# Hacking Reality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275 "2009-10-10T04:01:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/1 "2009-10-10T04:01:17Z")
Start with the premise that computing power is increasing and getting cheaper to the point where in the future we will be able to create simulations of the past indistinguishable from actual reality “a Matrix.” Add the given that people in that future will be interested in playing games that involve such virtual realities, including simulations of past times on earth. We are left with the inescapable conclusion that we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. After all, we would have many, many simulations played by many many people just as we have many copies of Warcraft now. It is unlikely that you are one of the “players.” in such a reality, a real human. You are a bit of programming, a non player character, background. Of course, the realism factor of the simulation means that for all intents and purposes you are an actual independent thinking being, just an artificial one. You can pass a turing test otherwise you wouldn’t be good enough programming to be in the game. Naturally, you think you are a human rather than a bit of programming, as it would ruin the game if all the NPC realized they were artificial programs within a simulation. So, taking that as a given, I’ve been looking for the Easter Eggs, the cheats. Signs of the underlying program. This begs the question, what exactly should I be looking for? It seems likely that the simulation would need to be **deliberately** distinguishable from actual reality to a person who was a player rather than a bit of programming. Unfortunately as NPCs we would be programmed to ignore or not notice such signs. That we are programed in such a fashion is demonstrable. There is a rather famous awareness test wherein the test subjects view a room with two groups of people in it passing balls around. The subject is told to count the number of passes one of the groups makes. Afterwards they give the answer. They are then asked if they noticed the gorilla. You see, in the middle of the test a gorilla walks into the room and beats its chest and then walks out. Almost nobody ever notices the gorilla. Though, once you know it’s there, it’s quite obvious upon a second viewing. Try it on a spouse or friend: > **[movie 1](http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php)** > > The Visual Cognition Laboratory Home Page at the University of Illinois (Daniel J. Simons). The page contains information about the lab, links to demonstrations, and other resources. Tell them to count the number of passes by the people in white. So, we are designed to miss things we are not expecting to see. That in itself is pretty suspicious. The ability to recognize anomalies would have high survival value from an evolutionary standpoint, so it’s not reasonable that we don’t unless it’s been deliberately omitted from our psyches. Then, I’ve been thinking about who the players are. Thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/2 "2009-10-10T04:16:40Z")
I think a simulation of history in which simulated peoples minds differed in a fundamental way from minds of actual people would be sort of pointless, since the outcome of the simulation would then be likely different from that of the actual historical event. Plus it seems like they could just create some much more easily accessed difference that would make much less difference in the simulation. Add a constellation in the sky they could check for, for example, since the exact lay-out of the stars probably doesn’t have too much of an influence on many world events. Or give all the real people a third nipple, or no belly button, etc. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/3 "2009-10-10T04:53:54Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > We are left with the inescapable conclusion that we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. Someone needs to kick Sarah Palin off the server. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/4 "2009-10-10T05:32:34Z")
Here’s the citation to Bostrom’s paper: [http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html](http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html) I figure the main thing is to stay interesting to the player characters and DM. ---
**Author:** ![Walton\_Firm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/45deac/32.png) [@Walton\_Firm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walton_Firm)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/5 "2009-10-10T09:00:16Z")
I have to admit, whenever I read up on how things work at the sub-atomic level in quantum mechanics, it reminds me more of low-level computer programming than of how I would expect the real world to work at the sub-atomic level. > [@](#): > > I figure the main thing is to stay interesting to the player characters and DM. You know, you could base a pretty cool religion on that idea. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/6 "2009-10-10T09:24:36Z")
There’s one thing I’ve always wondered about in respect to this simulation argument – has anybody ever assessed the computational load of simulating billions of realities? Is such a thing even possible, utilising the (presumably finite) computational capacity of an entire universe (across its entire lifespan)? I have a hunch that you might end up needing rather more resources than the argument allows for, particularly because I’m not sure it’s all that easy to use ‘shortcuts’ and have the simulation turn out at all accurate – the interactions are just too chaotic for that to be easily feasible. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/7 "2009-10-10T09:49:20Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Start with the premise that computing power is increasing and getting cheaper to the point where in the future we will be able to create simulations of the past indistinguishable from actual reality “a Matrix.” Add the given that people in that future will be interested in playing games that involve such virtual realities, including simulations of past times on earth. > > We are left with the inescapable conclusion that we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. There’s at least one major flaw in that argument that occurs to me offhand; if the technology hasn’t been invented yet, then the chance that we are living in a simulation is zero. > [@Scylla](#): > > So, we are designed to miss things we are not expecting to see. That in itself is pretty suspicious. The ability to recognize anomalies would have high survival value from an evolutionary standpoint, so it’s not reasonable that we don’t unless it’s been deliberately omitted from our psyches. Except that there’s strong practical reasons for our perceptions and reasoning to take shortcuts; namely, information overload. One of the major problems in AI/robotics is getting the machine to ignore data so that it isn’t overwhelmed. And if some hypothetical programmer had put it there, I’d expect our anomaly-rejection programming to be a lot stronger and a lot more specific; we simply wouldn’t notice or be able to think about any simulation errors at all. In fact, if we HAVE been programmed to ignore programming anomalies, then it’s probably an entirely different system than the normal perceptual quirks you are speaking of, and this discussion is moot because we just won’t be able to see behind the curtain. As I see it, we’d pretty much have to hope for indifference on the part of the programmers because we aren’t going to be able to see past deliberate deception as practiced by someone with direct access to our minds. As for what errors to look for; actual contradictions in physical laws, or suspensions of those laws come to mind. Another would be connections between objects or events that have no means to be connected through normal interactions. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Happy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cab0a1/32.png) [@Mr\_Happy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Happy)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/8 "2009-10-10T12:47:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > There’s at least one major flaw in that argument that occurs to me offhand; if the technology hasn’t been invented yet, then the chance that we are living in a simulation is zero. It hasn’t been invented yet ‘in our world’. In this scenario, we’re just computer programs who believe that the world we are living in is real. The real world could have faster than light travel and flying cars. Also, when the OP asks “what should we be looking out for”, it’d be something simple. Perhaps “the real world” actually runs on a 48 hour day and seconds are half as long as they are in this simulation. Perhaps in the real world hello means goodbye and goodbye means hello. It would be something that is completely natural to Matrix-people yet easily seen by “real” people. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/9 "2009-10-10T13:00:06Z")
> [@Mr\_Happy](#): > > It hasn’t been invented yet ‘in our world’. In this scenario, we’re just computer programs who believe that the world we are living in is real. The real world could have faster than light travel and flying cars. I was talking about the probability argument that claims that the simulation scenario IS the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/10 "2009-10-10T13:04:20Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Thoughts? This is, of course, just the modern version of the skeptical argument with some cognitive science thrown in for flair. It’s gone from deceiving demons to brains in vats to computer simulations. You should see the [Thirteenth Floor](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/), a movie from 10 years ago that pretty much scoops your OP in its entirety. There’s a wealth of academic debate out there over how we know we’re not living in a computer simulation as you describe. I would think that someone of your sensibilities would find the most satisfying response to the hypothesis you propose is [this one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_a_hand). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/11 "2009-10-10T13:35:01Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > So, we are designed to miss things we are not expecting to see. That in itself is pretty suspicious. The ability to recognize anomalies would have high survival value from an evolutionary standpoint, so it’s not reasonable that we don’t unless it’s been deliberately omitted from our psyches. You need a better argument against evolution than that. It’s entirely unclear to me that it would “have high survival value” or that even if it did it wouldn’t also have additional negative aspects that outweighed that value. Thought experiments regarding natural selection aren’t particularly compelling. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/12 "2009-10-10T14:53:04Z")
The idea’s worth a ponder, but I find your serious intensity a little unsettling. Your actually looking for what? Flaws in the programming? Are you kidding me? You know if you manage to find a bug some huge brained human descendant is going to go trolling through billions of lines of code, fix it, and reboot the whole thing? Seriously though, what are you, fucking Neo? We’re on a ride, simulation or not, so enjoy it. You aren’t going to outsmart your creator anytime soon. As for that whole thing about how the gorilla video proves that we were programmed: :rolleyes: > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I would think that someone of your sensibilities would find the most satisfying response to the hypothesis you propose is [this one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_a_hand). I laughed. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/13 "2009-10-10T15:32:12Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > we will be able to create simulations of the past indistinguishable from actual reality “a Matrix.” Your thread, your rules, but this is an unjustifiable assertion. > [@](#): > > We are left with the inescapable conclusion that we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. This conclusion does not follow. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/14 "2009-10-10T20:42:57Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > [QUOTE=Scylla] > we will be able to create simulations of the past indistinguishable from actual reality “a Matrix.” Your thread, your rules, but this is an unjustifiable assertion. [/QUOTE] Actually I think it’s justifiable; when you get right down to it the simulation doesn’t even need to be very good if you have access to the participants minds. And human perceptions aren’t all that good themselves; you don’t need to actually run a simulation down to atoms; it just has to be good enough that human vision can’t see the pixels. Nor does it have to simulate a whole world; just what a human actually perceives. Everything we can’t directly perceive can just be approximated. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/15 "2009-10-10T20:48:29Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I would think that someone of your sensibilities would find the most satisfying response to the hypothesis you propose is [this one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_a_hand). I don’t know. ‘Here is a hand’ is somewhat satisfying. But ‘Here is a boobie’ would be far more satisfying. If you are going to propose that we live in a simulation, why stick with the boring idea of a computer simulation? If our reality is unreal, then it’s entirely possible that in actual reality magic works and we are all simulated magically. The lack of dragons, gryphons and such would immediately tip off players that this is a simulation. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/16 "2009-10-10T21:22:29Z")
We’re all Hilary Putnam’s bitch. No, wait. The OP makes no sense. Why would the ability to make greater and greater calculations per second yield consciousness? If somewhere out in the universe a race of beings created a mega-abacus, light-years on a side, one that mirrored the programming functionality of tomorrow’s computers, would that lot of wood and beads suddenly have consciousness? The OP finds that we are “designed to miss things we are not expecting to see,” and attaches a purpose to that design. First, why posit an intelligent designer in the first place? Why let theology creep in? It does make for great storytelling, but we _evolved_ certain shortcomings, we weren’t _designed_ that way. Second, though again it’s great storytelling, what is the basis for assigning a _purpose_ to that failing? Why isn’t it an evolutionary quirk or nominal lack of capacity, why would it need to be some signal that there is a “real” world out there? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/17 "2009-10-10T22:19:47Z")
Wouldn’t we be able to tell it was a simulation because it stops at the edge of the computer screen? Even if current computing power is scaled up by several orders of magnitude, you are still limited by your display media. To make the leap to matrix quality simulations, you need some way of interfacing computers with the brain that will allow for the direct perception of the simulated environment, and we haven’t even scratched the surface of that nut yet. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/18 "2009-10-11T00:44:52Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Start with the premise that computing power is increasing and getting cheaper to the point where in the future we will be able to create simulations of the past indistinguishable from actual reality “a Matrix.” Add the given that people in that future will be interested in playing games that involve such virtual realities, including simulations of past times on earth. > > We are left with the inescapable conclusion that we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. > > After all, we would have many, many simulations played by many many people just as we have many copies of Warcraft now. It is unlikely that you are one of the “players.” in such a reality, a real human. You are a bit of programming, a non player character, background. Of course, the realism factor of the simulation means that for all intents and purposes you are an actual independent thinking being, just an artificial one. You can pass a turing test otherwise you wouldn’t be good enough programming to be in the game. Naturally, you think you are a human rather than a bit of programming, as it would ruin the game if all the NPC realized they were artificial programs within a simulation. When I was in college I liked to bamboozle my friends with this exact argument. Now, however, I see numerous flaws in it, most of which have already been mentioned. First, there’s no guarantee that simulations indistinguishable from reality will ever exist. When I was a child, I read articles in _Scholastic Science_, which said that virtual reality would soon be present in every household. Now I’m an adult and they’re not. It may be one of those things that remains always right around the corner, like hydrogen-powered cars or space colonization. Even if the technology advances, people may not be interested in. Right now people all over the world love playing with electronic gadgets, but we can’t be sure they’ll always do so. Interest could fade away, just as it did with the space program. Second, why claim that we’re “almost certainly” in a simulation? The human race may create very complex simulations in the future, but even if that happened, it’s still only a sample space of size one. It gives us no reason to believe that a more complicated meta-race would create simulations that would produce us. Third, a complex simulation would not have consciousness. For centuries philosophers have wrestled with the “mind-body problem”, i.e. the fact that humans have both a mind and a body yet we don’t know how the two interact. Some materialists think that they’ve solved the problem by declaring that a conscious mind is only a phenomenon results from certain patterns of particles and interactions, but they’re wrong. In fact, we’re no closer now to any scientific understand of _why_ a human being is conscious and self-aware than we were thousands of years ago. (Some might say we’re farther away.) Hence there’s no reason to think that a complex simulation would also produce consciousness, much less self-awareness. > [@](#): > > There is a rather famous awareness test wherein the test subjects view a room with two groups of people in it passing balls around. The subject is told to count the number of passes one of the groups makes. Afterwards they give the answer. They are then asked if they noticed the gorilla. You see, in the middle of the test a gorilla walks into the room and beats its chest and then walks out. Almost nobody ever notices the gorilla. Actually not. The majority of people of subjects in the experiment did see the gorilla, though a sizable minority did not. (The researcher is named Susan Blackmore.) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/19 "2009-10-11T00:55:35Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Why would the ability to make greater and greater calculations per second yield consciousness? When it’s used to simulate a brain. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > The OP finds that we are “designed to miss things we are not expecting to see,” and attaches a purpose to that design. First, why posit an intelligent designer in the first place? Because the presumption is that we are all programs running on a machine; something had to build it. The hypothesis is that we see ISN’T the natural, uncreated universe at all but a simulation of a universe. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Wouldn’t we be able to tell it was a simulation because it stops at the edge of the computer screen? Even if current computing power is scaled up by several orders of magnitude, you are still limited by your display media. To make the leap to matrix quality simulations, you need some way of interfacing computers with the brain that will allow for the direct perception of the simulated environment, and we haven’t even scratched the surface of that nut yet. The general way this argument goes is that there is no screen ( at least where we can see ), and there are no brains; we are all subprograms in a simulation. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Third, a complex simulation would not have consciousness. For centuries philosophers have wrestled with the “mind-body problem”, i.e. the fact that humans have both a mind and a body yet we don’t know how the two interact. Some materialists think that they’ve solved the problem by declaring that a conscious mind is only a phenomenon results from certain patterns of particles and interactions, but they’re wrong. In fact, we’re no closer now to any scientific understand of _why_ a human being is conscious and self-aware than we were thousands of years ago. (Some might say we’re farther away.) Hence there’s no reason to think that a complex simulation would also produce consciousness, much less self-awareness. That’s simply wrong; we are MUCH closer to understanding consciousness than we were millennia ago. And there’s no reason to think that a good enough simulation WOULDN’T create a conscious mind; it’s the people who claim it wouldn’t who are making the fantastic claim with no evidence. It’s a claim based on egotism and theology; nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/20 "2009-10-11T03:06:40Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > > > Why would the ability to make greater and greater calculations per second yield consciousness? > > When it’s used to simulate a brain. Isn’t that begging the question? Bajillions of calculations per second simulate consciousness because they’re being used to simulate a brain? What about a bajillion minus one calculations? What about the giant wood/steel/bead abacus I asked about? What about an army of people doing calculations according to a very large set of instructions? What about the number five? Does the number five have a consciousness? A lamp? What about five lamps? Why would numbers and electricity gain consciousness? It’s all nice and woo woo for storytime, but you never quite escape the woo woo until you find some way of describing or suggesting why a set of mathematical calculations suddenly spring forth a consciousness. Until then, you’re stark in the middle of IPU territory, without a bowl of spaghetti. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The OP finds that we are “designed to miss things we are not expecting to see,” and attaches a purpose to that design. First, why posit an intelligent designer in the first place? > > Because the presumption is that we are all programs running on a machine; something had to build it. The hypothesis is that we see ISN’T the natural, uncreated universe at all but a simulation of a universe. Well, yeah, I get the presumption… but this isn’t Cafe Society where we’re all contributing to a story. If that’s all there is, well it’s a fun story to tell, one with a modicum of arbitrariness built into the hypothetical. > [@](#): > > That’s simply wrong; we are MUCH closer to understanding consciousness than we were millennia ago. And there’s no reason to think that a good enough simulation WOULDN’T create a conscious mind; it’s the people who claim it wouldn’t who are making the fantastic claim with no evidence. It’s a claim based on egotism and theology; nothing more. I think you have a few things backwards there. We’re “MUCH” closer to understanding consciousness? Cite? We’ve made a lot of progress in biochemistry and imaging, but \*understanding \*consciousness? That’s a pretty bold claim. What is your reason to think that a simulation WOULD create a conscious mind? Aside from Star Trek novels and assorted high quality sci-fi, you have yet to suggest why a bunch of numbers in an oversized calculator would develop consciousness. Ability to feign one, perhaps, and an ability to fool Mr. Turing, but other than saying “just because!” there’s no more reason to believe that my calculator has the potential for consciousness than a jar of thumbtacks. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275.md?page=2)