# This Person Does Not Exist - but do YOU?



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Something fun to ponder over the weekend, during a Saturday night dinner with friends, something along the lines of the Simulation Theory.

Each time the following web page is reloaded a _*completely fake new human face*_ is created by this artificial intelligence (AI) system:

https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ 

If today our admittedly limited AI systems, still in their infancy, can already generate such realistic rendering who can say for sure that in 50, 100 or 200 years (a very short time for human history) they will not be able to animate them, give them intelligence, make them conscious, let them interact, give them a "world" to live in? Remember Sim City and The Sims?

More importantly, *who can say for sure that WE are not ALREADY such artificial intelligence creations*, interacting with each other, believing that _we_ are in control. Maybe we actually are like chess pieces, moving in predetermined ways in a preset environment, unaware of the players and of _their_ universe...

I'm just having fun here... Or maybe THEY are!!!


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Nov 12, 2021)

Then they'd be absolute morons playing an incredibly boring and pointless game.


----------



## el-bo (Nov 12, 2021)

I call bullshit! The fourth person I clicked on is one of the checkout girls at my local supermarket 

Actually, all jokes aside, I found the whole thing freakishly un-nerving.


----------



## DANIELE (Nov 12, 2021)

An artificial intelligence logic feeded would not live in a world like this.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

el-bo said:


> I call bullshit! The fourth person I clicked on is one of the checkout girls at my local supermarket
> 
> Actually, all jokes aside, I found the whole thing freakishly un-nerving.


The reassuring thing is that the AI still creates images like this one, unless the goal was to create a guy with a monocle à la Mr Peanut


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi (Nov 12, 2021)

Great resource to fill "Our clients" section of our websites.


----------



## Marcus Millfield (Nov 12, 2021)

Are we living in a computer simulation? I don’t know. Probably.


Why this computer scientist thinks reality might be a video game.




www.vox.com


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Faruh Al-Baghdadi said:


> Great resource to fill "Our clients" section of our websites.


True but no need to go to all this trouble... Some people just prefer to use logos from luxury car companies and major TV networks.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Marcus Millfield said:


> Are we living in a computer simulation? I don’t know. Probably.
> 
> 
> Why this computer scientist thinks reality might be a video game.
> ...


Yes, that and hundreds (thousands?) of articles since 2003, not even counting people who confuse this with the Matrix movies. The idea is even seriously discussed by Nobel physicists (I'm not talking about Elon Musk here ).

The problem is that _if_ we are living in a simulation how would _we_ be able to know it (and forget glitches in the matrix type of things!).


----------



## Zedcars (Nov 12, 2021)

Yep, visit this from time to time. Quite astonishing. But sometimes you will see weird things in the background like a alien deformed limb, or a scary eye in the wrong place. It's not perfect, but pretty good. The hair is sometimes odd too.



https://thiscatdoesnotexist.com/





https://thishorsedoesnotexist.com/











Sticky Rice Rease's


Visit thissnackdoesnotexist.com to check if Sticky Rice Rease's exists already and generate more jaw dropping snacks.



thissnackdoesnotexist.com













Up to 20% off! Victorian House in Heart of Entertainer


This luxury 2 bedroom apartment has one comfy bed with 6 pariss sofa beds, easy international venues, Priv You can also enjoy what to do your ice and your room that is attached to a spare bed and a work desk in the house. ---- Glendary person smaller



thisrentaldoesnotexist.com





Loads more here:









This X Does Not Exist


Using generative adversarial networks (GAN), we can learn how to create realistic-looking fake versions of almost anything, as shown by this collection of sites that have sprung up in the past month.




thisxdoesnotexist.com


----------



## Marcus Millfield (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> The problem is that _if_ we are living in a simulation how would _we_ be able to know it (and forget glitches in the matrix type of things!).


Reality is nothing more than what each of us perceives to be real. An apple is red because our brain decodes it to be that color from the light the apple reflects and our eyes catch. That light is reflected because the apple absorbs the rest of it. So one can say that to the apple, it's everything but red.

If each and every one of us creates his or her own reality, we'll never experience things the same way. The question really is: why should we care?


----------



## Zedcars (Nov 12, 2021)

This Foot Does Not Exist


We trained a computer to create fake foot pics. Text 607-409-3339. It'll send you feet.




thisfootdoesnotexist.com





This internet can be a dark and strange place.


----------



## rudi (Nov 12, 2021)

What AI does, AI can also (sometimes) undo 

There is already research to reverse the process that creates artificial faces by matching them back to the training data used to generate them.









AI fake-face generators can be rewound to reveal the real faces they trained on


Researchers are calling into doubt the popular idea that deep-learning models are “black boxes” that reveal nothing about what goes on inside




www.technologyreview.com





The article includes some examples. Each row shows the generated artificial faces on the left, and three matching faces from the training data the right:


----------



## el-bo (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> The reassuring thing is that the AI still creates images like this one, unless the goal was to create a guy with a monocle à la Mr Peanut


That started quite the click-fest, searching for anomalies. I found this one, but can't quite put my finger on what about it is not sitting right.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Marcus Millfield said:


> If each and every one of us creates his or her own reality, we'll never experience things the same way. The question really is: why should we care?


Maybe you and I should not even care but physicists do and they have yet to come to a consensus on what constitutes "reality". Interesting question for curious minds nonetheless, don't you think?


----------



## Marcus Millfield (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Interesting question for curious minds nonetheless, don't you think?



Absolutely and one I ponder on a lot myself. For is the moon really still there when I'm not looking? (Intentional misquote of Albert Einstein)


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Marcus Millfield said:


> Absolutely and one I ponder on a lot myself. For is the moon really still there when I'm not looking? (Intentional misquote of Albert Einstein)


I should not open this particular can of _entangled_ quantum worms here


----------



## Loïc D (Nov 12, 2021)

The question has existed since philosophy : Socrate, Descartes, Kant,…


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Loïc D said:


> The question has existed since philosophy : Socrate, Descartes, Kant,…


Even in Eastern philosophies circa 3rd century BC, with stories in Taoism like Zhuang Zhou's _Dream of Being a Butterfly_, asking, like Plato, about the nature of reality: 








Zhuangzi (book) - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

rudi said:


> There is already research to reverse the process that creates artificial faces by matching them back to the training data used to generate them.


I've read that one of the main challenge of AI is to understand how it arrives at a given result, what are the processes used or paths followed within its neural network.


----------



## Marcus Millfield (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> I should not open this particular can of _entangled_ quantum worms here


Would make for an interesting conversation, especially considered from different angles (science, religion/spirituality).


----------



## Marcus Millfield (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> I've read that one of the main challenge of AI is to understand how it arrives at a given result, what are the processes used or paths followed within its neural network.


And that's probably the most "dangerous" aspect of AI, since emerging cloud services like Amazon Web Services allow for everyone to create their own AI without the need of understanding how the "neural/synaptic" links are made by the system and therefor, allowing it to have a sort of freedom. And yes, I/O is probably controlled-ish, but is that enough?

I like these kind of discussions.


