Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Selection pressures for long hair and beards in humans?

  1. Top | #21
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    I'm asking about having consciousnesses that are hooked up to computer simulations involving things like machine learning and "level of detail". (I don't think every atom needs to be constantly simulated)
    Ahh, so you mean the "brain in a jar" problem where a real functional brain is artificially fed sensory information, not that the "consciousness" is only a computer algorithm that "thinks" it is alive.
    Yeah the consciousness could involve a person that exists outside of the simulation though it could be generated basically from scratch within the simulation (it is "hooked up" though it is part of the simulation) [sorry I wasn't clear]

    I suppose that could be a possibility but the 'brain' would (or should) still remember that it has been hooked up to the data input and that there is a real world.
    I think memories could be temporarily suppressed like when Morty is playing the Roy game:
    https://youtu.be/szzVlQ653as?t=24

    Also about Alan Watts:
    (video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEMnwI2G2U0
    (transcript)
    http://www.findyourlight.co/life-is-a-dream-alan-watts/
    forget that you were dreaming so that you would think it was all for real and to be anxious about it because it would be so great when you woke up.

    Anyway this is related to DrZoidberg's posts....

  2. Top | #22
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,234
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,980
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    ....Sure. But God isn't nudging things and isn't talking to people. The available science seems pretty clear on this.....
    Just wondering, do you think that it would one day be possible to make a computer simulation that seems "real"?
    I work in IT. Not with simulation specifically. But, yes, and arguably it's already here. Humans think of themselves as unique and special and above all with free will. This is a delusion. Which makes us incredibly easy to fool by anybody making a simulation. Because we have this delusion we just refuse to believe when something is nothing but a simulation. That's the reason why the Facebook and Instagram algorithms are so effective. Why people have trouble telling fake news from real news.

    Facebook is arguably already a simulation of the real world, and if a super computer would replace all the people you are chatting with it'd take you years to figure it out, unless you met them in the real world. Since the algorithms nudge you towards who you interact with, are we then in the real world?

    It also seems to be inevitable that we will be able to upload our consciousness onto a computer. Not the next coming years. But it won't be all that long. The fun thing about this is that we'll sooner be able to upload our brains to a computer than we will be able to figure out how the brain works. That is mostly still a mystery, and will stay a mystery a long time even after we've managed to upload it. We don't even know what we don't know. Anyhoo... at that point creating a simulated world for us would be trivial. We can already create amazing simulated world's in computer games using procedural programming. The same principals can be applied to a fully simulated world.

    Short answer, abso-fucken-lutely.

    Do I think we are living in a simulation now? It depends on the question. With all the fake news around we are arguably already living in a simulation, ie fantasy version of reality.

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,779
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,835
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Intelligent doesn't have to mean infinitely perfect.... that also fits my "A God without compelling evidence?" theory....

    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...lling-evidence

    After all I believe most of the Bible isn't true and it involves immoral stories, etc. So that is consistent with problematic "design".
    But why would you posit a designer at all?
    I think we're in a simulation that didn't involve billions of years of real history. Part of the reason is that I am a fan of Elon Musk's "there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes" and so they need to cut corners in order to simulate universes. So there could be many vague designs that are put into a virtual evolutionary history of the world rather than evolution being blind.
    Not sure if I got the concept right...

    ..but If there's no real history involved, as you put it ,.. then why are we in a simulation? Even when there are computers involved- there is no image or design template of any previous realities to base the simulation on. Not being a simulation of something real ... wouldn't we therefore be in the actual reality, the orignal design, what ever the material properties the computers create?

    (Who created the creator computer? I jest )

  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    I think we're in a simulation that didn't involve billions of years of real history. Part of the reason is that I am a fan of Elon Musk's "there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes" and so they need to cut corners in order to simulate universes. So there could be many vague designs that are put into a virtual evolutionary history of the world rather than evolution being blind.
    Not sure if I got the concept right...

    ..but If there's no real history involved, as you put it ,.. then why are we in a simulation?
    Some reasons include entertainment and personal growth. The point of the virtual history is to give the impression that the stars and life evolved naturalistically though the creators could have inserted interesting designs like chameleons, etc, and their DNA sequence would appear to evolve realistically.

