Xfiles News Matrix is prove more than likely to be true

[Tony_Clifton]

I read an article in the australian the other day where scientistes legitimicized the logic of the movie the matrix using logic and I can't find any errors in it.

The article says that is computers progress at the current rate that within 50 years we may be able to recreate consciousness. They say that we will then have the computers to make environments and worlds for these consciosnesses to live in. They say that one of three things could happen.
One. Computers well never develop this far
Two. The govt will outlaw it
three. It will go ahead, most likely option

Therefore if option 3 is most likel;y then it is also likely to assume that we have created billions of artificial minds and many environments. In fact they most probably created infinitely more artificial lives than there are real lives. Therefore the probability that we are living an artificial life and not an original life is more than likely.

Also seeing as we are alive the chance of life existing on a planet is greatwer than 0. There fore if space goes on forever than it is without a doubt that there aere many lifeforms out there, not necessarilty like humans.

And can anyone really explain magnets. I dont think so. Magnets are magic!

 

[sbagman]

I was wondering if you could rewrite this post in one of the recongnised languages. Like english, for example.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by sbagman
I was wondering if you could rewrite this post in one of the recongnised languages. Like english, for example.

You think that's english he's speaking...?

 

[jim boy]

Umm, I think Tony is referring to an article that appeared in New Scientist (does anyone else read this?) and was probably lifted by The Australian. It is an interesting conundrum which I wrote a brief piece about in the computers forum.

Basically it goes like this. Computer games and Artificial Intelligence are evolving rapidly. Simulation games especially so and the creation of a universe that is really just a simulation is not that far off. Given the history of computing, the chances of them developing into simulations where the the characters are Artificially Intelligent and ignorant of their own existence only as a simulation are high.

Which means, that if these games could develop, then we are most likely to be simulations ourselves, because in 99.9% of cases, life will infact be just a simulation on somebody's game console. the only exceptions being that we are either the 'original' life or that we manage to exterminate ourselves before such games develop (a real possibility).

I hope this makes a little more sense.

By the way Tony, you're an absolute ****ing moron with absolutely no talent and you're mother should've had an abortion when she had a chance.

 

[Docker_Brat]

I hope I win a free game.

 

[knuckles]

What about the Windows paperclip

 

[sbagman]

Originally posted by Jim Boy
Umm, I think Tony is referring to an article that appeared in New Scientist (does anyone else read this?) and was probably lifted by The Australian. It is an interesting conundrum which I wrote a brief piece about in the computers forum.

Basically it goes like this. Computer games and Artificial Intelligence are evolving rapidly. Simulation games especially so and the creation of a universe that is really just a simulation is not that far off. Given the history of computing, the chances of them developing into simulations where the the characters are Artificially Intelligent and ignorant of their own existence only as a simulation are high.

Which means, that if these games could develop, then we are most likely to be simulations ourselves, because in 99.9% of cases, life will infact be just a simulation on somebody's game console. the only exceptions being that we are either the 'original' life or that we manage to exterminate ourselves before such games develop (a real possibility).

I hope this makes a little more sense.

Aaah, but how does one explain Ernie Sigley?

QED.

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by sbagman


Aaah, but how does one explain Ernie Sigley?

QED.

Well any piece of software usually contains the odd bug! Maybe the game master is waiting for an upgrade?

 

[Captain Random]

Originally posted by Jim Boy

Which means, that if these games could develop, then we are most likely to be simulations ourselves, because in 99.9% of cases, life will infact be just a simulation on somebody's game console.

Ah, sort of like the old "butterfly dreaming he's a Chinese philosopher" thing?

PS: Ernie Sigley is what you get when you leave your computer disks sitting on top of the stereo.

 

[ian_rocks]

To recreate consciousness we first have to understand it (by sketches and formulas to understand how perception affects our brain), something we are a lot longer than 50 years away from, old Noam Chomsky has come the closest with his cognitive revolution. We would also need to have a computer that could do 10 to the power of 48 operations per second, we can only achieve 10 to the 12 at the moment. We would also need many of these computers, one for each being... so it would be quite pointless and expensive really. The only positive thing could be the research into conscious.

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by ian_rocks
To recreate consciousness we first have to understand it (by sketches and formulas to understand how perception affects our brain), something we are a lot longer than 50 years away from, old Noam Chomsky has come the closest with his cognitive revolution. We would also need to have a computer that could do 10 to the power of 48 operations per second, we can only achieve 10 to the 12 at the moment. We would also need many of these computers, one for each being... so it would be quite pointless and expensive really. The only positive thing could be the research into conscious.