----------



## sostenuto (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Even in Eastern philosophies circa 3rd century BC, with stories in Taoism like Zhuang Zhou's _Dream of Being a Butterfly_, asking, like Plato, about the nature of reality:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You never cease to maze at breadth /depth of perspectives. AI continues to impress and extend into 'reality' Most recent mantra here is _  Think Exponentially. 

(_ Only recently pondered ... would universes(s) exist _ for us _ without eyes. 
All senses are magical, valued, but only one opens such enormity. _)


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Marcus Millfield said:


> Would make for an interesting conversation, especially considered from different angles (science, religion/spirituality).


You would love dinners at our home! These questions are typical conversations in what my husband refers as "Tatiana's Salon"  where everything is a valid subject as long as it is about Art and Science.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

sostenuto said:


> You never cease to maze at breadth /depth of perspectives. AI continues to impress and extend into 'reality' Most recent mantra here is _  Think Exponentially.


❤️


sostenuto said:


> (_ Only recently pondered ... would universes(s) exist _ for us _ without eyes.
> All senses are magical, valued, but only one opens such enormity. _)


Been there... 




__





Mini brains (organoids) that have eyes!!


https://newatlas.com/biology/lab-grown-mini-brain-organoid-eye-see/ My husband and I were discussing these mini brains (before they started to grow eyes on them) and we came to the conclusion that, as they had no sensory input if any kind from their environment (images, sounds, touch, etc.) they...




vi-control.net


----------



## Marcus Millfield (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> You would love dinners at our home! These questions are typical conversations in what my husband refers as "Tatiana's Salon"  where everything is a valid subject as long as it is about Art and Science.


You would have a blast at our place too, but for a different reason: my wife and I debate these topics too, but from a scientific (me), philosophical (also me) and spiritual (both of us) angle. Art is more my thing, although my wife did play concert flute for a few years and loves (the idea of) painting.


----------



## Double Helix (Nov 12, 2021)

sostenuto said:


> (_ Only recently pondered ... would universes(s) exist _ for us _ without eyes.
> All senses are magical, valued, but only one opens such enormity. _)


Great question for Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, Andrea Bocelli, George Shearing, and Diane Schuur (among many others)
And I am simply astounded that Helen Keller, deafblind from nineteen months, earned her B.A. at Radcliffe (!)
But you certainly raise an interesting question about how our senses interact. . . and then there's Beethoven


----------



## Paulogic (Nov 12, 2021)

I think my face was made by this AI. 
AI then in : Ape illustrator...


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Double Helix said:


> But you certainly raise an interesting question about how our senses interact. . .​


Another question is how many senses do human have? Estimates go up to 33 (even 53!) including these:





Source: https://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/best/senses.html​And we're not even discussing animals such as the mantis shrimp, my favorite animal !!!


----------



## Double Helix (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> And we're not even discussing animals such as the mantis shrimp, my favorite animal !!!


A mantis shrimp can kick anyone's ass (!)
Fuhgeddaboudit


* re: senses --It is said that bees see many colors that humans cannot--I can't even imagine what I can't imagine. . .


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Even humans, well mostly women, can have superpowers. Take *tetrachromacy* (having 4 types of visual cones instead of 3) for example... 12-15% of women have it enabling them to see about *100 million different colors *instead of the mere 2-3 millions most humans can distinguish.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Double Helix said:


> re: senses --It is said that bees see many colors that humans cannot--I can't even imagine what I can't imagine. . .


Here's what a bee sees when looking at a dandelion





Most insects see well into the ultraviolet but can't see the other end of the spectrum (red). Thats why flowers look the way they do to *them*, not to us, as they are the pollinators, not us  Insects and flowers co-evolved.

Reality is really relative...


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Double Helix said:


> A mantis shrimp can kick anyone's ass (!)
> Fuhgeddaboudit. . .


Agreed... 


> Mantis shrimps have one of the most complex visual system discovered in animals. Instead of using 2-4 photoreceptors types for color vision like most other species, they use 12! In addition, they have 4-7 receptor types (depending on the species) that are sensitive for linear and circular polarized light. [2] This has made people wonder how the Mantis shrimps see the world and if they have a 12-dimensional color space compared to our 3-dimensional.







__





Sensory Systems/Arthropods/Mantis Shrimp - Wikibooks, open books for an open world







en.m.wikibooks.org




And it can pack a lunch too... At more than Mach 1


----------



## sostenuto (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> You would love dinners at our home! These questions are typical conversations in what my husband refers as "Tatiana's Salon"  where everything is a valid subject as long as it is about Art and Science.


You both made magical choices ! 🪄 Contra odds so great. 
_Ha ! _ crazy fortunate as well. _🍀


----------



## Craig Duke (Nov 12, 2021)

Sorry to be such a downer but the ‘simulation’ hypothesis is as probable an explanation of our reality as the leprechauns living in my woods creating it, a teapot orbiting Mars creating it or entities living in cities on dust particles projecting it. Same goes for panpsychism, Donald Hoffman’s “we are ‘conscious agents’, nothing else exists” et. al. They are fun Sci Fyiey ideas but there’s no reason to take them seriously because there is nothing that leads us to believe them. Deepak Chopra would disagree with me.

I ran into this the other day. Monkeys experience uncanny valley, according to the study.
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/43/18362


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Craig Duke said:


> Sorry to be such a downer but the ‘simulation’ hypothesis is as probable an explanation of our reality as ...


No problem but would you care to elaborate on why you think so? That's why, as mentioned before, it makes such an interesting dinner conversation subject 


Craig Duke said:


> I ran into this the other day. Monkeys experience uncanny valley, according to the study.


The so-called "uncanny valley" always appeared to me somewhat _similar_ to the Capgras syndrome in neurology but_ of course it's not the same thing._


----------



## Michel Simons (Nov 12, 2021)

Zedcars said:


> Yep, visit this from time to time. Quite astonishing. But sometimes you will see weird things in the background like a alien deformed limb, or a scary eye in the wrong place. It's not perfect, but pretty good. The hair is sometimes odd too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is there also a This Library Does Not Exist?



el-bo said:


> That started quite the click-fest, searching for anomalies. I found this one, but can't quite put my finger on what about it is not sitting right.



The one on the left looks like someone after BF.


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Nov 12, 2021)

Once you've created a Frankenstein that can pass the Turing test, then you're in trouble. Then you cannot distinguish the simulation from reality.

The logical solution is to prevent the development of such a monster in the first place.

Certainly we can be aware of the enormous risk of it before carrying it out; I guess it's just a question of time as to whether we can avoid the temptation...


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Michel Simons said:


> Is there also a This Library Does Not Exist?


Yes, it's called Libgen - Library Genesis


----------



## Marcus Millfield (Nov 12, 2021)

The problem with everything humanity thinks it can measure, calculate and explain is that it's bound by the limits of our understanding. Even "the laws of physics", which is an arrogant term in itself, aren't definite truths because they are all realized through our point of view, our perspective. This makes them true for us, but by no means definite truths.

