Diageo Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 Well, some neuroscientific findings suggest we do not have free will, but may simply be very advanced AI's in a huge system of causality. And which findings are these?
arab_freak Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 And which findings are these? http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm First, there's British philosopher Nick Bostrom, who came up with a statistical argument that we're living in an extremely sophisticated version of The Sims. The idea is that we have the ability and the inclination to build our own simulated realities, as evidenced by the growing video game industry. Thus it's inevitable that we'll build our own Matrix one day, when our level of technology allows it. That simulation will continue to grow in realism and complexity until one day it will have its own civilization, who will want to build a simulation of their own, and onward to infinity. If that's true, then there might be a virtually infinite number of simulations out there, so the chances that we're one of them are actually much higher than the chances that we're not. Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_20484_the-6-most-wtf-scientific-theories-about-existence.html#ixzz2Y8JFyH6p
EEVILMURRAY Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 "Thus it's inevitable that we'll build our own Matrix one day, when our level of technology allows it." Maybe we already have...
Ville Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 There's also this: The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation One of modern physics’ most cherished ideas is quantum chromodynamics, the theory that describes the strong nuclear force, how it binds quarks and gluons into protons and neutrons, how these form nuclei that themselves interact. This is the universe at its most fundamental. So an interesting pursuit is to simulate quantum chromodynamics on a computer to see what kind of complexity arises. The promise is that simulating physics on such a fundamental level is more or less equivalent to simulating the universe itself. There are one or two challenges of course. The physics is mind-bogglingly complex and operates on a vanishingly small scale. So even using the world’s most powerful supercomputers, physicists have only managed to simulate tiny corners of the cosmos just a few femtometers across. (A femtometer is 10^-15 metres.) That may not sound like much but the significant point is that the simulation is essentially indistinguishable from the real thing (at least as far as we understand it). It’s not hard to imagine that Moore’s Law-type progress will allow physicists to simulate significantly larger regions of space. A region just a few micrometres across could encapsulate the entire workings of a human cell. Again, the behaviour of this human cell would be indistinguishable from the real thing. It’s this kind of thinking that forces physicists to consider the possibility that our entire cosmos could be running on a vastly powerful computer. If so, is there any way we could ever know? Today, we get an answer of sorts from Silas Beane, at the University of Bonn in Germany, and a few pals. They say there is a way to see evidence that we are being simulated, at least in certain scenarios. First, some background. The problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time. The question that Beane and co ask is whether the lattice spacing imposes any kind of limitation on the physical processes we see in the universe. They examine, in particular, high energy processes, which probe smaller regions of space as they get more energetic What they find is interesting. They say that the lattice spacing imposes a fundamental limit on the energy that particles can have. That’s because nothing can exist that is smaller than the lattice itself. So if our cosmos is merely a simulation, there ought to be a cut off in the spectrum of high energy particles. It turns out there is exactly this kind of cut off in the energy of cosmic ray particles, a limit known as the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin or GZK cut off. This cut-off has been well studied and comes about because high energy particles interact with the cosmic microwave background and so lose energy as they travel long distances. -- http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 This is what I was referring to specifically: Scientific evidence that you probably don't have free will As the early results of scientific brain experiments are showing, our minds appear to be making decisions before we're actually aware of them — and at times by a significant degree. It's a disturbing observation that has led some neuroscientists to conclude that we're less in control of our choices than we think — at least as far as some basic movements and tasks are concerned. [...] For example, a study by John-Dylan Haynes in 2008 showed a similar effect to the one revealed by Libet. After putting participants into an fMRI scanner, he told them to press a button with either their right or left index fingers at their leisure, but that they had to remember the letter that was showing on the screen at the precise moment they were committed to their movement. The results were shocking. Haynes's data showed that the BP occurred one entire second prior to conscious awareness — and at other times as much as ten seconds. Following the publication of his paper, he told Nature News: "The first thought we had was 'we have to check if this is real.' We came up with more sanity checks than I've ever seen in any other study before." The cognitive delay, he argued, was likely due to the operation of a network of high-level control areas that were preparing for an upcoming decision long before it entered into conscious awareness. Basically, the brain starts to unconsciously churn in preparation of a decision, and once a set of conditions are met, awareness kicks in, and the movement is made. [...] Indeed, Sam Harris has made a compelling case that we don't have [free will], but that it's not a problem. Moreover, he argues that the ongoing belief in free will needs to come to an end: "A person's conscious thoughts, intentions, and efforts at every moment are preceded by causes of which he is unaware. What is more, they are preceded by deep causes — genes, childhood experience, etc. — for which no one, however evil, can be held responsible. Our ignorance of both sets of facts gives rise to moral illusions. And yet many people worry that it is necessary to believe in free will, especially in the process of raising children." Harris doesn't believe that the illusoriness of free will is an "ugly truth," nor something that will forever be relegated to philosophical abstractions. This is science, he says, and it's something we need to come to grips with. "Recognizing that my conscious mind is always downstream from the underlying causes of my thoughts, intentions, and actions does not change the fact that thoughts, intentions, and actions of all kinds are necessary for living a happy life — or an unhappy one, for that matter," he writes.
Jonnas Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 Surely that study says more about how our thoughts and decisions process, and less about how predetermined our decisions are. Yes, it's easy to say that every decision we make was predictable from the start when we take into account our personalities, experiences, circumstances, etc. But isn't the entire point of free will that it is down to each individual?
MoogleViper Posted July 5, 2013 Author Posted July 5, 2013 This is what I was referring to specifically: Scientific evidence that you probably don't have free will I'm not sure why, but I just find Sam Harris to be incredibly disagreeable.
