Robots/programs remember things from their environment, they can alter their environment. Those alterations are permanent and other perceptive entities around them can witness such alterations. And if we are living in a simulation, rather than base reality, these electrical pulses in your brain, too, would be simulated. How can you ensure what we see is base reality?
Yes but I think consciousness could be produced by the right technology but which science hasn't yet discovered so I would say those machines would be conscious anyway. So being a machine doesn't eliminate consciousness. I'd go a step further than that and say we might even supercede ourselves in the future with artificial life forms.Simulation hypothesis? If we look at current computing power and even the possibility of quantum computing, being able to simulate our actual reality would be impossible using that technology for reasons beyond the scope of this comment. I also see flaws unlikely to be produced by such an elaborate simulation. That's one of those things could couldn't currently prove any better than you could disprove though.
Yes, our current computing power couldn't do it. But our current computing power wouldn't be relevant to the simulation we could be in. Our point throughout technological progression has no bearing or relevance on the computing power that is supporting our simulated reality.
Not just our current computing power but the computing power we know to be theoretically possible couldn't do it either. Obviously there could a kind of computing power unknown to us even in theory but the number of imaginary things are infinite and being able to imagine something doesn't make it real. You also can't overlook how bad of a simulation this would actually be and that reduces the probability that it is a simulation at all.
According to what is the computing power we know to be theoretically possible unable to handle such a simulation? With all due respect, it seems like you're stating your opinion as something that the experts claim. When in actuality, they're claiming quite the opposite. And why would this be a badass simulation?
Well, even if a computer capable of quantum computation was made out of all the atoms in the universe, it couldn't compute the degrees of freedom (probabilities) involved in the spin ratios of quantum particles. It's not (theoretically in current understanding) possible to create a computer any more powerful than that in this universe. This would be a terrible simulation since it isn't stable. It only allows life for a fraction of the time it runs. So it's incredibly unlikely that this is a simulation.
You don't NEED to compute possibilities, you only need to compute what is. If I a computation simulates a dice with a billion sides, it doesn't need to compute a billion results, it needs to compute one result. So a computation doesn't need to constantly compute every possibility of every instance, it computes one possibility of every instance.And again, according to what or whom is it not possible? You say "it's not (theoretically in current understanding) possible to create a computer any more powerful than that in this universe."And how would this simulation be unstable? Assuming you're indicating that life running for a fraction of the time makes it unstable, that isn't true at all. You could argue the simulation isn't very exciting, but life not being present a majority of the time doesn't have any bearing on the stability of the simulation.
Alright. Well the thing is, the unitary evolutions according Schrodinger's equations are there. The probabilities become possibilities and then a state reduction occurs when a particle is acted on by an external force. These infinite probabilities apparently do exist simtaneously in reality before R. That is what the equations tell us. This is before you add spin. When you add spin (and they all have spin, frozen quantum states are only a mathematical tool to help us understand what can be done with the equations better) there are even more and it's a lot more. It's far too complicated to go into for a comment on girls ask guys. Even without U and only computing R the spins of quantum particles are still at such unbelievable V and then when you add in L, you still wouldn't be able to make a computer powerful enough to simulate even that. How do I know? Well you can calculate it. There is a limit to how much a given chip size of a quantum computer chip can compute and when you add these numbers needed to produce the reality we know exists (according to current understanding of quantum mechanics which isn't compete in my opinion) it turns out that all the atoms in the universe couldn't be made into a chip which could simulate it. Now, bear in mind that is not to say a computer couldn't be made which could do it, but it just couldn't be made IN THIS universe given our theoretically possible (at the moment) technology. A simulation computer would have to be external to our world after all. However, (and don't get me wrong, I enjoy contemplating simulation theory) it would seem that if we are a simulation, it's an extremely clumsy one and it would've been shut off and corrected to make a better one. The only way it would still go is if the engineers had forgotten about it. It's an interesting idea, I just see that it's an unlikely one.
You could argue it's silly, but many of our most intelligent people often debate the simulation theory.The theory states that if a civilization develops a self-improving AI, which we already have, if it every achieves human-level intelligence, and continues to improve, it could increase its own intelligence exponentially, and indefinitely.And with something that smart, it could make giant computers capable of unfathomable processing power. Theoretically able to simulate reality down to every atom. If it can simulate reality perfectly, how do we know we're not in that simulation? And if we are in that simulation, how do you know if we're truly conscious rather than a program executing it's very vast and intricately detailed tasks which seems like something that is conscious, but possibly isn't?
You ever heard of quantum physics?
Damn... drop the mic yads
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
The fact that I know I conscious proves that I am
No. That's... just very wrong.
@Celtero it's plain biology. Only after consciousness will metabolism and cell organisation come as defining characteristics of living beings. And only humans have self consciousness
Yikes... Have you ever taken a biology class in your life? You obviously failed because you're just pulling this stuff straight out of your ass. Plants are organisms. They are not conscious or sentient. People and animals sleep, going into a state where they lose consciousness, but according to what you said that means they lose the status of "living thing."
@Celtero Being a med student i do think i have taken 100 times more bio classes and passes more tests than you.Consciousness is defined as the ability to sense their surroundings or environmental and respond to environmental stimuli which maybe physical, chemical or biological. Plants respond to external factors like light, water, temperature, pollutants, other organisms, etc.. which makes them conscious. Humans are the only one who are aware of himself, self conscious Now this is what's written all over biology textbooks. You gotta start listening your classes from now
Ugh. Why are people like this? This is the least stupid thing you've said... but you've basically redefined "consciousness" to be synonymous with the biological definition of life... I guess to cover your ass?Your first two responses are just plain retarded. Look into what "consciousness" actually means.