If we would ever encounter intelligent beings with another viewpoint, how would the "laws" of physics hold up? Would time still be "the universal" constant? Would our understanding of gravity still be relevant?


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Karl Feuerstake said:


> Once you've created a Frankenstein that can pass the Turing test, then you're in trouble. Then you cannot distinguish the simulation from reality.
> 
> The logical solution is to prevent the development of such a monster in the first place.
> 
> Certainly we can be aware of the enormous risk of it before carrying it out; I guess it's just a question of time as to whether we can avoid the temptation...


Listen to this debate between a human and IBM Project Debater about preschool funding. Jump at 24:00 for PD response if you're short on time but the whole thing was fascinating to me when I first saw it.


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Listen to this debate between a human and IBM Project Debater about preschool funding. Jump at 24:00 for PD response if you're short on time but the whole thing was fascinating to me when I first saw it.



Sure, will give it a listen later today


----------



## muk (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> More importantly, *who can say for sure that WE are not ALREADY such artificial intelligence creations*, interacting with each other, believing that _we_ are in control. Maybe we actually are like chess pieces, moving in predetermined ways in a preset environment, unaware of the players and of _their_ universe...


This question is a variation of the brain in a vat thought experiment. You might be interested in Hilary Putnams refutation of it.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Marcus Millfield said:


> The problem with everything humanity thinks it can measure, calculate and explain is that it's bound by the limits of our understanding. Even "the laws of physics", which is an arrogant term in itself, aren't definite truths because they are all realized through our point of view, our perspective. This makes them true for us, but by no means definite truths.


The laws of physics are mere approximations of reality at a given point in time. They are in constant state of refinement, like going from Newton to Einstein, or go through new discoveries like quantum mechanics.

My husband explained to me that current quantum field theory "approximates" our reality with a precision equivalent to the thickness of a human hair in the distance between New York City and Los Angeles, about 4000 km!!! Not bad!


Marcus Millfield said:


> If we would ever encounter intelligent beings with another viewpoint, how would the "laws" of physics hold up? Would time still be "the universal" constant? Would our understanding of gravity still be relevant?


Time is not universal. Actually it does not exist at all.





And no one understands what gravity really is and how it relates to other forces of nature, so aliens might have a different take on it!


----------



## darkogav (Nov 12, 2021)

Nothing on the internet is real.


----------



## b_elliott (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Yes, that and hundreds (thousands?) of articles since 2003, not even counting people who confuse this with the Matrix movies. The idea is even seriously discussed by Nobel physicists (I'm not talking about Elon Musk here ).
> 
> The problem is that _if_ we are living in a simulation how would _we_ be able to know it (and forget glitches in the matrix type of things!).


After listening to Brian Greene (physicist) on a recent Lex Fridman (AI) podcast, the glitch in the system seems to lie in the 1st millionth second (big bang). Physicists claim their theories work to predict everything back except for that tiniest of fraction of time. What I gathered from Greene we are no closer to an answer on how/why shit happened, though arguments get tossed around.

Another subject discussed lots by Fridman is how to get AI conscious. 

Without really knowing or understanding any of this myself, maybe cracking one will crack t'other. Dunno.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

muk said:


> This question is a variation of the brain in a vat thought experiment. You might be interested in Hilary Putnams refutation of it.


I disagree about the fact that this is a variation of the BiaV theory. These are very different things. So is solipsism and other similar "models" of reality. Scientists, especially physicists, have much more nuanced opinions of these questions.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

darkogav said:


> Nothing on the internet is real. ​


This is the equivalent of Magrittes' famous *Ceci n'est pas une pipe!* 



​


----------



## Marcus Millfield (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> My husband explained to me that current quantum field theory "approximates" our reality with a precision equivalent to the thickness of a human hair in the distance between New York City and Los Angeles, about 4000 km!!! Not bad!



That holds up until we discus what reality even means.

There is no end to these discussions I fear :D


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

b_elliott said:


> After listening to Brian Greene (physicist) on a recent Lex Fridman (AI) podcast, the glitch in the system seems to lie in the 1st millionth second (big bang). Physicists claim their theories work to predict everything back except for that tiniest of fraction of time. What I gathered from Greene we are no closer to an answer on how/why shit happened, though arguments get tossed around.


The first 10^-35 sec (called the Inflation phase) is still unclear according to my husband as we need a theory that encompasses both quantum and gravity first to explain it. Not easy. But not so bad considering that they understand everything that comes after that until now! 


b_elliott said:


> Another subject discussed lots by Fridman is how to get AI conscious.
> Without really knowing or understanding any of this myself, maybe cracking one will crack t'other. Dunno.


It's like the quantum nature of our universe and (the hard problem of) consciousness: one does not explain away a mystery by invoking another one. Religions do that all the time but without much success imho.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Marcus Millfield said:


> That holds up until we discus what reality even means.
> There is no end to these discussions I fear :D


Agreed!


----------



## José Herring (Nov 12, 2021)

It did well for about 4 or 5 clicks then shit started to get like a freak show circus. 

But it was interesting that even the best ones there's just something about the eyes that are off.


----------



## Michel Simons (Nov 12, 2021)

Marcus Millfield said:


> The problem with everything humanity thinks it can measure, calculate and explain is that it's bound by the limits of our understanding. Even "the laws of physics", which is an arrogant term in itself, aren't definite truths because they are all realized through our point of view, our perspective. This makes them true for us, but by no means definite truths.
> 
> If we would ever encounter intelligent beings with another viewpoint, how would the "laws" of physics hold up? Would time still be "the universal" constant? Would our understanding of gravity still be relevant?


Science isn't about reality, but about creating a model of reality with which we can explain and predict what happens in reality. Whatever reality is.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Wow, time does fly, even if it does not exist! 
Need to go back to scoring my latest piece in Dorico...


----------



## muk (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> I disagree about the fact that this is a variation of the BiaV theory.


But it is. If we assume this to be true:



Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> unaware of the players and of _their_ universe...


then Putnams refutation applies.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 12, 2021)

I especially enjoyed the one that had human flesh growing on the surrounding foliage next to the face of some little kid. That's an image I'll not soon forget.


----------



## Marcus Millfield (Nov 12, 2021)

Michel Simons said:


> Science isn't about reality, but about creating a model of reality with which we can explain and predict what happens in reality. Whatever reality is.


And that in itself has every Hallmark of a paradox. Well done!


----------



## LamaRose (Nov 12, 2021)

I will argue that every A.I. face created has a human doppelgänger.


----------



## David Cuny (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Even humans, well mostly women, can have superpowers. Take *tetrachromacy* (having 4 types of visual cones instead of 3) for example... 12-15% of women have it enabling them to see about *100 million different colors *instead of the mere 2-3 millions most humans can distinguish.


This can be a downside. For example, print and display media make the assumption that vision is limited to RGB, and only make use of those colors. This means that images reproduced using a limited RGB palette will be off for people with the ability to discriminate additional colors.

This is akin to film colors being optimized for white skin tones, and doing an abysmal job capturing skin tones of people of color.

