations in the future will inevitably possess the technology to create computer simulations of their anscestors (us), but may lack the desire to do so.

Everytime I watch "The Terminator" I root for the red-eyed robot stormtroopers as they crush the human skulls underfoot while drone laser fighters (a later version of today's predator?) roast the ground in front of them. But I've always been odd like that - rooting for the movie bad guys, the Orcs, the shark in Jaws (pure - like a machine), the baddies in Tarzan, The Aliens (pure, like machines)The Empire and Darth Vader in Star Wars - baddies are just cooler and more fun - look at Heath Ledger's Joker - he was an ace guy, better than that wooden twat Batman.

Nothing new there. Who reads Milton and wants god to win out?

But, I digress, we'll not reach a version of Skynet, we're too stupid and will perish soon - I reckon 400 years hence maximum, then "pop" we're out of here.

Fair enough, but even if our existence ends, the probabilities suggest that somewhere in the enormity of the cosmos another "man" or similar entity exists / is coming into existence and it all continues. Whether there is meaning to this continued existence is irrelevant to the existence itself.

[Jäeger]

He said that we are like T-cells and in this way we were agents of God <gasp>.

We're not agents of god. We are god in the sense that we are the creators of god.

[Sri Lanky]

I like the idea that my decision to not have children was a conscious choice....a way of saying "fuck you" to this whole simulation process along with whatever created it.

It's like I pushed the ejection button.

I still believe that consciousness is not an object and is not measurable and that it has and always will exist....in fact,consciousness to the point of nothingness is the only thing that's real.

Like a blank piece of paper.

[coldharvest]

a way of saying "fuck you" to this whole simulation process along with whatever created it.

...you just don't want to be controlled by love

[Sri Lanky]

I prefer to make love....lol

[el3so]

It's only a monster if you attach some meaning to the preservation of "life" in our biological bodies.

Dunno about you crazy cats but I happen to be rather attached to the preservation of "life" in my biological body.

Fair enough, but even if our existence ends, the probabilities suggest that somewhere in the enormity of the cosmos another "man" or similar entity exists/is coming into existence and it all continues.

Has to be if it's an infinite universe.

[Jäeger]

el3so:

Dunno about you crazy cats but I happen to be rather attached to the preservation of "life" in my biological body.

As well you should be. We're biologically hard-wired to be attached to the preservation of our life in the bodies we happen to inhabit. However, it is that same drive for the preservation of our lives that will continually push us to continually adapt and eventually eliminate our biology in order to exist indefinitely. Continual self-improvement with an eye toward self-perfection is an imperative of existence.

[Sri Lanky]

So then we ARE spirits trying to emerge from our bodyminds.

There are individuals who do not share our obssession with self-preservation. These are the ones who love living life on the edge or perhaps they don't have the 'fear' gene. Maybe we can over-ride our genetic programming.

In order to remain forward-thinking and visionary we have to go back and forth between what's beyond rational and what is rational always integrating the transrational back into the rational.

Darwinism was heretic and deemed as un-rational in it's day,for example......still is in Kansas. Now it's Creationism which is deemed irrational though if the mind is looked at as the creator,THAT is deemed rational.

[el3so]

However, it is that same drive for the preservation of our lives that will continually push us to continually adapt and eventually eliminate our biology in order to exist indefinitely.

The eventual elimination of our biology as a whole doesn't sound like a project that will garner much support. Surely there would be DNA samples, computerised memory stuff, whatnot involved?

Continual self-improvement with an eye toward self-perfection is an imperative of existence.

Dunno. Sounds a bit too good to me ;-)
Self-preservation, big numbers and sh?t happening explains most of my world.

[Jäeger]

Sri Lanky:

So then we ARE spirits trying to emerge from our bodyminds.

No, not at all. You’re making an unfounded leap into a type of mind / body dualism. There is no ontologically different “spirit” or “soul” or any other nonsense that does not ultimatly reduce into the physical and material world. The “spirit” you speak of cannot exist except as a material being. Thoughts and transrational experiences are not products of an immaterial “spirit” but a complex product of physical and chemical reactions in the material brain.

