[Korrelan]

I chose a very benign subject to start the board, the topic of ‘ghosts’ is hardly a ‘baptism of fire’ for a board covering topics like this.

@Unreality

Yeah, yeah, that explains, so I can uphold my ignoramus belief system and sleep at night.

I was extremely careful not to diss anyone else’s beliefs.  I merely expressed what I believe causes the ghost phenomena; it’s your prerogative to believe what ever you want.  Trust me, its pointless either of us trying to convince the other that our theory is correct.

Too many ding dong humans.

I was discussing ghosts relative to AI, please don’t start getting personal.

Can you imagine a video game programmer simulating all the atoms and subatomic particles inside everything in the game lol? No, of course not. They simulate your direct experience. All of your senses.

But if each person can experience molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, etc through their senses, doesn't that just make the simulation a few billion times more complex? (X1 for each person).

Rather than simulating just one shared reality down to the subatomic, quantum resolution each individual would need their own. And how does the schema share information between the personal simulations? Or is there a version of me in each individual’s simulation?

I’m just curious.

@Ranch

machines as we build them as genetic algorythms are capatalists.

Greed is a very human misgiving.  I suppose we’ll have to do our best not to endow an intelligent machine with emotions/ drives that really aren’t required to function amongst intelligent humans. I chose the term ‘Neutral Intelligence’ carefully lol.

 

[Zero]

But if each person can experience molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, etc through their senses, doesn't that just make the simulation a few billion times more complex? (X1 for each person).

Persons don't experience atoms and molecules. They only experience shapes, colors, sounds...

Korrelan, unreality, you should watch The Matrix.

[WriterOfMinds]

Simulating every subatomic entity in the universe only seems outlandish because we don't have the hardware for it.  If we are living in a simulation, we have no way of knowing what kind of monstrous computing engine it might be running on.  Could be that our universe, with all its myriads of interacting particles, is still extremely simplified compared to whatever the "real" universe is.  How would we know?

[Korrelan]

Persons don't experience atoms and molecules. They only experience shapes, colors, sounds...

No, but each person has the possible choice to choose a carer path for example, where they would be dealing with matter at the molecular level, therefore the option would have to be available for each person.  Unless there is some kind of reality resolution/ selection criteria that sets each person’s reality.

I have watched the Matrix a couple of times. If given the choice… red pill every time for me.

@WOM

How would we know?

If we are living in huge simulated reality, then I don’t see as it makes a difference, that’s our lot and we can’t change it.  Surely this makes the whole ‘simulated reality’ discussion a moot point?  We still have to exist and thrive no matter what the base theory of our collective reality is.  We could exist in the stomach of some huge animal, we could be some weird quantum fluctuation in space time, we might even not exist at all… all we can do is make an intelligent best guess… we will never know for sure.

ED: Perhaps the machine that is running our simulation had infinite capacity for simulation but limited capacity for intelligence… and we are its solution to becoming smarter.  We will eventually build extremely intelligent machines… provide a new blue print by proxy as it were.

I understand the ‘simulated reality’ theory where we all reside in the same simulation, I just couldn’t get my head around [unreality] saying there was a theory where we all exist in individual computer simulations on some huge ‘alien’ computer… didn’t/ doesn’t make sense and I’d never come across it before.

As I stated above I still think our consciousness and sense of ‘reality’ is indeed a simulation, but it’s not running on some huge alien computer, it’s running within our own brains.

 

[unreality]

Often I feel like everyone in my existence is a chatbot because they can't seem to see the obvious.

Regarding the questions about simulation. Think about electron microscopes. A matrix simulation would only need to fulfill your expectations like a parent. Although like most parents, you won't get everything. It doesn't need to simulate every quark or photon. We already have the processing power to place instruments inside video games that would allow them to use electron microscopes, or detect single photons. Of course such microscopes wouldn't be real.

Furthermore, who's to say the simulation does not have the ability to change our memories and what we believe is our past. If for example, there was a severe glitch where the simulation made a mistake that might give it away, the ASI that runs the simulation could change our past.

[Korrelan]

Often I feel like everyone in my existence is a chatbot because they can't seem to see the obvious.

If what you are proposing is true then its obvious why we cant see the obvious... some thing isn't allowing us the resolution of reality.

 

[unreality]

p.s. In case you still don't get it, the simulation only needs to feed your senses. Not difficult. Our modern primitive technology could accomplish that right now if we could somehow give someone amnesia, which is possible by banging the poor persons head enough times. Anyhow, place the person inside an isolation tank with a full suit VR system. Bingo! Don't need to simulate quarks, strings, and photons. Those are all concepts that are relative. What seems complex to you may be simple to some the beings who exist in the next level of reality above ours. Our simulations would be a simulation inside a simulation, and therefore would be simpler. So what? It's all relative. The poor beings we simulate would have no idea that our reality is more complex. They wouldn't know about quarks and photons. According to the math, the probability we exist in a simulation is outrageous. In all likelihood quarks and photons are not real. They're just a concept that's part of a simulation. We have no idea what the next level of reality is above ours. Maybe that reality is also a simulation. My observation of the nature of this reality tells me with high confidence it's not real. It's an illusion.