As for living in a simulation, that's a bit of a dead end. Descartes rejected that solipsism because it's a philosophical dead-end - if the simulation is good enough, you can't distinguish between simulation and reality.

Neural networks are basically classifiers - it begins with neuron looking at _n_ data elements, with each neuron drawing a line dividing those elements into "pass" and "fail". This is then fed forward to the next layer of the net, only with the next layer of the net looking at the prior neurons instead of the data elements. Eventually this feeds into a final layer that represents the output.

The process I described can only deal with linearly separable data - that is, data that can be divided by separating the data into sets by drawing straight lines. 

So non-linear functions with names like "sigmoid", "tanh", "ReLU" and (my favorite), "Leaky ReLU" are used so that neural networks can deal with non-linearly separable data and do clever things.

But this data-crunching approach sidesteps those pesky questions like *"what do we know" *and _"*how* do we know what we know"_, and _"what does *'to know'* mean, anyway?"_.

Which is just as well, because otherwise, we'd be spending all our time debating instead of rendering videos where everything is a dog:




Which I guess goes to show that if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. 

But at this point, these networks have only the shallowest of "understanding" - if you even consider "minimize a loss function" to be akin to understanding. The networks that are doing these (impressive) things are custom-built for that specific tasks, and structured so that it'll work.


----------



## Craig Duke (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> No problem but would you care to elaborate on why you think so? That's why, as mentioned before, it makes such an interesting dinner conversation subject


As I said, there is no reason to believe we are living in a simulation. If, for example, scene continuity was inconsistent, such as looking out the window then back into the room and seeing new furniture, sure, we could consider it. There's no experience or science that would nudge us towards the hypothesis any more than the teapot orbiting Mars is generating reality.


Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> No problem but would you care to elaborate on why you think so? That's why, as mentioned before, it makes such an interesting dinner conversation subject
> 
> The so-called "uncanny valley" always appeared to me somewhat _similar_ to the Capgras syndrome in neurology but_ of course it's not the same thing._


My wife exhibits Capgras Syndrome (a false belief that an identical duplicate has replaced someone significant to the patient). She always says "The other you used to wine and dine me. Now you only ask me what's for supper." I will admit, most of my cells have been replaced since we were married.


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Nov 12, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Listen to this debate between a human and IBM Project Debater about preschool funding. Jump at 24:00 for PD response if you're short on time but the whole thing was fascinating to me when I first saw it.



Watched some of it today and found it interesting, but I am not a believer in 'strong AI', at least not at the moment.

I'd like to continue our discussion of simulation vs. reality but must openly express some anxiety towards the topic; it may not be healthy for me to continue, as perhaps my knowledge may be only enough for it to be 'dangerous'. Nonetheless I will try to have some courage as maybe I will learn something.

My particular anxiety comes from this: in the past I suffered a psychotic break, largely brought on by severe sleep deprivation, and this nearly resulted in my death. This is a considerable source of panic for me because my perceptions of what was real were so severely distorted, so any risk that I might alter my perception of reality gives raise to considerable anxiety. Nonetheless, I will go on related to the topic.

For such a discussion to take place, it should probably relate some kind of meaning behind those two words (simulation, reality); that they be considered distinct from each other. My own understanding is that simulation is something which artificially attempts to illustrate or approximate reality, without genuinely being real in and of itself. An example might be how in the film The Matrix, the majority of people live in a computer simulation, but we as an audience are shown humans living outside it, and given a perspective as to how a transition between simulation and reality might occur. In the film, it seems like a believable enough mechanic that could potentially be executed in our world.

Hopefully we have now established some kind of meaning behind the key terms, and next I will try to take a page out of the book of Nick Batzdorf; that is, to ask you some questions rather than (as I have been prone to in the past) bluntly espouse my own view:

What kind of meaning can we derive from the idea that all our current "reality" is actually just a "simulation"? Is there any proof to suggest this is the current order of affairs? What consequences should or will this hold for our lives? Are the consequences different whether there is proof or not?

I'm sure there are some other very good questions that could be asked but these are the most immediate on my mind.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 12, 2021)

Out of my studio for a few minutes... Wow many new replies here! 

A few clarifications are in order: my suggestion that we might be living in a simulated universe has nothing in common with the Matrix movies (of course), solipsism, Descartes' demon, BiaV, etc.

I never suggested that AI technology, now or in the future, might be used to do it. I just mentioned the uncanny reality of AI generated faces and turned the discussion to simulation theory as a discussion subject, which worked pretty well so far judging by the responses 

You just create a universe with the right mix of laws and parameters and the rest will follow automatically, from the Big Bang until now.  These laws of physics will probably be compatible with ones we already know but might be more general and precise.

The simulating machine is the universe itself, the ultimate quantum computer. All the particles "know" how to behave. We are just the result so far. My husband, a theoretical physicist, would be able to explain all this much better than I could ever do.

The point is that there are no glitches to look for unless you consider quantum mechanics itself, the most precise theory in human history so far, to be _the_ glitch. What you see is what you get, our visible universe and us in it. No discontinuity between the two. Other universes, invisible to us, are also possible, even predicted.

And nothing you could do would tell you if we are indeed in a simulation or not. No physics experiment could tell, ever. This is why this is not physics, it is metaphysics.


----------



## Guffy (Nov 12, 2021)

All the ones with 2 faces seems a bit creepy..









And some others..


----------



## muk (Nov 13, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> A few clarifications are in order: my suggestion that we might be living in a simulated universe has nothing in common with the Matrix movies (of course), solipsism, Descartes' demon, BiaV, etc.



Still I'm not clear on what basis you deny that they do have things in common. You suggest that we might be living in a simulated universe. The brain in a vat thought experiment suggests that we might be living in a simulated universe. So to me it looks like they are directly related.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 13, 2021)

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> We could be the equivalent of gold fish in a bowl to a higher evolved species 🙂


Maybe  As someone wrote "We are qualia-generating machines." We don't create "energy" as in the Matrix. That makes not sense. But we process information!
*If* anyone was running the simulation *that* could be what they're after. 

After further discussion with my husband to clarify:

Again we're not "brains in a vat" being connected to some external simulation apparatus and being fed some simulated universe for our benefit. There are no "real" brains apart from the simulation! *It's not the Matrix*. There is no need for an external "simulator" nor for some "god programmer" to run the simulation. No aliens are needed for that nor are we, humans, in the future looking back. There's no external computer. *No need for any of this!*

Our universe *is* the computer, a quantum one of course. It runs the "simulation" through the mathematical laws of physics that we "discover" as we go. Our brains are part of all this, not outside of it looking at it. They generate qualia and process information.

They evolved as we know, respecting the laws of evolution, biology, chemistry and ultimately physics based on mathematical logic (which has no reason to be this way a priori). The observer is part of the "experiment". We cannot test, in any way except living "passively" through it, that this is going on. That's why this is not physics (it's not a testable hypothesis) but metaphysics, and makes for great, lively dinner conversation! 