    Even when there are computers involved- there is no image or design template of any previous realities to base the simulation on.
    Much of what is in the virtual evolutionary tree could have existed in our creator's evolutionary tree and some might be invented by beings outside of our simulation.

    Not being a simulation of something real ... wouldn't we therefore be in the actual reality, the original design, what ever the material properties the computers create?
    So there is the minute to minute existence of our simulation.... this could have begun in the near past.... then if you try to investigate the past before that time (with archaeology, etc) it generates signs of an apparent history which is based on some back story that can involve filling in the gaps with plausible details.
    On the topic of AI filling in details in a plausible way, see:
    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-text&p=867702
    See post #2 where it generates photos of plausible cars and computers over history - it completes the top of the image.

    (Who created the creator computer? I jest )
    It could be like the game the Sims... a company created the game then a player can create the people and intervene... then there could be mods...
    Except I think that AI would have a major role when an intelligent force is intervening... but if our simulation was more like the Bible it might involve a human-seeming intelligence....

  5. Top | #25
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Just wondering, do you think that it would one day be possible to make a computer simulation that seems "real"?
    .....Short answer, abso-fucken-lutely.
    Earlier you said: "God isn't nudging things and isn't talking to people"

    But maybe he is but just not in an obvious way - so that it seems like coincidence and hallucinations... that is possible in a simulation...

    Do I think we are living in a simulation now? It depends on the question. With all the fake news around we are arguably already living in a simulation, ie fantasy version of reality.
    And it's getting worse...
    e.g.

    About more advanced techniques:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQgYPv8tb6A

  6. Top | #26
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    About the virtual history - (from The Simpsons Game)


  7. Top | #27
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,234
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,980
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Earlier you said: "God isn't nudging things and isn't talking to people"

    But maybe he is but just not in an obvious way - so that it seems like coincidence and hallucinations... that is possible in a simulation...
    Scientists have spent a lot of time on this. All available data fits into the ToE model. There is not a single shred of evidence that doesn't fit. Which is saying something considering the astonishing amount of data. There is nothing on Earth that has more data than ToE. And it's not because we've studied it more than other things. It's just because of the richness and amount of discreet pieces of evidence to find.

    Simply put, if God would have done any amount of nudging, we'd see it in the data. There'd be a trail of evidence showing it. There's no degree of discreet nudging we would notice when doing big data statistical analysis. The thing with randomness being the engine behind what genetic changes are introduced is that we can easily spot when things stop being random. Randomness leads to noise in the data. We can quantify the noise.

    Simply put, there's no detectable difference between God discreetly nudging things in the right direction from God not intervening at all. If he would get involved he'd do it in such a minor way that, in the big picture, it would be irrelevant genetic changes. There's no need to hypothesis such a being, even if you can. The fact that you can't prove God doesn't influence evolution doesn't prove God does influence evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Do I think we are living in a simulation now? It depends on the question. With all the fake news around we are arguably already living in a simulation, ie fantasy version of reality.
    And it's getting worse...
    e.g.

    About more advanced techniques:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQgYPv8tb6A
    I wouldn't spend any time speculating on it. If we are living in a simulation, it's a simulation. It'll be a copy of the real world. For me living in that world, it would make no difference whether it is a simulation or not. My actions and behaviours wouldn't change.

    Short answer, I don't care whether or not I live in a simulation. Just as little as a tiger in a zoo can chose not to be hungry because the food isn't food it has caught itself. The tiger still needs to eat.

  8. Top | #28
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Scientists have spent a lot of time on this. All available data fits into the ToE model. There is not a single shred of evidence that doesn't fit.
    Yes I think the virtual evolutionary history fits in a 100% plausible way...
    Like how these photos based on the tops of images in post #2 are also very plausible:
    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post867702
    And post #26 says the fossils are "wholly consistent".

    ....Simply put, if God would have done any amount of nudging, we'd see it in the data...
    No, "....I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations. Or involve fraud such as magic tricks..."
    https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php

    ...The fact that you can't prove God doesn't influence evolution doesn't prove God does influence evolution....
    I find things like chameleons to seem unlikely to have evolved naturalistically though I can't prove it.

