Selection pressures for long hair and beards in humans?

[excreationist]

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....

 

[DrZoidberg]

....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.

 

[Learner]

Intelligent doesn't have to mean infinitely perfect.... that also fits my "A God without compelling evidence?" theory....

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?21819-A-God-without-compelling-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 )

 

[excreationist]

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/showthr...PT-3-and-generating-images-from-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....

 

[excreationist]

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

 

[excreationist]

About the virtual history - (from The Simpsons Game)

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

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.

 

[excreationist]

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/showthr...ages-from-text&p=867702&viewfull=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.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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/showthr...ages-from-text&p=867702&viewfull=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.

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.

...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.

....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.

 

[excreationist]

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"...

 

[excreationist]

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.

No my theory includes evolution. It would seem like coincidence... or in the case of the platypus some skeptics thought it was fraud.

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.

Here are examples I think involve "nudges" - these happened when I was in hospital in 2019:
The Connect 4 event - https://lifesplayer.com/instagram.php#connect4
The upside down Bible - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Ni1yndxGE (see the description)
Coming up with the 5 LineNum shapes and the first 2 Christian LineNum symbols: https://linenum.com/
I guess you find none of that persuasive

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?

No I think if this is a simulation most mammals would involve guided evolution too....

Even so, it's a weak theory. Just removing God all together is a better theory. That doesn't rule out God.

If God exists then I think it is possible that he'd nudge things in a way that don't worry skeptics. I'm happy with the theory.

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.

See post #91
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...lling-evidence&p=867388&viewfull=1#post867388
BTW in most popular Christian movies based in a modern day world, God never audibly speaks to any of the characters or clearly intervenes... BTW there are some movies where people aren't sure what's real and what's not. I think those movies are more interesting than movies where you can be sure what's real....

....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.

I think our simulation can appear to involve a sub-atomic level. My problem is creating a copy of the "real" world accurate to a sub-atomic level. I can explain why.

The closer to reality a simulation is the better it is.

But you've got to also take into account how efficient it is - which involves making approximations like "level of detail".

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.

Not necessarily...
see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xWnOL5bts8
and Deep Fakes, etc.

Better just to keep it as close to reality as possible.

But does it really matter if each star faithfully involved 10^57 atoms each or if it just approximated it (using a well-trained AI)?

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.

Yes each neuron could be simulated.... but it doesn't need to also be accurate on a sub-atomic level (unless the observer is observing more closely)

 

[DrZoidberg]

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"...

That's pretty awesome. But it's still only about exploring a cool mechanic to see if it could possibly be useful in the future.

BTW, I should rephrase myself. It's not that AI is a bad term. But when they are using the term AI it tells you what the audience is. The audience is laypeople rather than people in the field. It might be about getting funding from an investor or selling stocks. Right now entrepenours will shoehorn the word AI everywhere they can because it means they're more likely to sell stock.

People who use the term AI use it to dazzle and amaze, rather than to seriously explain how something actually works. And it's nothing wrong with that. But you can't read a text using the term AI and think you've understood the underlying mechanic. Those articles are not going to explain it to a depth that is good enough. As a rule of thumb, if you don't need to be good at maths to understand an article on Machine Learning is probably a superficial overview article.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The closer to reality a simulation is the better it is.

But you've got to also take into account how efficient it is - which involves making approximations like "level of detail".

Why? Right now we're just speculating freely on something hypothetical. The computer for this doesn't exist.

 

[excreationist]

The closer to reality a simulation is the better it is.

But you've got to also take into account how efficient it is - which involves making approximations like "level of detail".

Why? Right now we're just speculating freely on something hypothetical. The computer for this doesn't exist.

Well Flight Simulator 2020 uses Machine Learning and can use "level of detail" to go from above the clouds to see individual blades of grass....
https://www.lifesplayer.com/flightsim.php

I don't think it is that much harder to make the grass more detailed when you got closer: (from "Honey I Shrunk the Kids")

Then it could eventually show plant cells if you zoomed even closer.... then atoms if you used the right tool like a virtual electron microscope...

Efficiency is important.... if Flight Simulator 2020 didn't use a top-down approach and instead used a bottom-up approach like Minecraft, you wouldn't be able to see much land when you're above the clouds.... and you wouldn't see blades of grass that look somewhat detailed...