We all know that we are recycled atoms from earlier star generations. Our cells at the most fundamental level are "molecular machines", in the most physical, mechanical way possible! If you don't what I mean then you need to check this video:




At a more fundamental level, i.e. particles and fields, there are things like interactions, decoherence, entanglement, etc. that come into play. That's "particle consciousness", information they gather through interactions, process and restore to their environment all according to the laws of quantum physics. At a higher level the same laws apply but averaged over huge quantities of particles. That's us, large quantum systems. At that level the approximate laws of classical (i.e. before quantum) physics suffice and can be used. That's pre-quantum physics.

What we call "consciousness", i.e. the feeling and "knowledge" that we exist, is hard to define because it has no reason to be. It's an emergent property of this "universe simulation". It plays no part in physics nor is it predicted to exist by it. It's the part that we experience, gives qualia, makes sense of our world, let us interact with it and gives senses to our lives (if a sense is needed at all) but not for _our_ benefit, but it _might_ be _the_ reason for all this to be, if any reason is even necessary!


----------



## darkogav (Nov 13, 2021)

Zedcars said:


> But sometimes you will see weird things in the background like a alien deformed limb, or a scary eye in the wrong place. It's not perfect, but pretty good.


Makes one wonder whether this gives a glimpse into what all the hyped AI music will sound like when (or if?) it becomes mainstream? You will hear it, it will sound pretty good, but something about it just doesn't sound quite right because something sounds terribly off about it and it will require someone to go in with surgical-like tools and fix it manually. 

Like the below cat. Yes, it's a cat. Has the facial features of a cat, but does not seem to look like a real live cat. Why does the body in the background look like that of a dead animal or road kill?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 13, 2021)

We are all living in a simulation. The entire universe is a simulation. The unfiltered state of things is too weird for us to be able to understand, so there is a limit to what we can see/observe. How else can we explain no visible sign of life amongst a gazillion stars and planets (Fermi Paradox)?

I believe that there are beings out there that are millions of years ahead of us technologically, and they study us like we study ants. But our chances of understanding these advanced cultures are about the same as the chance that a fruit fly will appreciate you reading out loud Lord of the Flies.


----------



## handz (Nov 13, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Something fun to ponder over the weekend, during a Saturday night dinner with friends, something along the lines of the Simulation Theory.
> 
> Each time the following web page is reloaded a _*completely fake new human face*_ is created by this artificial intelligence (AI) system:
> 
> ...


Love this page. I am using them for all my fake accounts on youtube to bash all the sample libraries with criticism ❤️


----------



## b_elliott (Nov 13, 2021)

Here's my riff on "the glitch" having watched this podcast with Brian Greene amongst others.

My take: Things don't last in the universe is the glitch. 

1. Physicists/philosophers use the term _entropy_ to describe eventual universal death. Though this will take gazillions of years, (yes, Dorothy, there's still time for your vi mock-ups) death is the end game for our universe. 

2. We humans dream at night but those dreams also don't last.

1 + 2 = the glitch (everything comes to naught).

Then, when I hear simulation theory, I wonder is #1 itself a drawn-out dream; but, that begs asking: Who dat? 
Glitch, Bill


----------



## Macrawn (Nov 13, 2021)

Like I'm not convinced that site is legit. Maybe those images were already generated in advance but I don't think a computer can create and render an image that fast upload it and send it to me via the internet in less than a second. They were most certainly touched up by a human. 

But it doesn't change the fact that these images are going to start social media accounts, do reviews, endorse products, and become the representation of companies because they will always be clean, fully controlled and tow the company line. Much more reliable than humans.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 13, 2021)

b_elliott said:


> Here's my riff on "the glitch" having watched this podcast with Brian Greene amongst others. My take: Things don't last in the universe is the glitch.
> 
> 1. Physicists/philosophers use the term _entropy_ to describe eventual universal death. Though this will take gazillions of years, (yes, Dorothy, there's still time for your vi mock-ups) death is the end game for our universe.


 Entropy, going from order to chaos. From what I understand from my husband's explanation, it's just a statistical thing, a large number thing. In 10 coin tosses you can get head 10 times in a row but with a million tosses it is highly improbable.

He explains it this way: entropy is related to the "arrow of time", time seems to us to go in one direction but all laws of physics are time reversible at the particle level. One particle can even go back in time (electron becomes positron, its antoparticle) but gazillion particles like us cannot! And photons don't even experience time!

It's like Time is a river flowing in one direction but that does not prevent a few droplets to go against current at one moment. He says that it is related to "quantum decoherence". Cannot say more... I'm a mere composer. 


b_elliott said:


> 2. We humans dream at night but those dreams also don't last.





b_elliott said:


> 1 + 2 = the glitch (everything comes to naught).





b_elliott said:


> Then, when I hear simulation theory, I wonder is #1 itself a drawn-out dream; but, that begs asking: Who dat?
> Glitch, Bill


Bill, I can only refer you to my post where I say that even in Eastern philosophies circa 3rd century BC, there were stories in Taoism like Zhuang Zhou's _Dream of Being a Butterfly_, asking, like Plato, about the nature of reality:








Zhuangzi (book) - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 13, 2021)

Macrawn said:


> Like I'm not convinced that site is legit. Maybe those images were already generated in advance but I don't think a computer can create and render an image that fast upload it and send it to me via the internet in less than a second. They were most certainly touched up by a human.


Of course. These are pre-generated by the AI system. I agree.

Note: since this is NVIDIA research I'm not even sure of that. THEY, of all companies, have the resources to create such images on the fly!

I don't think they were touched up too.
Science papers here: https://nvlabs.github.io/stylegan2/versions.html



Macrawn said:


> But it doesn't change the fact that these images are going to start social media accounts, do reviews, endorse products, and become the representation of companies because they will always be clean, fully controlled and tow the company line. Much more reliable than humans.


Again, agreed!


----------



## Macrawn (Nov 13, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Of course. These are pre-generated by the AI system. I agree.
> 
> Note: since this is NVIDIA research I'm not even sure of that. THEY, of all companies, have the resources to create such images on the fly!
> 
> ...


Cool, yes I think Nvidia could do it without touching them up. 

I think the new thing in the next 10 years is that we will all be creating alternate personalities in social media backed by these images and 3-D rendered people. At night I'll be crawling the internet as Jose Varcas and be a part time shill for a VST company. I can't wait!


----------



## b_elliott (Nov 13, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Entropy, going from order to chaos. From what I understand it's just a statistical thing, a large number thing. In 10 coin tosses you can get head 10 times in a row but with a million tosses it is highly improbable.
> 
> He explains it this way: entropy is related to the "arrow of time", time seems to us to go in one direction but all laws of physics are time reversible at the particle level. One particle can even go back in time (electron becomes positron, its antoparticle) but gazillion particles like us cannot! And photons don't even experience time!


Thanks. My definition for _entropy_ combines that mention Greene gives on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (@ 1 minute in): this whole shit-show eventually grinds to a halt. That's my concept -- likely there's a better term; I could be wrong. 