And for anyone who thinks ghosts are just in peoples heads, wow, please get off your toosh and do some real research. Get the best camera you want. Find a local ghost hunting team by you. Go ghost hunting for a year. You'll have a lot of good photos that absolutely cannot be explained by mainstream. And then you might think, "Oh wow. Now I know what reality is. There's a spirit world. LMAO! No. That will be the START of your research. Come back to me in a decade and we'll talk. All those long bearded corrupt male dominating religious nuts in the middle east and elsewhere thousands of years ago tried their best to understand reality. They failed. If you want to see what causes spirits and paranormal activity, then gather all of your friends and look in the mirror. You, all of you. You're creating it, together.

[unreality]

p.s.s., One last advice if you decide to go ghost hunting with a local team. Try to find a team who has a high success rate, or who at least has one person who attracts high strangeness. There's nothing worse than a paranormal team of skeptics lol. They'll most likely find exactly what they want to find, NADA!

[Korrelan]

@unreality

It's good that we all believe different theories etc, It's part of what makes us unique. You don’t subscribe to mine, nor I to yours… its all good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Anyway this board isn't about who’s beliefs are right, its about why we believe what we do, the mechanisms that provide those beliefs… and if they a relevant to an AI.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/11/the-men-who-believe-the-earth-is-flat/

Is the earth flat… really? Lots of 'intelligent' people seem to think so.

 

[unreality]

@unreality

It's good that we all believe different theories etc, It's part of what makes us unique. You don’t subscribe to mine, nor I to yours… its all good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Anyway this board isn't about who’s beliefs are right, its about why we believe what we do, the mechanisms that provide those beliefs… and if they a relevant to an AI.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/11/the-men-who-believe-the-earth-is-flat/

Is the earth flat… really? Lots of 'intelligent' people seem to think so.

 

It's not that simple. For example, I've seen countless christians debate academic scientists. Assuming the academic knows his or her stuff, in the end it always boils down to the academic pointing to evidence that the christian can't explain, which leads the christian to falling back on personal experiences as some form of evidence, saying that's enough proof he or she needs, but then the academic basically says, "Yeah, and I can show you a half dozen other religions or movements that make the same claims about personal experiences. Furthermore, PhD academics have studied such personal experiences, which clearly shows contradictory experiences throughout your christian denomination."

In this case, I've pointed out to you a way to obtain photographic evidence in such a way you know it's not fake evidence since you took the photos. Indeed you can ignore it, smile, and still believe you're correct. smh. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force the horse to drink.

[unreality]

p.s. What does that mean in the end? Well, given the example, it means christians have basically accomplished nothing over the past several thousand years, while academics have accomplish ... well, such accomplishments speaks for itself. Almost always the more correct path leads to more accomplishments.

[Korrelan]

In this case, I've pointed out to you a way to obtain photographic evidence in such a way you know it's not fake evidence since you took the photos. Indeed you can ignore it, smile, and still believe you're correct. smh. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force the horse to drink.

In this case, I've pointed out to you an alternative reason/ theory in such a way you know it's not fake evidence since you read the articles/ research. Indeed you can ignore it, smile, and still believe you're correct. smh. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force the horse to drink.

 

[unreality]

In this case, I've pointed out to you a way to obtain photographic evidence in such a way you know it's not fake evidence since you took the photos. Indeed you can ignore it, smile, and still believe you're correct. smh. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force the horse to drink.

In this case, I've pointed out to you an alternative reason/ theory in such a way you know it's not fake evidence since you read the articles/ research. Indeed you can ignore it, smile, and still believe you're correct. smh. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force the horse to drink.

 

You're delusional. You claim it's in their head lol. Photographic evidence. Hello? It's not worth talking to you. You're like an IQ of 1 chatbot.

[unreality]

I get the impression this forum is mostly human assisted chatbots. What a shame. Probably because it was a dead forum, maybe the owner had this brilliant idea lol... That falls under the category of catfishing because people think their posting to a human. Anyone who has their chatbot post at forums and social sites without adding a footnote to each post that it's chatbot is being very deceptive!

[Korrelan]

Why does it matter to you so much what I think?  Does it affect you in anyway? I certainly don’t care what you believe… I suggest you do the same.

We will never reconcile our opinions, they are polar opposites. You have your cognitive style and I have mine.  You like to go out and take photos of ghosts… I have never seen a ghost, real magic or any other type of paranormal phenomena and never will… ever, so there is no point discussing it.

So please just calm down and lets get back to the AI.

Do you think that giving an AI the propensity to believe in ghosts would be advantageous to its intelligence or development in any way?

 

ED: I received the personal post unreal.

You're an idiot, due. You have no desire to seek truth and knowledge. I think most of your posts might be from a chatbot because no human could possibly be that stupid.

Again... I really don't care what you think lol