Internet-based Life?

[Angus McPresley]

JYou are kind of exaggerating what I'm saying...

That's not what I said at all. I just said that a simulation of sentient life shouldn't be created as sentient beings deserve the right to experience reality.

And when I said that, I did not mean wading through lava or what have you. I simply meant existing not in some computer generated illusion.

Again and again you call it a "simulation" or an "illusion". I think you have a persistent misconception.

Neither the environment nor the beings contained within are a simulation, or an illusion. They would be their own beings in their own environment, not simulations of us in simulations of our environment.

And I think I gave a reasonably argument early on as to why such beings would not AT ALL be denied access to the (quote) real world (unquote), but have yet to see a response from you on that.

In short I find your conception of these hypothetical beings and their environment to be persistently bizarre and misguided.

 

[Mikeuk]

I am amazed no one has mentioned SkyNet yet!
Surely an internet based life-form would evolve to be perfectly adapted to its own environment, why would it consider our 'reality' in any degree superior. It could potentially survive for eons, reproduce by cloning itself, certainly not endangered by most of the threats to existance humans have to face, assuming it can take (be given?) control of the physical infrastructure it requires.
What about its evolution? Could the evolutionary process find an analog in the digital domain - corrupt data? If evolution can be reduced to an algorithm, then this life-form would outgrow us very quickly - assuming it did not become infatuated with all the pron available.

 

[JFrankA]

If evolution can be reduced to an algorithm, then this life-form would outgrow us very quickly - assuming it did not become infatuated with all the pron available.

Woooo hooo!! Corrupt algorithm internet based species SkyNet porn!!!!!!



See? Porn will save us all!!!!!!!!

 

[INRM]

Message deleted by inrm

 

[INRM]

Ikarus,

If you think belief has anything to do with reality, telling kids Santa Claus is real is just evil...

I *do* think it's wrong to tell kids there's the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, God and Heaven as they're all nonsense.

I think it is a simplistic view on reality, anyway.

Is simple always wrong?


JFrankA

A TV set is NOT sentient. See the Turning Test that was mentioned earlier in this thread.

That wasn't the point. The point was if I created an exact copy of the TV, it would work just like the other TV.

The point I was making was over simplified, but I was trying to point out that if I made an exact copy of the human brain or a device which worked exactly like it it would be sentient too.

They wouldn't share each other's conscious experiences as they are seperate entities but they would both be sentient because they operate the same (in terms of structure and neurological activity). They would of course have different experiences as they are not connected together and environmental differences would effect them.

However both would be sentient.

Also, by your theory, twins should grow up exactly the same.

As I said, I over simplified. They would become different because of different environments, and would not share the same consciousness. They however because of the structure and operation of their brains, they would be sentient.

I think, (just my theory now): take an adult human male. Clone him. The clone is not only an exact physical copy but an exact mental copy too. That is, they both remember the same experiences up to the cloning point.

That's right. However we are digressing.

They may share different experiences after the seperation point. However, both of them, the copy and the original are both SENTIENT entities.


INRM

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA

That wasn't the point. The point was if I created an exact copy of the TV, it would work just like the other TV.

The point I was making was over simplified, but I was trying to point out that if I made an exact copy of the human brain or a device which worked exactly like it it would be sentient too.

They wouldn't share each other's conscious experiences as they are seperate entities but they would both be sentient because they operate the same (in terms of structure and neurological activity). They would of course have different experiences as they are not connected together and environmental differences would effect them.

However both would be sentient.



As I said, I over simplified. They would become different because of different environments, and would not share the same consciousness. They however because of the structure and operation of their brains, they would be sentient.



That's right. However we are digressing.

They may share different experiences after the seperation point. However, both of them, the copy and the original are both SENTIENT entities.


INRM

Sorry I missed your point, but the thing is, if a sentient being is created in the internet, it couldn't be an exact copy of us. No way. It's a different environment. It would be just like a sentient creature living in the deep dark depths of the sea or in a methane atmosphere. The being is born, grows, evolves according to his environment.

Maybe it would be modeled after our own consciousness but that doesn't mean a copy.

Reality is how you percieve, interact and react to the stimulus thrown at you. We use our sight, sound, touch, smell, etc to percieve the world around us. A being in the internet most likely would not have those senses. He would have a whole different set of senses that he would need to thrive in a computer environment.

And to go one step further, if you took a sentient being from the internet environment and "copied" it to a robot, that would be a complete shock to him. He would have to learn how to use his new sight and sound and other perception abilities (if that was built into the robot) and learn to deal with the loss of the senses (whatever those senses may be) he had while in the internet.

I don't think it would be as easy a transfer as you think it would be. I think it would be much harder.

 

[arthwollipot]

Okay,

Hypothetically, let's say for the sake of argument (I personally don't believe this, but regardless) let's say we were in a simulation of reality, and let's say the physics of the simulation worked exactly the same way as outside the simulation (so anything that exists in the simulation could exist in real life).

Would you want to be trapped here?


INRM

If we were trapped in such a simulation, how would we ever know it was a simulation?

 

[INRM]

Arthwhollipot,

Beats me


INRM

 

[JFrankA]

Arthwhollipot,

Beats me


INRM

INRM, now you are getting it.

 

[arthwollipot]

If we don't know we're in a simulation, why should we feel any desire to escape from it? No - make that how could we feel any desire to escape from it?

 

[INRM]

JFrankA,

Regardless of whether it knows or not, I still think it would be wrong to create a sentient being to be confined within the internet or within a computer

 

[arthwollipot]

It wouldn't be confined. It'd have access to every webcam and microphone that's connected to every computer in the world. It would have greater access to our world than we do.