I am somewhat familiar with the last reference. Cool stuff; but, if I am a butterfly, I am currently obsessed with my latest BF purchase: Knifonium. Which, down the road, I hope to have bellowing with intensity. Hey, a song title: _The Butterfly who Bellowed_...


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 13, 2021)

b_elliott said:


> Thanks. My definition for _entropy_ combines that mention Greene gives on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (@ 1 minute in): this whole shit-show eventually grinds to a halt. That's my concept -- likely there's a better term; I could be wrong.


That's _exactly_ what I was describing, Entropy. 

By the way Bill if you want to think about the end of our universe I suggest you watch this realistic, scientifically correct, depiction of what it would look like if anyone was there to watch of course  Enjoy the End of _our_ Universe!


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Nov 13, 2021)

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> We are all living in a simulation. The entire universe is a simulation. The unfiltered state of things is too weird for us to be able to understand, so there is a limit to what we can see/observe. How else can we explain no visible sign of life amongst a gazillion stars and planets (Fermi Paradox)?
> 
> I believe that there are beings out there that are millions of years ahead of us technologically, and they study us like we study ants. But our chances of understanding these advanced cultures are about the same as the chance that a fruit fly will appreciate you reading out loud Lord of the Flies.



Can you prove it? If you can't, does it have to be true? If it doesn't have to be true, is there value to thinking that way?


----------



## b_elliott (Nov 13, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> That's _exactly_ what I was describing, Entropy.


Cool. 
There's still that glitch. Just wondering....


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 13, 2021)

b_elliott said:


> Cool.
> There's still that glitch. Just wondering....


See my previous updated post!


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 13, 2021)

Karl Feuerstake said:


> Can you prove it? If you can't, does it have to be true? If it doesn't have to be true, is there value to thinking that way?


As mentioned before it (probably) cannot be proved BUT, my husband would tell you that, it is still an interesting perspective to look at things as being programmed instead of looking at them as some magical production, some super-rabbit pulled out of a Magician creator's hat. It's a personal philosophy question... Metaphysics (with some hope of understanding one day) vs Religion (faith). Whatever makes you more comfortable.


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Nov 13, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> As mentioned before it (probably) cannot be proved BUT, my husband would tell you that, it is still an interesting perspective to look at things as being programmed instead of looking at them as some magical production, some super-rabbit pulled out of a Magician creator's hat. It's a personal philosophy question... Metaphysics (with some hope of understanding one day) vs Religion (faith). Whatever makes you more comfortable.


I suppose this is where agnosticism should come into play, then. I can concede in so far as much as it is possible, but since I see no active evidence in support of it and currently can derive no value from being certain of / absolutely accepting the premise of it, I ought to remain skeptical.


----------



## elliebean (Nov 13, 2021)

As if modern society has two hundred years left.


----------



## sostenuto (Nov 13, 2021)

elliebean said:


> As if modern society has two hundred years left.


Perhaps notable reason to 'balance' popular infatuation with future unknowns, with serious enjoyment of amazing sensory present ? ☯️


----------



## SteveC (Nov 13, 2021)

If I'm a computer program, I have to be an alpha version.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 14, 2021)

Karl Feuerstake said:


> Can you prove it? If you can't, does it have to be true? If it doesn't have to be true, is there value to thinking that way?


I cannot prove it. It doesn’t have to be true. I like to think about concepts that make me feel small, as it keeps me somewhat humble.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 14, 2021)

Karl Feuerstake said:


> I suppose this is where agnosticism should come into play, then. I can concede in so far as much as it is possible, but since I see no active evidence in support of it and currently can derive no value from being certain of / absolutely accepting the premise of it, I ought to remain skeptical.


As mentioned before, the Simulation Hypothesis cannot be proved nor disproved experimentally. It is not physics but metaphysics. It's a way if thinking about our universe, as it follows the known laws of physics as a computer program would do, and us doing the same along with it of course. These laws are being refined from time to time but never proven wrong as they first get their validation experimentally.

There's nothing to be skeptical about physics. It is factual information. As for metaphysics such as the Simulation Hypothesis, you simply adhere to this mode of thinking if it helps you or you don't if it doesn't. It's just a tool.

Physics on the contrary explains our observable universe _perfectly_ from the time it was 10^-35 second old until now, 13+ billion years later. All of it! No theism necessary at all for it!

The only portion where one can claim agnosticism and where god(s) might play a role or not is the first 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001th of the first second of the Universe's life where Science does not have *yet* a complete understanding, but they're getting there too! 

Keep in mind: in this version there is no "Matrix", there are no aliens simulating us, no future us doing it, no external computer doing the simulation, no brains in vats, etc. It's *Our Universe* is simulating *itself* through the programmatic laws of physics and their mathematical representation. Nothing else.

My husband explains to me that some ideas might (possibly) never be testable even when they're useful to physicists. For example most cosmologists accept the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics even though it is impossible to test experimentally by definition. Same for parallel universes created by "eternal inflation" and invisible forever for us. Same for the inside of black holes.

In advanced physics intuition about the "World" and how it works is usually wrong, E.g. relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, etc., because it is based upon our human experience of it which is very, very partial in all possible "senses" (pun) 

It took me a while too to get these points and to understand them better. I don't claim perfect understanding but I'm satisfied so far


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Nov 14, 2021)

Oh, I should be clear; I meant agnosticism in an abstracted way in that I am simply unconvinced of the proof for or against the simulation theory. Essentially metaphysics and the simulation theory is replacing the symbol for God with the symbol for the simulation and said simulation's creator. So it is the same thing to me and I am agnostic about it. I'm not sure whether I'm hard or soft agnostic about it, but also unprepared to fry my neurons thinking about that right now.

I used to believe in God. However I never believed in souls or spirits or ghosts, and so eventually being certain of God's existence became incompatible with that. I am now agnostic about it. Regarding the simulation theory, I guess one should eventually ask at what point all the simulations-inside-simulations come to an end and 'reality' finally exists, so where is the real world? How would we know it's the real world? Is what we are in currently good enough to pass that test?

Anyhow, I'm not skeptical about physics, but I am about metaphysics. Do they approach each other at some point? If so, then I'd become skeptical about the physics the closer and closer it gets to that point.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 14, 2021)

Karl Feuerstake said:


> Oh, I should be clear; I meant agnosticism in an abstracted way in that I am simply unconvinced of the proof for or against the simulation theory. ...I'm not sure whether I'm hard or soft agnostic about it, but also unprepared to fry my neurons thinking about that right now.


Cool! You have plenty of time to think about it. 


Karl Feuerstake said:


> I'm not skeptical about physics, but I am about metaphysics. Do they approach each other at some point?


They touch at the leading edge of knowledge, where the known turns into the unknown. Historically the metaphysics of one era turns into the physics of the next.  

For example, not so long ago cosmology was considered as pure metaphysics and hence a part of philosophy. Now, given huge experimental evidence (e.g. such as the CMB) it is a fully accepted part of physics.

Same thing for the atomic theory before quantum mechanics. Time, space and gravitation questions before relativity, etc. It happens all the... time (pun)


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Nov 14, 2021)

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> I cannot prove it. It doesn’t have to be true. I like to think about concepts that make me feel small, as it keeps me somewhat humble.