    ....It'll be a copy of the real world...
    I think it would be an approximation of the real world - not identical on the sub-atomic level. And there could be differences such as more variety in the evolutionary tree.

  9. Top | #29
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,234
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,980
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Yes I think the virtual evolutionary history fits in a 100% plausible way...
    Like how these photos based on the tops of images in post #2 are also very plausible:
    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post867702
    And post #26 says the fossils are "wholly consistent".
    Creating an image is a far cry from making something that works. There's some awesome AI generated mechanical devices. BTW, just so you know, when you are reading articles about AI. In the industry we say Machine Learning. The moment a journalist mentions the words Artificial Intelligence or AI you know it's a highly speculative piece with little connection with reality. It's a good rule to follow. Only trust articles that use the term Machine Learning. Never AI. We switch to talking about AI when we are addressing idiots. It's like an IT industry in-joke.

    Science journalism is today catastrophically bad. Today you almost always need to read the original scientific studies to know at all what is happening in the world of science. Which requires scientific training to understand. We are quickly getting a society where the majority of the population has no ability to inform themselves about science. The world of mainstream science journalism is today flooded with fantasists making all kinds of outlandish claims. To a degree that real science can't be seem in the flood.

    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    No, "....I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations. Or involve fraud such as magic tricks..."
    https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php
    But not Evolution. If God did some nudging it should show up in the data. We should see a break in some pattern somewhere. There should be some evidence. The earlier back in time we go, the less evidence there is. So perhaps God messed around with the evolution of dinosaurs and stopped after the rise of mammals, who knows? Even so, it's a weak theory. Just removing God all together is a better theory. That doesn't rule out God.

    A scientific theory is telling of a story. It's stories we tell to understand the world better. If guided evolution would be a stage play we'd have actors on stage constantly referring to a character that we never get to see and who has no function in the play. For the audience taking out God from the script has no impact on how the story is told. So it's better to leave it out, even if God has played a part.

    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    ...The fact that you can't prove God doesn't influence evolution doesn't prove God does influence evolution....
    I find things like chameleons to seem unlikely to have evolved naturalistically though I can't prove it.
    But this is just a question of education. In the Kansas school board debate where Intelligent Design was pushed, the creationists made all kinds of claims like this. In each case the defence dug up an expert on the specific animal who could explain the evolution that made perfect sense, and could prove it. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that nobody can.

    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    ....It'll be a copy of the real world...
    I think it would be an approximation of the real world - not identical on the sub-atomic level. And there could be differences such as more variety in the evolutionary tree.
    Why? A simulation can be made on any abstraction level. Why not make a simulation on the sub-atomic level? If you have a computer with that capability, go for it. The closer to reality a simulation is the better it is. The less similar to reality it is we've got to fake it with a bunch of special algorithms correcting it along the way. That can be a lot of work. Better just to keep it as close to reality as possible. That's how we figured out how the brain of the C Elegans nematode worm worked. We simulated every neuron in the worm. We saw it behaving identically to real worm. That way we knew we'd nailed it. Then we started fucking with it to see what each neuron did. Eventually we worked it out. A huge leap of science.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Creating an image is a far cry from making something that works. There's some awesome AI generated mechanical devices.
    The images are one of the initial steps... then it could create a video and 3D views of it...

    A related thing is that AI that recreated Pac-Man based on observations:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UZzu4UQLcI

    (emphasis added)
    BTW, just so you know, when you are reading articles about AI. In the industry we say Machine Learning. The moment a journalist mentions the words Artificial Intelligence or AI you know it's a highly speculative piece with little connection with reality. It's a good rule to follow. Only trust articles that use the term Machine Learning. Never AI. We switch to talking about AI when we are addressing idiots. It's like an IT industry in-joke.
    What about this article: (blog?)
    https://openai.com/blog/dall-e/
    It doesn't mention machine learning so do you trust it? It talks about AI-generated images... Do you think it should have called the organisation OpenML instead of OpenAI? Or maybe the intended audience is "idiots"...
    Last edited by excreationist; 01-29-2021 at 06:48 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •