- This topic has 27 replies, 1,906 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
my proposed theory, with no explanation:
humans were designed to either manufacture or somehow ‘manage’ the distribution of energy on earth. we are essentially walking robots, who are unaware they were manufactured for this simple reason. our brains, although claimed to be much more powerful than we could ever dive into, are preprogrammed by whomever to not be able to tap into the inner workings. only our consciousness.
sounds to me a lot like what we are doing with computers. we make them and utilize them on a daily basis to make our lives ‘easier’. right. what a dismal failure that has turned out to be. so far, anyway. but i think we will turn a corner where heaps of discarded ‘robutt’ material will be piling up in landfills (mostly hazardous landfills, btw, if discarded properly).
we are the gods of computers. we essentially live through them, yet they have no consciousness of this. they get up when we turn them on. go to sleep when we unplug them. die when the better ones come out. all to end up under a certain amount of eroded mountains after a long enough period of time.
i guess that is part one. thoughts?
my second part would be, humans are able to make really bad choices. or perhaps it is our owner that feeds us shitty ‘food/electricity’. either way, i can’t think of a reason a modern day computer would want to take drugs. i think most humans do it recreationally or as a form of escapism. how would a computer get fucked up? is that possible? would their buzz die off and then they would crave more? they already get viruses and sick, just like humans, why not get fucked up too?
-
-
-
-
Pretty interesting. We are computers made of what we would call ‘organic matter’, yet that matter could be the same to others (whoever these others may be) as steel and bolts could be to us.
In that case, you could consider our so-called instincts as programmed software. I once read that there is no such thing as free will; you realize that you did something milliseconds after doing it. They measured that with brain scans and such. Does that mean that that is simply our program running? Just doing the things it is supposed to do, while creating the illusion of a free will?
What if computers would get the same sort of programming, with a sense of will and emotions? What makes them different from us then?
-
Pretty interesting. We are computers made of what we would call ‘organic matter’, yet that matter could be the same to others (whoever these others may be) as steel and bolts could be to us.
In that case, you could consider our so-called instincts as programmed software. I once read that there is no such thing as free will; you realize that you did something milliseconds after doing it. They measured that with brain scans and such. Does that mean that that is simply our program running? Just doing the things it is supposed to do, while creating the illusion of a free will?
What if computers would get the same sort of programming, with a sense of will and emotions? What makes them different from us then?[/quote:zgrtgy5o]
exactly. what makes them different? i asked my father his opinion and he said computers don’t evolve, but humans do. meaning, humans evolve on their own, but computers evolve, just not by themselves. however, i disagree. if you can agree that some sort of creator made humans, then you can kind of correlate the two. the creator gives us the DNA, the building blocks of evolution. however, a robotics engineer also gives the building blocks of evolution to a robot. he programs the new one to do the newest dance, a form of evolution. or recognize 500 new voice commands. evolution.
only problem is robots/computers don’t seem to have free will. they also do not have the ability to reproduce on their own. yet. i guess that’s my point.
i think we are fucking robots.
-
machines of god
we could all be part of a computer simulation:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/wh … 25825.html
so it’s a computer simulation to find out if the universe is a computer simulation
-
-
-
it seems that these/this theory(s) rely on some sort of \"god\"
what if there was no god(s)?i believe that \"life\" spawned from a single cell organism, millions of years ago, and evolved from there.
i, myself, have seen enough evidence to convince me that this \"story\" is about right……..or on the right trackthe way i see it, there is a huge grey area in between the god vs no-god theory, it is not just black and white.
-
well, suppose that evolution is a sort of \"god\", creating organisms and intelligent life over billions of years, then you can look at it as evolutionary ‘programming’. I don’t think robots/computers could be programmed to evolve in the same way though, we are not technologically advanced enough – yet.
-
-
In that case, you could consider our so-called instincts as programmed software. I once read that there is no such thing as free will; you realize that you did something milliseconds after doing it. They measured that with brain scans and such. Does that mean that that is simply our program running? Just doing the things it is supposed to do, while creating the illusion of a free will?[/quote:34gbrpkk]
super interesting, gloom. however, in this experiment, i would question the rate of response by the instruments measuring the response by our own internal instrument – the brain. what i mean is, if a brain uses electricity to communicate messages across one’s body, which it does, they are sent at the speed of light, or just shy. even a machine that could measure that velocity would be hard pressed to return it’s own measure of that response, either concurrent, or after the response, in a truly accurate manner. i see the delay as only a measure of the instruments used to gather the information. much in the same way we can never study the stars we see, as we are only studying light that is a few to millions of light years away. we can study light in reference to ourselves, but there is a delay that we always seem to disregard as irrelevant or not important. it’s just on a much more micro scale. hope this makes sense?
-
-
-
Exactly. In my humble opinion, the ‘conclusions’ of this study wouldn’t even change, if this delay was taken away. The ‘conclusions’ will only appear sooner. Or they will change faster, since in evolution no conclusion stands long.
how would a computer get fucked up? is that possible? would their buzz die off and then they would crave more? they already get viruses and sick, just like humans, why not get fucked up too?[/quote:37udnp11]
Humans have a free will (or as some would say, can make a choice) to get fucked up, computers don’t. In the case of computers, it are always humans that fuck them up. Always. Or let’s put it like this; in the end there is always a human being in control of the fucking up. -
as far as i know, stars are being studied. just because there’s this tiny delay, doesn’t mean we can’t study them. what we do see is what’s used to study them.[/quote:2unyloir]
well it’s not a tiny delay. with respect to the stars, it’s on the macro scale. i’m just using it as an analogy to point out the micro delay in the experiment gloom is discussing i don’t believe is possible to be measured, either accurately or precisely. for example, i think the light you see from the sun takes 8 seconds to get here.
-
how would a computer get fucked up? is that possible? would their buzz die off and then they would crave more? they already get viruses and sick, just like humans, why not get fucked up too?[/quote:2u6ttz6s]
Humans have a free will (or as some would say, can make a choice) to get fucked up, computers don’t. In the case of computers, it are always humans that fuck them up. Always. Or let’s put it like this; in the end there is always a human being in control of the fucking up.[/quote:2u6ttz6s]i don’t think that is true. i think a human may start the process. sending a digital shot of THC via cable wires to other computers on the network. those computers, in turn, either receive the buzz, or don’t, depending on their availability to receive and also preprogrammed responses. but after that, a computer is operating independent of human control. it’s using a bunch of if then statements to decide what to do with the information it just intercepted. much like we do with the information we receive daily, from advertisements, drugs, allergens, etc. we have preprogrammed and/or learned responses to these signals. i see them as almost identical.
i think what separates us currently, however, is computers/robots really have no pleasure center. whoever built us, gave us this pleasure center, or if you don’t believe in that, evolution created a pleasure center in our brain over time. and since it is there, you would make the assumption that we are better off as a species with it than without it, with regards to survival.
what for?
-
in the end there is always a human being in control of the fucking up.[/quote:3sdibeij]
i think a human may start the process. <edit> but after that, a computer is operating independent of human control.[/quote:3sdibeij]
Can the almighty God create a rock that he/she cannot lift? Yes. Uhm, no. God is not almighty, we can conclude, at least.Can the almighty human being create a computer that can operate independant of human control? Yes. Uhm, maybe not, after all. There is always a human being in the background that controlled something. The computer has to be designed, it has to be build, it has to programmed, it needs energy to operate. So many switches here that are controlled but by the computer itself. Human being is not almighty either, and computers will not take over the world.
-
as far as i know, stars are being studied. just because there’s this tiny delay, doesn’t mean we can’t study them. what we do see is what’s used to study them.[/quote:3vgfi75i]
well it’s not a tiny delay. with respect to the stars, it’s on the macro scale. i’m just using it as an analogy to point out the micro delay in the experiment gloom is discussing i don’t believe is possible to be measured, either accurately or precisely. for example, i think the light you see from the sun takes 8 seconds to get here.[/quote:3vgfi75i]
i know it’s not tiny. i was just trying to exaggerate my point (that a delay doesn’t mean you can’t study things).and i thought it was more in the order of 8 minutes, not seconds.
-
-
-
it’s not that bad. could be way worse. and it would be hard to be less off. there isn’t that much room there.
normally i look at mistakes in powers of ten. (no need to be more precise when you’re looking at being a factor off of something.) so yours was only a factor 10 off. (then there’s 100, 1,000, and so on.)
in this system, you couldn’t be less off, or you’d be right (factor 1). -
how would a computer get fucked up? is that possible? would their buzz die off and then they would crave more? they already get viruses and sick, just like humans, why not get fucked up too?[/quote:1v1rccix]
Humans have a free will (or as some would say, can make a choice) to get fucked up, computers don’t. In the case of computers, it are always humans that fuck them up. Always. Or let’s put it like this; in the end there is always a human being in control of the fucking up.[/quote:1v1rccix]i don’t think that is true. i think a human may start the process. sending a digital shot of THC via cable wires to other computers on the network. those computers, in turn, either receive the buzz, or don’t, depending on their availability to receive and also preprogrammed responses. but after that, a computer is operating independent of human control. it’s using a bunch of if then statements to decide what to do with the information it just intercepted. much like we do with the information we receive daily, from advertisements, drugs, allergens, etc. we have preprogrammed and/or learned responses to these signals. i see them as almost identical.
i think what separates us currently, however, is computers/robots really have no pleasure center. whoever built us, gave us this pleasure center, or if you don’t believe in that, evolution created a pleasure center in our brain over time. and since it is there, you would make the assumption that we are better off as a species with it than without it, with regards to survival.
what for?[/quote:1v1rccix]
But wouldn’t the computer’s ‘pleasure centre’ be one of its pre-programmed responses?
-
-
-
bump.
so many similiarities. hard to ignore.
what i sort of declare, (to be denounced), is that we create computers and all their reactions. computers are \"evolving\", not randomly, but by deliberate choices, by humans, to make our lives more simple. specifically, computers are \"evolving\" into robots. given enough time, i do believe we can work out many kinks and develop a world where the robots are aware of what they need to survive – we can program them to take the necessary precautions to be sustainable. basically, on their own.
what i cannot see, is a desire to fulfill this duty. for some reason, humans (for the most part) want to make things better for humanity and strive to embody this stance. however, if a robot starts to feel hungry and makes a decision to just say \"fuck it\", who is there to stop them? no one. do we then program them a god?
much like suicide. people give up. they are given the appropriate software/hardware, but the internal wiring goes wrong somehow and the preprogrammed make a \"wrong\" decision based upon what we wanted. who are we then? we become the god(s).
then introduce human error and viruses and sickness. this is going to happen. it’s already happening. i find it intriguing!!!
-
-
The forum ‘Philosophical Forum’ is closed to new topics and replies.
