Are we living in a computer simulation?

[Locutus]

  All of this computer simulation malarkey, is just fairy dust, make believe just as the bible is.     SORRY!

But unlike the Bible, it is being approached from a scientific standpoint. 

[Locutus]

[followsthewolf]

A computer simulation of a human being would explain my ex-wife.

I can't.

[Locutus]

A computer simulation of a human being would explain my ex-wife.

I can't.

 

[Henry Hawk]

The philosophical ramifications of such a discussion are endless, let alone if one day it was shown to be true. 

It would at the least make a very good movie!

[libby]

I don't think it will happen, or is happening. Computers cannot simulate emotion and imagination and curiosity and independent thought. I guess it's possible all the humans could die off or be annihilated and computers would run their version of what the world should be like, but what a  world that would be.

[Locutus]

I don't think it will happen, or is happening. Computers cannot simulate emotion and imagination and curiosity and independent thought.

Ah!  But you better think again on that premise.  Check this out:

Whole Brain Emulation

From the article:

"Eminent computer scientists and neuroscientists have predicted that computers will be capable of thought and even attain consciousness, including Koch and Tononi,[5] Douglas Hofstadter,[6] Jeff Hawkins,[6] Marvin Minsky,[7] Randal A. Koene,[8] and Rodolfo Llinas.[9]"

And from a separate article on the subject:

"A longer term goal is to build a detailed, functional simulation of the physiological processes in the human brain: "It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in 10 years," Henry Markram, director of the Blue Brain Project said in 2009 at the TED conference in Oxford.[4] In a BBC World Service interview he said: "If we build it correctly it should speak and have an intelligence and behave very much as a human does."[4]"


So you see, it isn't as far fetched of an idea as you may think that it is. 

[libby]

Locutus, here is where we differ: "A longer term goal is to build a functional simulation of the physiological processes of the human brain."

I have always been fascinated by science, and it has included increasing curiosity about what may reside in our noggins above and beyond the "physiological processes." I could try 15 different ways to explain what I mean by that, and give examples (not based on religion), but I tend to write and rewrite until I find the right words, and I don't have time for that right now.

[Locutus]

Locutus, here is where we differ: "A longer term goal is to build a functional simulation of the physiological processes of the human brain."

How exactly do we differ on anything?  I don't recall really expressing an opinion on the subject outside of saying the philosophical ramifications are tremendous. 

I have always been fascinated by science, and it has included increasing curiosity about what may reside in our noggins above and beyond the "physiological processes." I could try 15 different ways to explain what I mean by that, and give examples (not based on religion), but I tend to write and rewrite until I find the right words, and I don't have time for that right now.

That's okay.  I would be interested in reading what you have to say about it when, and if, you find the time to do so.  Actually, a discussion about whether a computer can simulate a human brain, up to and and including feelings, is only slightly off topic.  That would be a prerequisite for anyone to write a program to simulate us to begin with. 

[Henry Hawk]

One big difference the way I see it...and cannot be duplicated...........and, I'm sure you and I will disagree........but it is called a, SOUL.

[me]

One big difference the way I see it...and cannot be duplicated...........and, I'm sure you and I will disagree........but it is called a, SOUL.

But couldn't that be as simple as the number on the battery, or whatever is giving us the electrical charge, to keep us from being the same.  I know that's out in left field but it just flashed through my mind.  I probably should read the article before interjecting thoughts and opinions huh?

[Henry Hawk]

But couldn't that be as simple as the number on the battery, or whatever is giving us the electrical charge, to keep us from being the same.  I know that's out in left field but it just flashed through my mind.  I probably should read the article before interjecting thoughts and opinions huh?

I am interjecting a "beleif" into a simulated hypothetical situation.  You have to have some sort of faith in something much larger before you can buy into the concept of a soul.  But, that is the difference between me buying into this kind of scenerio and my own personal belief.  I am probably opening a can of worms, and that is not my intent.

[Locutus]

One big difference the way I see it...and cannot be duplicated...........and, I'm sure you and I will disagree........but it is called a, SOUL.

What if belief in such was just part of the simulation's programming for some individuals?

[libby]

This is for Locutus. I tried to answer your question last night, but had a horrible day yesterday and couldn't focus on what I wanted to say long enough to write it.

I don't doubt that in the future just about all, or maybe all human body parts may be duplicated and replaced, including the brain, except for one thing -- the soul. I grew up in a Christian home believing that, and becoming disillusioned with religion did not change it. But how do I reconcile that with the science that I believe in? I found a way, a decade or so ago. I read something that made sense to me:

"Deep inside us, unknown to the five senses, is an innermost core of being, a field of nonchange that creates personality, ego, and body. This is our essential state -- it is who we really are....These are vast assumptions, the makings of a new reality, yet all are grounded in the discoveries of quantum physics made almost a hundred years ago.  The seeds of this new paradigm were planted by Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and the other pioneers of quantum physics, who realized that the accepted way of viewing the physical world was false. Although things "out there" appear to be real, there is no proof or reality apart from the observer. No two people share exactly the same universe. Every worldview creates its own world."  -- Deepak Chopra, Ageless Body, Timeless Mind

[Henry Hawk]

What if belief in such was just part of the simulation's programming for some individuals?

and I say in return, what if God is real?

same conclusions...