Ok, I can respect that  


Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Cool! You have plenty of time to think about it.
> 
> They touch at the leading edge of knowledge, where the known turns into the unknown. Historically the metaphysics of one era turns into the physics of the next.
> 
> ...


Ah, interesting, didn't know the history of that. Cheers and thanks for that chat


----------



## Quasar (Nov 14, 2021)

Living conscious awareness and computational intelligence are not the same or similar phenomena, and the currently popular notion that they are somehow parallel or equivalent is bogus.

If I have a toaster and it stops working, I take it to the recycle dump. What if I replace this with a smart toaster that can say "Your toast is ready," and over time get ever more sophisticated toasters that display more & more AI capability? At what point does it become inhumane to throw the toaster away rather than mourn its passing and give it a decent funeral?

Today, if I lose my temper and smash my toaster to bits, it might be fair to say I have an anger management issue, but no one would call me a murderer. Does this change if I bash a toaster with sufficient AI?

The short answer is no. That's the long answer too. This is because no matter how much AI you put into a machine, it still still has no self-aware interior life. A thermometer exists within consciousness, but it has no self-reflective egocentric conscious experience of what it's like to _be_ a thermometer. That we call mechanical or digital devices "toasters" or "thermometers" at all is only an abstract linguistic convention, used because it fulfills our own utilitarian purpose for categorizing and labeling things.

A cat, on the other hand, though it cannot play chess as well as a properly programmed computer because it lacks the computational intelligence to play chess, still has a sentient, aware interior life. There something that it is like to _be_ a cat.

It's only a popular but deeply flawed physicalist ontology that equates physical brain with conscious mind.

It amuses me that when Newton came up with his inverse square law for gravitational attraction, the dominant metaphor among what were then called _natural philosophers_ but are now called _physicists_ was the "clockwork universe", reflecting the mechanical scientific achievements of that time, which led to deterministic constructs such as Laplace's demon, which postulated that if one could know the entirety of the past mechanistic forces leading up the present moment, one could predict the future with precise accuracy.

Since both SR and QM blew all of that away, 20th century physicists pretty much stopped even asking the question (the Feynman "shut up and calculated" school of inquiry etc.) and today's dominant metaphor is "information" because this metaphor is reflective of the scientific discoveries of our own time, and reflective also of the fact that 100 years later apparent wave collapse still cannot be commonsensically explained. This in turn leads to similarly absurd conclusions called "interpretations" of the paradox (randomly assembled packets of information in a matrix or as a hologram or as Copenhagen or as many worlds et. al).

The so-called "hard problem of consciousness" only exists as a self-created problem by philosophical physicalists who have a quasi-religious need to see awareness as epiphenomenal, an emergent property of material processes. Most people in most times and places (and all of the great religions, large and small) do not have such a foolish physicalist perspective, but understand that matter is itself an emergent property of the conscious intelligence that creates it.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 14, 2021)

Quasar said:


> Most people in most times and places (and all of the great religions, large and small) do not have such a foolish physicalist perspective, but understand_* that matter is itself an emergent property of the conscious intelligence that creates it.*_


"Most people in most times and places" are mostly ignorant of, or grossly misunderstand, most scientific advances but "all people in all times and places" need some comforting model of their world. For some it's Science, for other it's Religion(s). As I said before, whatever makes you more comfortable. I don't want to enter a debate here about what's best for you.

But what exactly do you mean here by "conscious intelligence"? God, gods, AI, aliens, something else? Could you please elaborate?


----------



## Quasar (Nov 14, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> "Most people in most times and places" are mostly ignorant of, or grossly misunderstand, most scientific advances but "all people in all times and places" need some comforting model of their world. For some it's Science, for other it's Religion(s). As I said before, whatever makes you more comfortable. I don't want to enter a debate here about what's best for you.
> 
> But what exactly do you mean here by "conscious intelligence"? God, gods, AI, aliens, something else? Could you please elaborate?


I call the ineffable God. But that's a matter of cultural tradition and choice I suppose. In Exodus: _I am that I am_, which as mortal human beings is beyond our pay-grade to understand from any kind of vantage point that gives us a clear and comprehensive view. But people can and do have spiritual experiences which offer glimpses of that which transcends the realm of mere material spacetime, which I can assure you is neither the center nor the summit of what is real.

Did you know that it's only in the post-Enlightenment West that people tend to think of infinity as space extending forever, or eternity as time flowing forever? More commonly, ordinary people would think of infinity as "that which is outside of or beyond space" and eternity as "that which is outside of or beyond time." This more ancient view, of course, squares with Einstein's block universe, the big bang, and the notion of both space and time collapsing into a "singularity" (which is just a placeholder term for when the math breaks down) in a black hole.

But without getting into a metaphysical debate (which I don't want to do here either), suffice to say that my main point is that mind precedes matter, not the other way around. What you call "scientific advancement" I call the clever manipulation of material plane properties for better predicting and controlling their behavior. The "advancement" is merely of a mechanistic nature, nothing more.

The scientific method is great for building a better mousetrap or for determining when water boils at a given altitude, and that's cool sometimes. It's great when you're the one getting the polio vaccine, not so great when you're the Nagasaki resident experiencing the scientific advancement vaporizing your neighborhood. But empiricism, even in principle, can never tell us who we are, where we are going or why we are here. It's simply not the epistemological tool for the job.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 14, 2021)

@Quasar: your point of view is clear. Thanks for sharing!
For me it's back to my studio and Dorico


----------



## Kevin Fortin (Nov 14, 2021)

I want to write something, but I'm not sure what.


----------



## Kevin Fortin (Nov 14, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Something fun to ponder over the weekend, during a Saturday night dinner with friends, something along the lines of the Simulation Theory.
> 
> Each time the following web page is reloaded a _*completely fake new human face*_ is created by this artificial intelligence (AI) system:
> 
> ...


Hm. I will probably express this badly, but for the past few years I've been thinking that just considered in isolation the people of Earth are trending toward so much more material control over their/our incarnations (let's say over the next few centuries) that it will become clearer and clearer over time that we are spirits or at least dust-devils clothed in matter (to whatever extent matter really exists). Probably still yappy and controlling a few thousand years on. 

As for agency, we have as much power to choose as we do. I like that "cultivation novels" have occurred.

I'd love to see a show that riffs off Moorcock's "Dancers at the End of Time" -- but that might be too bland and magnanimous, and might induce a surfeit of contentment and mutuality in the viewers.

Is it me, or is it Memorex?


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 14, 2021)

We are apes, literally, and only very recently progressed from living in caves. Along the way to what we’ve learned so far we’ve tried out some pretty hilarious theories. The ‘we are a simulation’ is right up there with fish gods, immaculate conception and the flat earth.

As Woody Allen said, the mind comes up with the most wondrous ideas, but it’s the body that has all the fun.


----------



## elliebean (Nov 14, 2021)

Soundhound said:


> As Woody Allen said, the mind comes up with the most wondrous ideas, but it’s the body that has all the fun.