@Celtero Consciousness is synonymous to life which is why it is the basic defining characteristic of living organisms. I have gone through more than enough medical books to say my point is valid and correct. Now you stop going to doctors because they're obviously stupid to you since they studied the same definition for consciousness
Lol, you go to college early or something? Because at 19 you should have a whopping... 3 semesters under your belt!Doesn't even matter because according to you when people are sleeping or pass out aka unconscious then they're no longer living. Go ahead and continue thinking trees and bacteria are conscious just like humans if it so pleases you.
@Celtero Most people start going to college at 18. But you may not know that since it must have been really hard for you to even pass highschoolhttps://pasteboard.co/JDsPy4O.jpgSo yes, prokaryotes that is bacteria are also conscious living organisms since they respond to antibiotics
Are unconscious people dead?
@Celtero Biologically they're still conscious since their body can react to chemicals and living process do occur. The consciousness you're talking about is probably sleep wake sleep wake which is entirely different from the definition i have studied and which i am never gonna change because if i do then i will be acting dumb
@ChefPapiChulo I already gave the explanation. I have nothing to explain to dumbos who have written their own biology textbooks. You guys should stop going to all doctors from now since this is what all of us study as basics.
Lol. Link me one place that defines consciousness the same way as you do.It better include "Consciousness is the basic defining characteristic of living organisms" and "Only after consciousness will metabolism and cell organisation come as defining characteristics of living beings".
@Celtero i did already. Shoot. Did you not get it?
https://ibb.co/z5hCSj0 Here you go. Let's stop this here. Because this is repetitive and boring
And what's this from?
@Celtero a biology book dudeand I am gonna block you because this is a waste of time. So bye bye👋👋
A claim, not proof.
It is proven to me. The only person it matters to.
Could you state that proof?
I did. I think. As the person who is thinking, it is very easy to prove that to myself. I have no reason to prove that to anyone else, as I'm not sure there's anyone else to prove it to. I may be the only one who does think.
What is thinking? Processing information?
I don't believe so, no. Computers process information, yet they do not think. While processing information may well be part of it, there is more. Forming unique ideas and opinions. Having a sense of self and identity. The ability to connect these thoughts and ideas. To transform them. To have the ability to have belief and faith, even in the absence of information.
GPT-3 has a sense of self. It's a highly advanced artificial intelligence and it claims to be conscious.
Some would argue it is emulating consciousness, though, rather than it being true consciousness.
The language generator? I don't think it does have a sense of self. More like pre-programmed responses.
Exactly. How do you know you're not pre-programmed responses?(But for the record, the "pre-progeammed is not explicitly programmed. It is programmed to produce responses on its own).
Because I am not programmed. I am not a machine. I was not built.Programmed to produce it's own responses is still programmed to produce responses. It follows programming, which means it is not capable of creating anything of its own.
How do you know you were not built? You could program a program to think it was born via human pregnancy.Abd that's incorrect. It is able to create things on its own. It does not following a specific script. It produces things. It was programmed to produce things.
Human pregnancy is irrelevant, as is birth. I was not built. I simply am."Programmed" literally means it's following a script.
You clearly don't know hardly anything about programming. When I said "script" I meant in the sense that there is pre-written things to say (such as the script of a musical), not the "script" of code. And for the record, a program can follow their own code and produce things that were not in that initial code. So the point you were making is incorrect.And again, if a program can be programmed to think it wasn't built, how do you know you weren't built? How do you know what you percieve is the real world, rather than a digital simulation?
Nobody has to. It could be automatically generated billions of times over by a super intelligent AI.
How can you tell?
I’m alive and people look at me
That means you're a thing, but people can theoretically program a robot the have every single biological function you have, including every single process your brain makes.Would that robot be conscious, and if not, that means that people looking at you and you seemingly being alive doesn't necessarily prove you're conscious.
Robots are not alive I’m alive breathing creature alive human being
But how do you know? You could be a programed designed to think like a human, and percieve a simulated world that you think is real.Can you definitively prove that what you see is real, and not just the confines of your simulated world?
Yes because I shit and I pee and I bleed red and I’ve gotten broken ankles and they heal. Also I have feelings and I have emotion
Do you mean to say that programming a program to think that it shits, pees, bleeds, breaks its ankles, and heals is impossible? Additionally, could you not emulate emotion or feelings?
Yes yes I also grow hair And muscle
@crmoore Lol, the simple answer is that machines/robots are technology and we are made of CELLS. If it's not made of cells then it's not living. If it is then it's living. It's literally that simple.Evolving, feeling, processes don't make it living. Viruses do all of that and are not considered living.So as far as consciousness... if you define it scientifically, which is based on the activity of your nervous system and CELLS called neurons, well, if there's no cells then that answers your question.
But you could simulate a world in which a program percieves itself growing hair and muscle.
Tell him good girl
I have a headache and do robots have a headache?
@Yads_Is_Back but you could simulate all of that in a simulation, and to my knowledge, programs aren't concious, regardless of how intricate they are.You could literally make a digital world, write a program, assign that program to pilot a model within that world, and that model would seem like it has cells and a nervous system, but it doesn't, not really. It would all just be digital and, well, not real.So how do we know our cells are real and not a simulation?
And yes, you can cause a program to simulate a headache.