Not that far off at all then, 50 years? - a mere blink of the eye compared to the scale of time.

10 to the power of 48 operations per second?, mere idling for a quantum computer - admittingly still 50 years off in practice, but the theoretical science is already there.

 

[ah_19]

i study compter science
in particular a unit called
Theoretical foundations of computer science

computers are so limited its not funny, they still cant even store some numbers using binary logic

just some people needing a story to write about

computers cant be unreasonable, therefore they can never ben sentient, just machines obeying command folowing algorithms

 

[fairdinkum]

43 years to go...

 

[bit_pattern]

There is no spoon

 

[J_Moore]

And can anyone really explain magnets. I dont think so. Magnets are magic!

 

[FIGJAM]

Good thread.

Will read again.

 

[Fire]

On topic, I notice a number of academics seem to be getting carried away with this idea.

They are building robots to 'learn'. I have heard of an experiment where they taught a rover not to run into a rock, and now recently there is one were robots 'learn' to not attract other robots when they find a source of food through a number of generations.

The problem with this is that the technology they are using is so far into its infancy, that its not worth doing practical experiments with. They have to actively design the algorithm for the robot to specifically learn a specific task. The general theory is the more successful the 'AI' is in certain actions, the more likely it is to repeat said action in the future.

For example, a robot can learn to avoid a rock by turning when it detects one in its path. After the scientist programs it to trigger one function based on how often it has succeeded the pre-assigned goal in the past.

I mean no shit. Waste of time and money, but it makes an exciting headline.

Theoretically its possible to make an artificial neural network, but not with current hardware, and even then the basis of 'consciousness' will need to be programmed and the AI given a range of goals. You would really need it to 'evolve'.

It will be a long, long time before we have anything like the matrix. More than 43 years.

 

[fairdinkum]

It will be a long, long time before we have anything like the matrix. More than 43 years.

Nuh-uh. Not according to the OP.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

Computers will never reach any level of consciousness. That is just plain silly.

As for the Matrix, it is loosely based on the Gnostic Bible, the Pistis Sophia and as such, is pretty much an esoteric movie and completely understands the world we live in. Unfortunately, everyone wants to be Neo but society is the rest of those guys in the bubbles whose energy is feeding the computer and living asleep in the Matrix.

 

[Chief]

So THAT is why I have the urge to put on my robe and wizard hat every morning.

 

[cancat]

Don't get hung up on short timescales and current capabilities. Think about some bigger numbers. Imagine what computers will be able to do in 100 years, 1,000 years, 10,000 years. It doesn't matter when it happens but it is inevitable that future civilizations will have access to huge computer power that will be able to produce detailed simulations of reality.

Our brains are computers that run programs and abide by the laws of physics. It will be possible to simulate a brain at some point, including consciousness. So the simulated minds would be conscious and have the same kinds of experiences we have. And the argument goes that the number of simulations could vastly out number the real beings. So by weight of numbers it is probable that we exist in one of those simulations.

Frank Tipler goes even further. He claims that scientific progress and computer development will eventually result in all-powerful intelligence whose computing speed and information storage will grow exponentially at a rate exceeding the collapse of the universe. He terms this the Omega Point and equates this with god. Get that, we invent god!

Tipler is coming from a Christian point of view and using his ideas to support the concept of the resurrection of the dead and eternal life.
Other scientists such as David Deutsch reject the religious aspects but come to the same conclusion about a universal quantum computer existing at the end of every universe and being capable of simulating any physically possible environment.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

So THAT is why I have the urge to put on my robe and wizard hat every morning.

No, but it is the reason you are suffering, in pain, react like a robot to it and can do absolutely nothing about it.

 

[Docker Clint]

So THAT is why I have the urge to put on my robe and wizard hat every morning.

Make like a pirate instead.

 

[Chief]

Don't get hung up on short timescales and current capabilities. Think about some bigger numbers. Imagine what computers will be able to do in 100 years, 1,000 years, 10,000 years. It doesn't matter when it happens but it is inevitable that future civilizations will have access to huge computer power that will be able to produce detailed simulations of reality.

Given the size of the universe it is entirely possible some other race has already done this and then become extinct for some reason. There is no guarantee the human race will survive that long.

 

[Generalissimo]

Computers will never reach any level of consciousness. That is just plain silly.

I agree, but that's because I'm with Roger Penrose on this- not the Gnostics.