 

[excreationist]

That's pretty awesome. But it's still only about exploring a cool mechanic to see if it could possibly be useful in the future.....

https://openai.com/blog/dall-e/
I think DALL-E is amazing... it seems to mainly just take "text prompts" and sometimes an "image prompt".... (i.e. it can be easy to use) I am looking forward to using it myself. It has more than a dozen uses and most I wouldn't have thought of.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why? Right now we're just speculating freely on something hypothetical. The computer for this doesn't exist.

Well Flight Simulator 2020 uses Machine Learning and can use "level of detail" to go from above the clouds to see individual blades of grass....
https://www.lifesplayer.com/flightsim.php

I don't think it is that much harder to make the grass more detailed when you got closer: (from "Honey I Shrunk the Kids")
View attachment 31665
Then it could eventually show plant cells if you zoomed even closer.... then atoms if you used the right tool like a virtual electron microscope...

Efficiency is important.... if Flight Simulator 2020 didn't use a top-down approach and instead used a bottom-up approach like Minecraft, you wouldn't be able to see much land when you're above the clouds.... and you wouldn't see blades of grass that look somewhat detailed...

So what? I don't understand how it's relevant. Yeah, it's cool. But it's a far cry from simulating the whole world. If we could accurately model all the known forces of nature on Earth, we would be able to predict weather months ahead. We're no where near that. You're talking about fakery to create the illusion of AI. To fool the mind. But human minds are easily fooled. So it's not that impressive. I suggest reading up on something called "gestalt theory".

 

[excreationist]

....So what? I don't understand how it's relevant. Yeah, it's cool. But it's a far cry from simulating the whole world....

Actually Flight Simulator 2020 can simulate the whole world - though just the part you're observing. (which could involve a huge vista from high above the clouds)

If we could accurately model all the known forces of nature on Earth, we would be able to predict weather months ahead. We're no where near that.

You're the one that said "The closer to reality a simulation is the better it is". I have always been against that. You said "It'll be a copy of the real world". I think it could just fill in the gaps with educated guesses.

You're talking about fakery to create the illusion of AI. To fool the mind. But human minds are easily fooled. So it's not that impressive. I suggest reading up on something called "gestalt theory".

About fooling humans minds not being impressive - well that's the technique I'm advocating. Not creating a perfect copy of the real world.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Actually Flight Simulator 2020 can simulate the whole world - though just the part you're observing. (which could involve a huge vista from high above the clouds)


You're the one that said "The closer to reality a simulation is the better it is". I have always been against that. You said "It'll be a copy of the real world". I think it could just fill in the gaps with educated guesses.

You're talking about fakery to create the illusion of AI. To fool the mind. But human minds are easily fooled. So it's not that impressive. I suggest reading up on something called "gestalt theory".

About fooling humans minds not being impressive - well that's the technique I'm advocating. Not creating a perfect copy of the real world.

You've lost me. I don't know what we are discussing anymore.

 

[excreationist]

You've lost me. I don't know what we are discussing anymore.

You seem to think that a simulation has to be a very close copy of reality (simulating on a sub-atomic level constantly). I'm talking about a video game that gives the impression that it is detailed right down to the subatomic level. In the game Flight Simulator 2020 if there is no "pop-in" you could fly from above the clouds to close to the grass and you'd have the impression that the grass was visible the whole time... (when you get further away it would just blur into a green area)
So it's about approximations (and "educated guesses") vs simulating every sub-atomic particle constantly... BTW to copy the state of the universe isn't practical... how would you scan each of the 10^57 atoms of each star? And how would you store that information?

 

[DrZoidberg]

You've lost me. I don't know what we are discussing anymore.

You seem to think that a simulation has to be a very close copy of reality (simulating on a sub-atomic level constantly). I'm talking about a video game that gives the impression that it is detailed right down to the subatomic level. In the game Flight Simulator 2020 if there is no "pop-in" you could fly from above the clouds to close to the grass and you'd have the impression that the grass was visible the whole time... (when you get further away it would just blur into a green area)
So it's about approximations (and "educated guesses") vs simulating every sub-atomic particle constantly... BTW to copy the state of the universe isn't practical... how would you scan each of the 10^57 atoms of each star? And how would you store that information?

But you are talking about a simulation of the real world. What's the point not making an accurate simulation, and only make one good enough to fool humans? That's the plot of Matrix. While a cool twist, it's a stupid plot device. It's in nobody's interest to do this. Nobody would make such a simulator. While fun to speculate on, it's been done already. It's the film Matrix. So we can stop discussing it and go and re-watch the movie instead