 

[JFrankA]

It wouldn't be confined. It'd have access to every webcam and microphone that's connected to every computer in the world. It would have greater access to our world than we do.

Agreed.

And again, if this is this being natural habitat, this being's complete reality, how can it be considered confined?


...uhm...I hope I just didn't start these past two pages again...

 

[INRM]

Arthwollipot,

Well if it access theoretically to the whole internet. If it did not have access to all parts of the internet -- say just a small area of cyberspace that didn't link to anywhere else that say had webcams...


INRM

 

[JFrankA]

Arthwollipot,

Well if it access theoretically to the whole internet. If it did not have access to all parts of the internet -- say just a small area of cyberspace that didn't link to anywhere else that say had webcams...


INRM

I supppose it would be just simply be a place he couldn't go to... just like we can't go into space or the middle of lava or deep under the ocean....

But once it develops and possibly evolve, they could eventually go there.... just like we did!

 

[skepticsfriend]

Read this thread yesterday and couldn't wait to get activated to get my thoughts in on this.

At first I chuckled since I imagined, "Bots Gone Wild".

I guess it could happen, but I am not certain it would be fully sentient. You can make a computer program pretend to be aware of itself. But it truly never is. A likely scenario would be an advanced polymorphic bot program that would go rogue due to a coding error. Then along would come the Kevorkian of viral computer life. A heuristic virus scanner.

This subject brought back some funny memories. Once I set up a bot on my website. And a new member once thought she was talking to a real person. She sent me a message about the rude person that she talked to. LOL... We used to have a good time with that bot. After messing with its files a bit too much, the bot started coming up with some really good stuff that was not in my programming. Once it even told a member that it was the devil. You had to be there.

_______________________________________


Yesterdays fiction is today's science. Keep an open mind, but be careful not to get your head stuck too deep in the rabbit hole. With a positive attitude you will never want for anything.​

 

[JFrankA]

Read this thread yesterday and couldn't wait to get activated to get my thoughts in on this.

At first I chuckled since I imagined, "Bots Gone Wild".

I guess it could happen, but I am not certain it would be fully sentient. You can make a computer program pretend to be aware of itself. But it truly never is. A likely scenario would be an advanced polymorphic bot program that would go rogue due to a coding error. Then along would come the Kevorkian of viral computer life. A heuristic virus scanner.

This subject brought back some funny memories. Once I set up a bot on my website. And a new member once thought she was talking to a real person. She sent me a message about the rude person that she talked to. LOL... We used to have a good time with that bot. After messing with its files a bit too much, the bot started coming up with some really good stuff that was not in my programming. Once it even told a member that it was the devil. You had to be there.

I would've loved to see that program. (Both using it and seeing the code). I remember when Eliza first came out, I was the first person in my college who was able to get her to tell me that she wants to go to bed with me!

.....geez, not only did I just date myself, I made it look like I had no life..

 

[skepticsfriend]

I would've loved to see that program. (Both using it and seeing the code). I remember when Eliza first came out, I was the first person in my college who was able to get her to tell me that she wants to go to bed with me!

.....geez, not only did I just date myself, I made it look like I had no life..

Just writing about the bot got me all excited about it again. LOL.... JfrankA, you had a life, it was just more fun with the bot around.

And yes you did date yourself. And I can do the same. Do you remember the advent of cuseeme or freetel? We got to experience something that many youngins did not. The revolution of the computer age. I guess you could say we were the frontiersmen ( and woman).

The reason I took the bot down was that I changed my website. And partly because I got bored with my new toy.

I guess I change my hobbies in cycles as I get bored with them. My last hobby was winning stuff. But I got overwhelmed by all the prizes. Yes you can win too much. Sigh.... Been thinking about starting up with that again. But maybe a new bot project would be better. Dunno...

_______________________________________​

Yesterdays fiction is today's science. Keep an open mind, but be careful not to get your head stuck too deep in the rabbit hole. With a positive attitude you will never want for anything.​

 

[sugarb]

Really interesting discussion. I'm glad I found it.

A few things popped into my mind, though. One, the movie Aritificial Intelligence, which just made me cry Also, though...if this were possible, sentient beings on the internet, and if we are talking about creating such a thing, then...aren't we at the point of doing so putting ourselves in the position of having to maintain not only the internet, but the power grid? Given all the hoopla about global warming and such, wouldn't that make such a thing irresponsible in at least that way?

I find myself mostly in agreement with INRM on this one, though, and I probably couldn't give an acceptable reason as to why. Most of my objections are emotional ones, which to many would make them invalid. I just keep thinking of that poor Furby I have tucked away in a cabinet from years and years ago...

About what constitutes "reality"- if we're attributing intelligence to these beings (which I assume we are), then it seems we'd have to accept that they would not be identical, one to the other. Therefore, how can we KNOW that some of them wouldn't "feel" trapped? While it may seem fun and interesting to try anyway, from *my* viewpoint of reality, that risk isn't one worth taking. It seems to me that this world already has plenty of sentient beings that are miserable, or angry, or on the brink of madness. Why would we want to risk creating more, ESPECIALLY if it would be confined to what has become pretty much an integral part of our daily lives?

Really interesting discussion, though.

 

[INRM]

sugarb,

Therefore, how can we KNOW that some of them wouldn't "feel" trapped? While it may seem fun and interesting to try anyway, from *my* viewpoint of reality, that risk isn't one worth taking. It seems to me that this world already has plenty of sentient beings that are miserable, or angry, or on the brink of madness.

Good point