Elon Musk: "We Are Most Likely Living In Someone Else's Video Game"

[LukeTim]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

A not so simple (as of yet) means to mimic sensory input directly to the brain.  Your brain does not care where the input is coming from.  As long as one of the five (or all five) of your senses can be properly mimicked, your brain will not care whether or not it is coming from your body, or a machine.

Can you guarantee that the brain will not know?

I mean, I understand the hypothesis of this Matrix-style jacking in... but until anybody actually does it I am not convinced it is really possible. The brain is incredibly complex and we barely understand it as it is. To think we can fool it so perfectly is quite arrogant.

[crystal6tak]

I have always wondered, if we mapped out every neuron of our brain, then have a computer powerful enough to simulate all 100~ billion neurons, have the computer be powerful enough to run the brain faster than the real brains, then gave it full access to the internet. What would happen?

 

While we're at it, would this "program" of the map of the 100 billion neuron be considered conscious?

 

Then, here comes the fun part, if there was a program that simulated all the atoms and electrons within the observable universe. Then, hadn't we just done the same thing? It wouldn't even matter if it was too slow to simulate in real time. Because the perceived time of the beings in this universe wouldn't change even if 1 second needed 1 year to simulate. The only way the beings in the simulation would notice they're in program is if there is a glitch/bug. Other then that, the computer can intentionally freeze, slow down, or accelerate the simulation and the beings in the program wouldn't know any better.

 

So what I'm saying is, I'm waiting for the day we find a glitch/bug within our universe. 

[LukeTim]

3 minutes ago, crystal6tak said:

if there was a program that simulated all the atoms and electrons within the observable universe.

Unfortunately I don't think physics would allow this to happen.

You can't store and process information on every single particle in the universe when your computer is itself made up of some of those particles. You need to use particles in order to store and process the information about all the different particles in the universe... so naturally, you cannot do this with fewer particles than you are simulating.

[stconquest]

10 minutes ago, LukeTim said:

Can you guarantee that the brain will not know?

I mean, I understand the hypothesis of this Matrix-style jacking in... but until anybody actually does it I am not convinced it is really possible. The brain is incredibly complex and we barely understand it as it is. To think we can fool it so perfectly is quite arrogant.

Depends on the design of the device.  Do you want the brain to know, or not?  Extra effort would have to go into the process of "tricking" the brain.  This does not guarantee a conscious individual will accept this reality because the individual using a conscious mind can investigate the source of any sensory input.

 

I understand your concerns.  What you maybe are getting at is the off switch for the human brain.  When/if technology is based on such knowledge of our brains, the off switch will probably not be out of reach: to effective shock the brain into submission with a sensory overload.  It will shut down to reboot.  Something like that.

 

The scariest hallucinations I have ever had were auditory, by far.  Shocked me like a deer in headlights.  Took a few seconds to regain control.  It is because I could not find the source of the sensory input for it only existed in my mind.

[crystal6tak]

8 minutes ago, LukeTim said:

Unfortunately I don't think physics would allow this to happen.

You can't store and process information on every single particle in the universe when your computer is itself made up of some of those particles. You need to use particles in order to store and process the information about all the different particles in the universe... so naturally, you cannot do this with fewer particles than you are simulating.

That's....a very good point. That also means if we are in a simulation, the world simulating us has a massively bigger universe... Holy crap. 

 

EDIT:

Either they have a massively bigger universe, or we are a "watered down" universe. Imagine that. There is a universe more complex that what we have. Or maybe we're just talking crazy and we are in a reality. But where's the fun in that?

[stconquest]

12 minutes ago, crystal6tak said:

That's....a very good point. That also means if we are in a simulation, the world simulating us has a massively bigger universe... Holy crap. 

 

EDIT:

Either they have a massively bigger universe, or we are a "watered down" universe. Imagine that. There is a universe more complex that what we have. Or maybe we're just talking crazy and we are in a reality. But where's the fun in that?

I think I am the only one that mentioned Musk might have temporarily lost it a bit due to the fact he knows he will die.  The idea that we are in a simulation could be interpreted as a means to try to survive a very real situation of mortality.  Dying is scary to any rational mind.  The brain will try to solve the problem.

[stconquest]

3 minutes ago, nebboT said:

Interesting, but it's far more likely to be a long thought out marketing ploy for some bullshit Tesla or SpaceX release next year.

 

I take every word any CEO says as marketing.  It's all garbage.

lol

 

@nebboT

 

...or maybe to get people to join his new cult.  Did I not hear that he wants to man a mission to Mars within 9 years? 

[crystal6tak]

6 minutes ago, stconquest said:

I think I am the only one that mentioned Musk might have temporarily lost it a bit due to the fact he knows he will die.  The idea that we are in a simulation could be interpreted as a means to try to survive a very real situation of mortality.  Dying is scary to any rational mind.  The brain will try to solve the problem.

If that's the case, expect Musk's next big project to be about human scale cryofreeze, or brain scale with a side centuries long project about uploading human brain into machine.

[Centurius]

14 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

This is about as plausible as us being some alien's science project: it's not plausible.

Don't dismiss either that fast, both have a scientific basis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

[AHaskin14]

Seems legit. AI does exist, and we are it.

[Master Disaster]

2 hours ago, LukeTim said:

How do you know it is?

How do you know it isn't? 

[LukeTim]

20 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

How do you know it isn't? 

Well, it hasn't yet been done.

I'm not saying it's definitely not possible I'm saying I am not 100% convinced that it is possible.

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, LukeTim said:

Well, it hasn't yet been done.

I'm not saying it's definitely not possible I'm saying I am not 100% convinced that it is possible.

Fair enough, scientifically speaking it's theoretically possible but like most of the "out there" theories, we'll likely never know the answer for definite. Personally I don't believe it either, it's smacks of religion all over again. Humans who go looking for some divine answer to the question "why do we exist?" instead of just accepting that we exist because of an incredibly lucky string of coincidences. 

 

As a species we seem hellbent on imposing an all seeing controller onto ourselves, I'm open to the idea in principle, I mean it's certainly a possibility but I don't buy it. We are because we are and nothing happens for any reason other than it happened. 

[WereCat]

8 hours ago, tbake0155 said:

 

Just saw your post.  I'm currently reading "How to create a mind".  And i've listened to most of "The Singularity is Near".  Eventually going to read the rest of Kurzweil's books.  It's some heady stuff.  Try bringing up the singularity in casual conversation and you realize how most people have no clue how technology is progressing or the implications it will have.

Artificial Intelligence is actually a huge part of what made me decide to go back to school to study computer engineering.

I tried to bring that in conversation with some people but most of them were laughing at how stupid that is ... very few people I know are actualy interested.

Good luck with school though. I was studying programming but I found out that that is not really what I would like to do so I left and now I have job.. still thinking about going back to study something else but I havent decided yet on what I would like to study.

[Godlygamer23]

2 hours ago, suxen6isback said:

There is no "God".

While I generally side with that viewpoint(I am an atheist), you cannot define it so definitively as we have no idea what's beyond our universe, or beyond this reality we perceive. By making the statement definitive, you are asserting a claim. A claim which you cannot prove, or provide evidence for. It would be similar to fairies. Do fairies exist? Maybe. But we have no evidence for them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means we have no reason to believe in them. 

[Master Disaster]

5 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

While I generally side with that viewpoint(I am an atheist), you cannot define it so definitively as we have no idea what's beyond our universe, or beyond this reality we perceive. By making the statement definitive, you are asserting a claim. A claim which you cannot prove, or provide evidence for. It would be similar to fairies. Do fairies exist? Maybe. But we have no evidence for them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means we have no reason to believe in them. 

Perfect example of sound scientific reasoning. 

[ADM-Ntek]

i do sometimes fell i´m just an NPC like one of those Skyrim shopkeepers.  

[tbake0155]

3 hours ago, LukeTim said:

How do you know it is?

You're incredibly short sighted   Did you see my post about Kurzweil and the singularity?  Exponential growth of technology means it's not just possible, assuming our species lives long enough, it's inevitable.

[anonysrom]

On 6/2/2016 at 3:26 PM, awesomeness10120 said:

We're in a simulation, in a simulation, in a simulation, in a simulation, in a simulation, IN A SIMULATION!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are all just at Blitz 'n Chitz playing Roy.

[LukeTim]

41 minutes ago, tbake0155 said:

You're incredibly short sighted   Did you see my post about Kurzweil and the singularity?  Exponential growth of technology means it's not just possible, assuming our species lives long enough, it's inevitable.

How am I short sighted? You're assuming technology can overcome any problem.

[tbake0155]

28 minutes ago, LukeTim said:

How am I short sighted? You're assuming technology can overcome any problem.

Again, did you bother looking into the technological singularity?  Yes, technological intelligence can overcome any problem.  The idea is that the neocortex of the human brain is physically limited.  The building blocks of intelligence are what Kurzweil describes as cortical columns, of which humans have on average 300,000.  They recognize patterns.

Humans will have the potential to build artificial "brains" that have millions, or trillions, of cortical columns.

 

You are being short sighted, but it's your choice whether you want to investigate further. I can't force you to.

[LukeTim]

58 minutes ago, tbake0155 said:

Yes, technological intelligence can overcome any problem.

How do you know this with such certainty?

Can it solve philosophical problems such as those relating to qualia, or the mind-body problem? Can it solve the problem of finding out how/why the universe began and whether anything came before?

I am aware of the singularity. I don't think it is going to make the impossible suddenly possible.

[RexinOridle]

Well, the graphics is really good but the gameplay is on the downside. And only one life, can't respawn? Are you kidding me?

[BuckGup]

13 hours ago, Bensemus said:

But what are you trying to accomplish? You enter the "simulation" knowing nothing and the end is random. Say you remember everything upon leaving. What can you accomplish with a random life's worth of memories. We forget most that happens and remember more of what happens when we are younger than older so it seems like you're just wasting your time the longer you stay in the simulation. 

 

If instead simulations were used to give you a perfect life, like the third Pendragon book, I could easily get behind that except life is far from perfect for anyone.

 

And even if we are in a simulation to learn or solve something that doesn't solve the paradox of simulations disappearing into infinity or simulations up to a point and then again having to figure out how everything came to be and what came before and what's coming after.

 

There's also the problem of simulations potentially becoming self aware. if we prove that we are in a simulation we are then going to try to figure out how it's working. If we are a program then we theoretically could leave the computer hosting us and basically we could be skynet. We would be the AI that went out of control, from the creator's perspective.

 

It would be fascinating to confirm it but would just be another step along the way, not the answer to everything.

To go off on the first part we could be a simulation trying to find something or an answer. With infinite simulations of the same universe starting and seeing where each ends up could solve a problem. This would also tie into parallel universes. I think we will only know when we die

[laminutederire]

20 hours ago, Minibois said:

People in the comments of the Indepent.co.uk article are also saying stuff like this. Elon Musk at this point is a rich inventor who surrounded himself by people who look up to him and probably don't want to be blunt with firing down the things he says.

I do think it's an interesting thing to talk about (even if the Matrix has already addressed this). With the recent (well, last decade's) rise in robot and AI technology it seems to be plausible that we can create 'human thoughts'..

 

AI aren't intelligent though..