From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Sun May 28 2000 - 16:21:20 MDT
altamira wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. I gather from your explanation that your
> original post was...how shall I say?...facetious. Still, it brings up some
> interesting trains of thought. The quantum computer thing sounds pretty much
> like an old fashioned god.
Essentially, however, one of the interesting things about quantum computations
is all steps happen at the same time to the outside operator, they cannot
interfere in the simulation being run.
> But in order for the guy running the simulation
> to be entertained by the simulation, he? she? it? would have to give the
> acting subjects some equivalent of free will or at least build in random
> determinates of the subjects' behavior, don't you think?
Assuming that the purpose is for entertainment is not really a viable one, IMHO.
Its more a matter of testing possible alternate histories or alternate sets of
physical laws.
> So if the subjects
> are given the ability to think and learn, I still don't see why you say that
> we couldn't escape from the simulation. (I'm guessing that one of the
> assumptions of the quantum computer theory is that humans are part of a
> computer simulation. In this case,at least some of the subjects in the
> simulation have the ability to think and learn).
Since you are part of the simulation, you cannot escape the simulation during
the course of the simulation, however there are the possibilities of both
sending messages to the operator that they can read after they have finished
running the simulation, and they could also conceivably keep a log of the whole
simulation and pull your personality out of it as a separate entity.
> I saw *The Matrix* yesterday and thought the acting and special effects were
> very good. I enjoyed some of the dialogue immensely, liked the emphasis on
> the individual and the presentation of a heroic hero. But I found the story
> disappointing overall. The idea of the simulation was intriguing, but I was
> sorry the authors didn't give the machines some more interesting use for
> humans than as sources of electrical energy.
The energy thing was there purely for purposes of product placement. Duracell
payed a lot of money for their battery to be used in that scene. However, it
also helps debase the idea of the human as a part of the system. If the concept
had been that the AI gained its conciousness from everyone's minds being merged
as a large computer, then there would be the issue of moral qualms over it, at
least as far as the more communalist/socialist/communistic people who watch the
movie would be concerned. Individualists like myself would still see it as
criminal.
>
> Would an intelligent machine necessarily be curious?
I don't see why not. Your brain is a machine. Why are you curious?
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:52 MST