Tales Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 Surely that study says more about how our thoughts and decisions process, and less about how predetermined our decisions are.Yes, it's easy to say that every decision we make was predictable from the start when we take into account our personalities, experiences, circumstances, etc. But isn't the entire point of free will that it is down to each individual? I don't know that much about physics, but isn't it a fact(theory, idea, point etc) that atoms are predictable, hence everything is predictiable? I have read about this before, it isn't a new thing or discovery. The problem is in the second to last paragraph, if we agree to this, no one is responsible for anything they do. In another article I read, people, believing this, may start to do make more irresponsible and hasty decisions that they wouldn't make otherwise, thinking that it was predetermined or not of free will in any case.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 I'm not sure why, but I just find Sam Harris to be incredibly disagreeable. I do, too, actually, on some accounts. For instance, I disagree widely with his idea that morality and ethics can be reached objectively through science; in that regard he seems to be entirely lacking a solid grasp of the limits of both science and philosophy. Surely that study says more about how our thoughts and decisions process, and less about how predetermined our decisions are.Yes, it's easy to say that every decision we make was predictable from the start when we take into account our personalities, experiences, circumstances, etc. But isn't the entire point of free will that it is down to each individual? I don't know that much about physics, but isn't it a fact(theory, idea, point etc) that atoms are predictable, hence everything is predictiable? I have read about this before, it isn't a new thing or discovery. The problem is in the second to last paragraph, if we agree to this, no one is responsible for anything they do. In another article I read, people, believing this, may start to do make more irresponsible and hasty decisions that they wouldn't make otherwise, thinking that it was predetermined or not of free will in any case. I think the problem is that people, in their traditional understanding of determinism/"fate", consider it a force above them that will inevitably guide everything towards a set goal when in fact all of our choices and actions are pieces in the great game of marbles that is the universe. Our actions do matter, more than anything - we're not simply powerless spectators. I don't think there's actually anything new about this; we have long acknowledged the fact that a traumatic childhood or mental defect can be the cause of a person committing a horrible crime; that doesn't mean we absolve him of his guilt, it just means we recognise the factors that led to him doing it. As Harris points out, the fact that the world is inherently deterministic doesn't take away the impact, value and importance of our individual actions. That is essential.
Ganepark32 Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 This isn't exactly new and has most likely been posted before but I got showed this last night and it's just awesome (well I think so anyway). If only he was the flight attendant on all flights!
Rummy Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 (edited) Saw this on the LADBible, truly awesome. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2360154/Paralysed-man-raises-20-000-treatment-help-walk--gives-away-help-disabled-child-steps.html Learn to walk for me: Paralysed man raises £20,000 for treatment to help him walk...then gives it all away to help a disabled child take HIS first steps Dan Black, 25, was paralysed when he was knocked off his bike in 2009 Also suffered a stroke which caused him to lose use of his right arm Raised £20,000 to pay for stem cell treatment which could help him recover Gave all the money to family of Brecon Vaughan, 5, who has cerebral palsy Will be used to help pay for surgery in the U.S. - this should enable Brecon to take his first unaided steps Four years ago, Dan Black was paralysed in a cycling accident. Ever since, he has been raising money for pioneering stem cell treatment which could one day help him walk again. But now, after collecting £20,000, the 25-year-old has given it all away – so a little boy can learn to walk instead. Mr Black abandoned his own dream after hearing about five-year-old Brecon Vaughan, who lives near him just outside Chepstow, in South Wales...*full story in the link* When you see/read the article, or for me at least, you kinda expect it to be someone older for some reason. This lad's only 25, but he's given up his own potential hopes of walking after all of this for a kid with a better chance. I just think that's a bit remarkable really. Edited July 14, 2013 by Rummy
bob Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 I thought this was pretty awesome - i always wondered what would happen if a professional golfer actually tried the Happy Gilmore drive: http://www.buzzfeed.com/erikmalinowski/some-professional-golfers-tried-out-the-happy-gilmore-challe
S.C.G Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 ^ That's actually a brilliant idea though it's sad to think that its come down to this... Plus a slight design flaw, a lot of those types of phones have a glass screen so I'm sure you'd get a load of condensation collecting on the phone; not that I care as I wouldn't own one of those but it's a consideration in any case. Honestly though I don't see why people wouldn't just turn off their phones for a short period of time or just put them away.
Cube Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 And if your phone is slightly too thin (or too fat), the drink will spill onto the phone. And then there's the hand-eye coordination of people who have had a few. And if you haven't disabled vibrate your drink will spill when it goes off.
bob Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 Or you could just hold the drink in one hand and the phone in the other...
Retro_Link Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 So only beer glasses then Stupid idea. Some people are just going to forget it's a special glass and just put it down normally. Others will probably just go to a different bar :p
The Peeps Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 Could you not just use the edge of the table? It's a good joke/commentary on social life or whatever.. but as a real thing it's obviously impractical. Is it meant to be taken seriously?
MoogleViper Posted July 16, 2013 Author Posted July 16, 2013 Is it meant to be taken seriously? No. . . . .
The Peeps Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 Didn't think so, but all the comments before mine had me in doubt.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 The third episode of Mario Warfare is finally up, and it is as awesome as the others!
nightwolf Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I don't usually post these sort of things, but I love this. Simon from the Yogscast telling StraightPrideUK to go fuck themselves. Wonderful <3.
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 This is lovely. A friend that I went to Uni with is deaf and has made this video for the band The Levellers. It's the official video for the song. I had no idea she was doing this and apparently it was kept pretty quiet. So utterly brilliant.
bluey Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I want to publicly say thank you to @Ashley for sending me an orange wednesday code yesterday so jamba and i could go watch MU!
Recommended Posts