That's really fucking creepy considering the source.


----------



## Kevin Fortin (Nov 14, 2021)

elliebean said:


> That's really fucking creepy considering the source.


How so? Are you sure you know the whole story about Woody Allen?

Or, which source did you mean?

What does pleasure mean to you, and where does it occur, if ever?

Oranges on the table might mean nothing to crows in the haunted woods,
but to someone else they might seem a good source of Vitamin C.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 14, 2021)

My guess is a lot of younger people are unaware of woody allen’s work, essentially wrote the book on modern humor/changed everything… he’s just a perv to them, and to a lot of people of my generation as well…


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 15, 2021)

Sorry didn’t mean to derail a really interesting conversation!


----------



## Quasar (Nov 15, 2021)

Soundhound said:


> My guess is a lot of younger people are unaware of woody allen’s work, essentially wrote the book on modern humor/changed everything… he’s just a perv to them, and to a lot of people of my generation as well…


I only judge or react to the personal lives of people I know personally. If I say "I like Beethoven" this only means that I appreciate his music, not that I have any opinion about how he conducted himself as a human being in his private or interpersonal affairs.

I like Woody Allen, which means– and only means – that I like his films. Take the Money and Run, Annie Hall etc. are great classics. I could care fuck-all about his personal life because it's not intertwined with mine, so I have zero thoughts on news accounts regarding his personal behavior, which there is no reason to read. Getting into that is the concern of the people he engages with on a personal level, or the police (if it's a criminal matter) or the courts or whoever.

IOW I'm firmly in the T.S. Eliot school of criticism, in which a work of art stands on its own merits as its own thing and biographical info about the artist is irrelevant. If it is relevant, then this only means that the work of art is not finished.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Nov 16, 2021)

Wow, this thread has moved from pure innocent fun, to metaphysics and now to ethics and esthetics! 

I'm of the opinion that any piece of art should be judged on its own merits, regardless of the creator's behavior or lack of moral sense according to our beliefs. The problem is the tendency to idolize or even venerate talented people (nowadays even _any_ public figure!) and then, when they inevitably fall short of expectations, it might even turn to vilification of their person and their art.

Many great artists, in all fields, have some quirks, some mental disease, something "special" from the start. That's what make them different and create art which is also different in the first place. Some become "different" after fame for a number of reasons. This does not change the value of their art in my eyes.

Who would dare to think less of Einstein's brilliant work just because of his multiple affairs? Some tried to to do it because of the fact he was Jewish! We now have a name for them.


----------



## Quasar (Nov 16, 2021)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Wow, this thread has moved from pure innocent fun, to metaphysics and now to ethics and esthetics!
> 
> I'm of the opinion that any piece of art should be judged on its own merits, regardless of the creator's behavior or lack of moral sense according to our beliefs. The problem is the tendency to idolize or even venerate talented people (nowadays even _any_ public figure!) and then, when they inevitably fall short of expectations, it might even turn to vilification of their person and their art.
> 
> ...


At least on the subject of how to approach a creative work aesthetically or critically, we agree 100%.


----------



## Soundhound (Nov 16, 2021)

And again, rules are made to be broken. To paraphrase Dr Venkman, they’re more like guidelines… Cases in point, on one hand you have Woody Allen, Einstein, Picasso, and the other, say, Leni Riefenstahl, Ayn Rand. Certainly not putting those two in the company of the first three in terms of talent, but there are cases where real world context does make a difference in my view of the work…


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Feb 18, 2022)

And now this 








Scientists Warn That New AI-Generated Faces Are Seen as More Trustworthy Than Real Ones


The Canny Valley As if the possibility that AI might already be conscious wasn’t creepy enough, researchers have announced that AI-generated faces have become so sophisticated that people think they’re more trustworthy than actual humans. A pair of researchers discovered that a neural network...




futurism.com




Details:








AI Generated Faces Are More Trustworthy Than Real Faces Say Researchers Who Warn of “Deep Fakes” - Neuroscience News


People have trouble distinguishing between real people's faces and AI StyleGAN2 synthesized faces. People also consider AI-generated faces to be more trustworthy.




neurosciencenews.com


----------



## KEM (Feb 20, 2022)

I clicked on this theard fully expecting it to just be a picture of GigaChad


----------



## liquidlino (Feb 21, 2022)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Yes, that and hundreds (thousands?) of articles since 2003, not even counting people who confuse this with the Matrix movies. The idea is even seriously discussed by Nobel physicists (I'm not talking about Elon Musk here ).
> 
> The problem is that _if_ we are living in a simulation how would _we_ be able to know it (and forget glitches in the matrix type of things!).


Cruise ships and skyscrapers. Dead giveaways. No way they obey any laws of physics.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Feb 21, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> Cruise ships and skyscrapers. Dead giveaways. No way they obey any laws of physics.


I don't know about skyscrapers but the last time I was on a cruise some of the people around really looked like they were coming from some alternate reality...


----------



## Pyro861 (Feb 21, 2022)

Now, that's an interesting topic!

I can't tell for sure if we're living in the original universe. The uncertainty principle makes me think that our universe has optimization systems. A particle has no state unless it's being measured? Are we trying to save computing power here? The Fermi paradox also. We're alone in this gigantic thing? We should have found life elsewhere already. Our universe also has an obvious beginning and an end. Does it makes sense for the original universe to have a beginning or would it make more sense to think that the original universe had kind of always been there.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Feb 21, 2022)

Pyro861 said:


> Now, that's an interesting topic!


Indeed! What part of it do you find most interesting? The simulation aspect?


Pyro861 said:


> I can't tell for sure if we're living in the original universe.


If you mean in the context of simulation theory then nobody can  even though Dr Campbell is trying. My husband suggests this article but he's not convinced:




__





On testing the simulation theory - CaltechAUTHORS







authors.library.caltech.edu






Pyro861 said:


> The uncertainty principle makes me think that our universe has optimization systems. A particle has no state unless it's being measured? Are we trying to save computing power here?


Here I had to ask my physicist husband... He says that the "observer" can be any other field or particle. He refers here to "decoherence" (that's why he has a hard time understanding Dr Campbell's "test").


Pyro861 said:


> The Fermi paradox also. We're alone in this gigantic thing? We should have found life elsewhere already.


Our universe is big. Our existence in it (with technology) has been recent and is still short. Other intelligent beings might be the same, far and living at different times.


Pyro861 said:


> Our universe also has an obvious beginning and an end. Does it makes sense for the original universe to have a beginning or would it make more sense to think that the original universe had kind of always been there.


No one knows. Maybe it existed for an infinite time "before". Time before does not make sense as it was created with space. There's nothing north of the north pole as someone once said.  There cannot be an infinite number of simulated universes. Must be a real one but no one knows how that became.

On the other hand the universe can be cyclic as in Nobel prize Penrose's Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC). But I cannot explain it. You would have to ask a physicist, not just his poor wife... 

But I agree... All very cool subjects!... Many more philosophical or metaphysical than physical (i.e. testable).


----------

