5 ms·

This is some god of the gaps bullshit. You're basically just saying that since humans are systems we can't yet accurately model with a computer we're clearly sp

This is some god of the gaps bullshit. You're basically just saying that since humans are systems we can't yet accurately model with a computer we're clearly special. You're just asserting that humans meet some arbitrary standard of complexity without an explanation of why that standard matters.

Vecr 4y ago
Humans (or a human in singular, all humans might actually be easier in a sense) probably can't be simulated into the future very well at all. A human brain is a highly chaotic system, so the ability to simulate it would be affected by the inability to get precise state information in the first place (probably bumping into uncertainty, if you could somehow even get that far), and after that I suspect you would get massive divergences due to quantum effects. If that's not enough, if I suspected I was being simulated I would fuzz my decision making with fundamentally unpredictable random numbers to put a stop to that problem. Probably something along the lines of the quote "all processes that are stable we shall predict. All processes that are unstable we shall control" would work better. Just brain chip everyone so they can't diverge from the simulation.
- pegasus 4y ago
  The flow of a river is also highly chaotic - look at all the turbulence for example. It's course over it's lifetime (of millenia) is similarly unpredictable.
  - Vecr 4y ago
    Well, yes, but predicting a river or a human on a 1-month time scale would be useful in many cases, but the human would be much more likely to diverge in an unpredictable way during that time. Possibly a river could do a few things, and you would get a useful list from the prediction, but a human would probably not have a such simple list.
eternalban 4y ago
No, you didn't read. You missed the bit about disconnected from environmentl -You- are the one with the "bullshit". Show how there is causal deterministic connection between the environment and behavior of a thinking person.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  > Show how there is causal deterministic connection between the environment and behavior of a thinking person. ...how could there not be? The idea that we're separate from the environment is an abstraction that allows us to operate in the world but it isn't reality. We're made up of the same elements as everything around us. We are created and built from them, and our brain is an elaborate machine operating on electro-chemical interactions. If our environment could not influence our behavior, then psychology and psychiatry wouldn't exist. The only substantial difference is the scale of the system. That you cannot draw a straight line from cause to outcome does not mean the system is not deterministic[0], it just means that it is too complex for you to comprehend. [0] One might be inclined to bring up quantum mechanics, but that's a property of the entire universe including the river. And quantum behavior is very predictable, even if it is not exactly deterministic.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    Influence is not causality. My seeing a piece of cake and deciding whether to eat it or not is the question on the table friend. Are you familiar with the idea of 'self control'?
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
      > Influence is not causality. Yes it is, it just isn't very direct because the system we're trying to influence is very complicated. It's like the weather. We can influence the weather with things like cloud seeding, but it is a complex system so it is difficult to make precise predictions about. Introducing selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors in the brain is similar. If you are arguing it is not, then you are again arguing a matter of degree. We understand how rivers flow well enough to be able to change that, but all that's missing from doing the same to weather, or the brain, is sufficient understanding of the system. > Are you familiar with the idea of 'self control'? Yes, probably much more so than you are since I've struggled with a food addiction my entire life and have managed to lose half my body weight at one point. Of course you think you are in control, the same way a nematode might believe it is in control, but since we can simulate the entire brain of a nematode on a computer we know that the control is an illusion and the nematode brain is a system reacting to its environment in a complex way. Our brains are the same, they're just much much larger and more complex. Not being able to simulate them on a computer yet does not in any way suggest that this is impossible.

Vecr 4y ago

Humans (or a human in singular, all humans might actually be easier in a sense) probably can't be simulated into the future very well at all. A human brain is a highly chaotic system, so the ability to simulate it would be affected by the inability to get precise state information in the first place (probably bumping into uncertainty, if you could somehow even get that far), and after that I suspect you would get massive divergences due to quantum effects. If that's not enough, if I suspected I was being simulated I would fuzz my decision making with fundamentally unpredictable random numbers to put a stop to that problem. Probably something along the lines of the quote "all processes that are stable we shall predict. All processes that are unstable we shall control" would work better. Just brain chip everyone so they can't diverge from the simulation.

pegasus 4y ago
The flow of a river is also highly chaotic - look at all the turbulence for example. It's course over it's lifetime (of millenia) is similarly unpredictable.
- Vecr 4y ago
  Well, yes, but predicting a river or a human on a 1-month time scale would be useful in many cases, but the human would be much more likely to diverge in an unpredictable way during that time. Possibly a river could do a few things, and you would get a useful list from the prediction, but a human would probably not have a such simple list.

eternalban 4y ago

No, you didn't read. You missed the bit about disconnected from environmentl -You- are the one with the "bullshit". Show how there is causal deterministic connection between the environment and behavior of a thinking person.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
> Show how there is causal deterministic connection between the environment and behavior of a thinking person. ...how could there not be? The idea that we're separate from the environment is an abstraction that allows us to operate in the world but it isn't reality. We're made up of the same elements as everything around us. We are created and built from them, and our brain is an elaborate machine operating on electro-chemical interactions. If our environment could not influence our behavior, then psychology and psychiatry wouldn't exist. The only substantial difference is the scale of the system. That you cannot draw a straight line from cause to outcome does not mean the system is not deterministic[0], it just means that it is too complex for you to comprehend. [0] One might be inclined to bring up quantum mechanics, but that's a property of the entire universe including the river. And quantum behavior is very predictable, even if it is not exactly deterministic.
- eternalban 4y ago
  Influence is not causality. My seeing a piece of cake and deciding whether to eat it or not is the question on the table friend. Are you familiar with the idea of 'self control'?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
    > Influence is not causality. Yes it is, it just isn't very direct because the system we're trying to influence is very complicated. It's like the weather. We can influence the weather with things like cloud seeding, but it is a complex system so it is difficult to make precise predictions about. Introducing selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors in the brain is similar. If you are arguing it is not, then you are again arguing a matter of degree. We understand how rivers flow well enough to be able to change that, but all that's missing from doing the same to weather, or the brain, is sufficient understanding of the system. > Are you familiar with the idea of 'self control'? Yes, probably much more so than you are since I've struggled with a food addiction my entire life and have managed to lose half my body weight at one point. Of course you think you are in control, the same way a nematode might believe it is in control, but since we can simulate the entire brain of a nematode on a computer we know that the control is an illusion and the nematode brain is a system reacting to its environment in a complex way. Our brains are the same, they're just much much larger and more complex. Not being able to simulate them on a computer yet does not in any way suggest that this is impossible.