There are individuals who do not share our obssession with self-preservation. These are the ones who love living life on the edge or perhaps they don't have the 'fear' gene. Maybe we can over-ride our genetic programming.

People who “live on the edge” or drug addicts do not lose their biological attachment to self-preservation. They don’t wish for death in order to indulge themselves in actions (that cause chemical reactions of their own) that give them pleasure. In fact, the pleasure derived from the actions is experienced by living IN SPITE of the risks. Chancing death is not the same as seeking death.

You are right in that soon we will not only be able to over-ride our genetic programming, soon we will actually be writing our own genetic programming.

In order to remain forward-thinking and visionary we have to go back and forth between what's beyond rational and what is rational always integrating the transrational back into the rational.

Darwinism was heretic and deemed as un-rational in it's day,for example......still is in Kansas. Now it's Creationism which is deemed irrational though if the mind is looked at as the creator,THAT is deemed rational.

Again, you’re lapsing into a type of dualism. Nothing leads us to believe that there is such a thing as a distinct “mind”. In fact, science shows that all things are reducible to the physical. Spirits, souls and ghost stories are just methods to explain what we don’t yet understand. When we do understand them, they are invariably reduced to physical phenomena.

el3so:

The eventual elimination of our biology as a whole doesn't sound like a project that will garner much support. Surely there would be DNA samples, computerised memory stuff, whatnot involved?

The support of the masses is not really a prerequisite. However, as conditions continue to change, the idea will receive more and more support from them anyway. For one thing, we can’t stay still forever, and someday this planet will not be inhabitable. This coupled with our imperative to push out and explore, will ensure that the elimination of our biology will come to pass.

It also really doesn’t matter whether the more sentimental among us lend their support, the effort will continue and eventually be realised, even if it does not entail the extinction of biological man. In fact, that is one of the issues in the “Terminator” scenario. There is no reason to assume that a more advanced human or wholly synthetic life-form of our own creation will feel a need to kill the remaining biological humans. Presumably it would only perceive a need to do so if biological humans are some kind of existential threat.

However, to destroy a fully self-replicating and self-aware machine would probably be beyond the capability of biological man. It’s just like how I have no desire to kill tigers. Tigers can be dangerous to people, but they don’t really pose any existential threat to myself (or the species as a whole). Although I can’t say that I derive any great (tangible) benefit from the continued existence of tigers, I also experience no great threat from tigers. This means that my thoughts and actions in regards to the continued existence of tigers are essentially neutral. I see no reason to believe that the actions of machines and synthetic beings would be any different.

[Sri Lanky]

Something by chance existed that would bang and by chance it banged.

We are obedient to the laws of existence and banging.

Did the chance that made the bang then make the BOMB?

[Fansy]

There's so much bullshit in this thread it's sad :( You all will be quite surprised I reckon when, upon your death, there is not this depressing "nothingness" that you atheists want so much, but instead a continuance of life, at which time you shall be held accountable for the choices you have made in your previous life.

Maybe it's your fear of being held accountable that makes you want to fight against the Truth? Your desire to be all-powerful in your own minds...your own Gods? Whatever it is, I advise that you stop being so selfish and self-centered with your lives and start trying to find the Truth about why we are here and what wonderful things will come for those who follow His word, and the dire results for those who chose not to do so.

Stop fantasizing about selfish scientifical fairy tales and instead focus on the beautiful truth He has already laid out before us, if we will but listen.

[friendlyskies]

Oh for sure, option B. Not precisely, but yes,I assume this is a game or experiment or something. I always figure it's a vacation, which means I must have paid for it, so I might as well enjoy it.

[Sri Lanky]

Synthetic beings would probably be kinder than it's biological counterparts.

Why does this simulation include child rape,genocide,and suicide?.....for example. I know the selfish gene doesn't care but why can it be so extreme?....because this is everything.

Cold mentioned love(I knew he would)....the kind that comes from deep inside us.

There are cosmic energies inside us that I think we can access since everything in the universe prior to us is in us.....we are not in the universe,it's in us.

I have a hard time articulating this stuff.