# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/61 "2009-10-12T21:32:12Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Why must a future computer be anything like our “current concept” of a computer? I never said it did. I’m just acknowledging the crossover to science fantasy. Make up whatever technology you need. > [@A.Selene](#): > > In short: what makes the human brain so unique that consciousness can _only_ exist in the meat between our ears? Who said anything about the uniqueness of a human brain? My cat is conscious. Gordon Freeman is not. The Biosphere is … or is not? I don’t think that it is. But it makes a fun analogy to a conscious being. What makes the Gaia Hypothesis (or some variant) woo woo but not the overly simplistic claim that computers _will_ progress to the point where they _will_ achieve consciousness? Taking another direction – I think we’re going to explore the hell out of the solar system. I think we’ll colonize planets on other stars. I think that there will someday be ark ships with exotic matter drives setting up colonies in space, with inevitable clashes between civilizations (both between Earthlings and alien species) and fantastic orgies with green-skinned women. And great single malts. It’s inevitable, no? No need for a bit of woo woo, it’s all inevitable. ---
**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 12, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/62 "2009-10-12T23:07:27Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > What makes the Gaia Hypothesis (or some variant) woo woo but not the overly simplistic claim that computers _will_ progress to the point where they _will_ achieve consciousness? Because insisting that a properly programmed, properly designed computer can’t duplicate the functions of the human brain amounts to insisting that the human brain has some sort of mystic woo-woo going for it. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Taking another direction – I think we’re going to explore the hell out of the solar system. I think we’ll colonize planets on other stars. I think that there will someday be ark ships with exotic matter drives setting up colonies in space, with inevitable clashes between civilizations (both between Earthlings and alien species) and fantastic orgies with green-skinned women. And great single malts. It’s inevitable, no? No need for a bit of woo woo, it’s all inevitable. Oh, please. That if anything is an analogy with what YOU are claiming. The claim that a computer can emulate a brain is the _ **conservative** _ hypothesis. Your claim that _magically_ that just won’t work is the fantastic one that requires magic or new physics to be true. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/63 "2009-10-12T23:54:33Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > I never said it did. I’m just acknowledging the crossover to science fantasy. You can call it “fantasy” if it makes you feel better, but using that term is disingenuous in this case. Consider time travel: This is a topic for which we have no concrete evidence is possible in this universe, and even if it is possible, we don’t have concrete working example yet, so maybe writing about it can be described as fantasy. Now consider consciousness arising from matter: We have an instance of actual matter that is configured in such a way that it produces consciousness (i.e. the brain), so it is not in the realm of fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/64 "2009-10-13T01:18:45Z")
> [@What\_Is\_Schwa](#): > > By rejecting the hypothesis Der Trihs has put forth you _are_ making a claim of knowledge. Please show me, with a direct quote, where I rejected Der Trihs’ hypothesis. I’ll save you some time - _No such quote exists_. Let me state this in as clear english as I can: _**I have no idea where consciousness comes from. Can those who claim they do know (Der Trihs), please back up your claims with cites and evidences.**_ ---
**Author:** ![A.Selene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ec8ea/32.png) [@A.Selene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Selene)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/65 "2009-10-13T15:24:12Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Who said anything about the uniqueness of a human brain? My cat is conscious. If we wish to discuss consciousness beyond our species, we certainly can, but that sidestep doesn’t avoid my point. You are advocating a uniqueness of brains by claiming that computers would not be able to replicate consciousness. Rather than discussing the abilities of your cat or tangents of science fiction, can you please elaborate on what makes a mammalian - or hell, _any_ kind of brain that exhibits consciousness so different from some kind of computer that the computer will not be able achieve consciousness? What barriers stand in the way? What specifically do you have in mind other than a “woo woo” belief that it won’t happen? > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > …simplistic claim that computers _will_ progress to the point where they _will_ achieve consciousness? For such a simplistic claim, I am surprised you don’t get it. It follows naturally if you understand that a computer differs only in degree, rather than kind, from a brain. Both compute information, each through a different mechanism. > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > _**I have no idea where consciousness comes from. Can those who claim they do know (Der Trihs), please back up your claims with cites and evidences.**_ [The brain.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain) ---
**Author:** ![What\_Is\_Schwa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8baadc/32.png) [@What\_Is\_Schwa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Is_Schwa)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/66 "2009-10-13T15:55:30Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > _ **I have no idea where consciousness comes from.** _ I suspect you are being willfully obstinate - your other posts indicate you have enough intelligence to at least make an educated guess. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/67 "2009-10-13T20:25:04Z")
Quoth **Der Trihs** : > [@](#): > > You are still thinking in naturalistic, real-world terms. In this case, the erasure isn’t being cause by the laws of physics, but by a bug in the software that is simulating laws of physics. And the laws of physics can be wrong, or violated in this scenario because unlike real world physics they are defined by something external. In other words, if we are in a simulation they aren’t really laws at all, but arbitrary rules. No, no, you don’t get what I’m saying. If we are in a simulation, then something like **F** = m **a** can be violated, and is really just arbitrary… But then in that case, **F** = m **a** is not a law of physics, just something that we mistakenly believe is a law of physics. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/68 "2009-10-13T23:30:15Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If we are in a simulation, then something like **F** = m **a** can be violated, and is really just arbitrary… But then in that case, **F** = m **a** is not a law of physics, just something that we mistakenly believe is a law of physics. How about this: **F** = m **a** is true, unless someone from the outside world presses Alt+Shift on their “keyboard”, in which case the law becomes **F** = m[sup]2[/sup] **a** No one who is an artificial entity in this world can ever press the Alt+Shift on the “keyboard” of the server running this sim, so, for all of us **F** = m **a** _is_ the law of physics. Just because some player from that outside world (e.g. someone akin to Jesus) can press some buttons and temporarily change some laws does not mean that those temporary laws are laws for the rest of us. I guess if we, from inside the simulation, can hack the simulation (by, say, repeating “Abracadabra” 49 times while burning the toenail of a bear), so that it has the equivalent effect of someone from the outside world pressing the right key combination, then I agree that, effectively, the law of physics is “ **F** = m **a** unless you do X, in which case **F** = m[sup]2[/sup] **a** ” If no such hacking is possible, **F** = m **a** is the law for us ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/69 "2009-10-14T00:53:05Z")
Wonder if there’s any buffer overrun hacks for the universe? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/70 "2009-10-14T00:58:58Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Wonder if there’s any buffer overrun hacks for the universe? Try eating a whole cow 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/71 "2009-10-14T14:32:35Z")
> [@Kelly](#): > > I have no idea where consciousness comes from. Can those who claim they do know (Der Trihs), please back up your claims with cites and evidences. _If_ an automatic door was ‘conscious of’ the changes in incident IR light, its ‘consciousness’ _would_ come from its sensors/circuitry, agreed? _If_ a Cambrian trilobite was ‘conscious of’ the changes in incident visible light, its ‘consciousness’ _would_ come from its simple eyes/neural network, agreed? _If_ a Holocene primate was ‘conscious of’ all kinds of things, its ‘consciousness’ _would still_ come from its biological sensors/neural network, agreed? Big 'if’s, of course. (Even the third one :)) ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/72 "2009-10-14T21:11:10Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > _If_ an automatic door was ‘conscious of’ the changes in incident IR light, its ‘consciousness’ _would_ come from its sensors/circuitry, agreed? > > _If_ a Cambrian trilobite was ‘conscious of’ the changes in incident visible light, its ‘consciousness’ _would_ come from its simple eyes/neural network, agreed? > > _If_ a Holocene primate was ‘conscious of’ all kinds of things, its ‘consciousness’ _would still_ come from its biological sensors/neural network, agreed? > > Big 'if’s, of course. (Even the third one :)) Do we need to decide such things? Why is ‘I don’t know?’ not an acceptable answer? Personally I think the point is moot, the spiritual as I define it is just the information layer, and frankly arguing whether the information layer or the material substrate is the seat of consciousness is just an exercise in tedium as obviously we receive information through physical inputs. Science is, ‘Hacking Reality’, they cut an atom in half. Who is to say one day we won’t harness a supernova to power some as yet too vast to contemplate machine? Like in that story by Isaac Asimov. We move mountains to remove the gold from beneath them, we reroute rivers so that boats can go from a lower body of water into a higher one. Metals mined on other continents make up our cities. That’s a lot of hacking, literally, with bladed scoops on hydraulic arms. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/73 "2009-10-14T23:13:35Z")
In essence, I’m not objecting to the basic concept of artificial intelligence. I’m objecting to the relative flippancy of saying that it’s inevitable or trivial, or using the word “computer” as some sort of magical invocation. But alas, you’re right. Pshaw, what was I thinking, questioning whether it would ever (or could ever) be done. The brain (or any brain) is just a moderately complicated computer, and we’ll eventually have all the requisite tools to understand its functioning. Come to think of it … > [@me](#): > > I think man will eventually live forever via cryogenics. It’s biology, after all, and it’s only a matter of time before its perfected. Simple, really, no need to introduce some science fiction woo woo to get around any questions. > > I think we’ll eventually fully colonize the universe. We have rockets now. They’ll only improve. We have a space station. The technology will only improve. With colonies spread throughout the solar system and eventually on other stars, it will become impossible for a catastrophe to wipe out the entire species. With exponential growth, the entire universe will eventually have a Starbucks on every corner. Simple. Matter of fact. Undeniable, since we clearly have the knowledge of the basic technology. > > I can’t wait until we have a computer so vast that it will be able to track and predict the motion of every subatomic particle, probabalistically adjusting for quantum fluctuations with a near-infinite input and feedback pathways. It’s really just a matter of storage and computational space. Boring, really. > > Someday cloning technology will be so advanced that there will be Jurassic Parks in even the smallest of cities. DNA technology will be so advanced that the merest iota of biological material will be enough to clone someone, so prepare to meet Lincoln, Washington, or any Saint whose artefact remains. In the future, the Grateful Dead will live again! > > I think they’ll bring back Arrested Development. Yeah, maybe. I can wish and hope for all the above, but I can’t prance around claiming inevitability and straightforwardness without dipping into the woo woo sauce. No one here can claim any of the above is impossible, but is it all inevitable? Is it all trivial? Or is it possible that despite the ability to tell a great story — like with any of the above — replicating the brain’s function may be so insanely complicated, so insanely difficult to comprehend / figure out, and so insanely difficult to study that for all intents and purposes it’s de facto impossible? While not necessarily true, IMHO/GD opinion the absurd complexity and impossibility to study make it the more likely case. Note: When Nintendo comes out with [Wii Brainstorm](http://www.fast-rewind.com/brainstorm.htm), I’ll revisit this impossible-to-study bit. And what’s with this hand waving about understanding consciousness? Yowza. How many multi-page threads are there on “do we see the same colours” or similar subjective-based questions? And yet because Pavlov’s pups drool we believe we have even a _hint_ at what consciousness is? Go on … define consciousness for us. Then tell us how to go about testing for it. I think it’s awesome that **Sentient Meat** showed up, but degrading the definition of consciousness to simply a calculator being aware that it’s on is just another cup of woo woo. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/74 "2009-10-16T21:20:28Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > _If_ an automatic door was ‘conscious of’ the changes in incident IR light, its ‘consciousness’ _would_ come from its sensors/circuitry, agreed? This is not the definition of “consciousness” we are using. The definition being used here is clearly more accurately defined as a state of sentience, or self-awareness. This renders your question about a “sentient” automatic door just far too strange to formulate a meaningful answer from, other than to say, if you could somehow prove to me that an automatic door was sentient.. why would I conclude the sentience must be originating in the circuitry, when circuitry has never been show to be the originator of consciousness? > [@](#): > > _If_ a Cambrian trilobite was ‘conscious of’ the changes in incident visible light, its ‘consciousness’ _would_ come from its simple eyes/neural network, agreed? How can I agree to this when I keep stating I have no idea where consciousness comes from? And given that all of my detractors in this thread seem unable to recognise the difference between affecting something and understanding where something originates, I don’t see how this discussion can progress any further. As I stated previously, what people are doing is akin to claiming to know where gravity originates, because they know the things that affect it, and experiments can be run on its properties. ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/75 "2009-10-16T23:17:38Z")
Two things: 1. Whenever I hear an debate about consciousness, I always get the impression that the debaters have a private definition of consciousness that I am not privy to and that the debators do not share with each other. Can the consciousness-is-something-more-than-patterns-of-electricity people point me to a definition that will help me understand the objection? Likewise, can the consciousness-is-just-patterns-of-electricity people share their definition? 1. If we really are living in a computer simulation, the women would all have large, perfectly-formed breasts. Therefore we are not living in a simulation. QED. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/76 "2009-10-17T06:33:01Z")
> [@kevlaw](#): > > Can the consciousness-is-something-more-than-patterns-of-electricity people point me to a definition that will help me understand the objection? It’s tricky to agree on an absolute definition, but the important part for me is self-awareness, the ability to perceive experiences. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/77 "2009-10-17T06:38:20Z")
> [@kevlaw](#): > > 1. If we really are living in a computer simulation, the women would all have large, perfectly-formed breasts. Therefore we are not living in a simulation. Unless the creator of this simulation is a son of a bitch who enjoys condemning men to a life without women with large, perfectly-formed breasts. Therefore, we could still be living in a simulation 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/78 "2009-10-17T06:51:56Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > It’s tricky to agree on an absolute definition, but the important part for me is self-awareness, the ability to perceive experiences. So it’s not enough for the computer to think? It has to know that it is thinking about? Or something else, like recognizing itself in a mirror? ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/79 "2009-10-18T17:24:10Z")
> [@kevlaw](#): > > So it’s not enough for the computer to think? It has to know that it is thinking about? > > Or something else, like recognizing itself in a mirror? I can’t give any clearer explanation than I have given. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275/80 "2009-10-18T18:08:34Z")
**Rhythmdvl** : 1. Other forms of computing devices have been created, here are some examples: a) Using DNA b) Using entangled particles c) Hydraulic computer (with dynamic feedback) d) Gears e) etc. So it’s not science fiction to think of non-silicon as a computing device. 1. Reproducing the function of the human brain: I think you are correct that it’s not guaranteed, and it’s clearly not trivial, but it appears to be based on hardware that we reasonably understand (chemistry, physics). We have been making progress regarding basic functions and it seems reasonable to think the progress will continue. 2. Consciousness: Clearly a tricky problem philosophically, to define, to agree on definition, etc. One that may never be adequately answered in the abstract because it relies on proving what someone **else** knows/feels, etc. From my perspective, I think it’s possible to reproduce the net effect of consciousness without having proved anything. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking-reality/513275.md?page=5)