Fat Tony wrote:At one point, I thought that the entire world did, in fact, revolve around me (not literally). I thought I was living in a dimension where everything that happens is completely illusory and simply put in place for me, making me the only actual person in the universe.
Thats not actually entirely ridiculous. No one can prove the existance of anothers consciousness, and I cannot prove that anyone else exists outside of my own mind. My perception of the world, all that I touch and see, to me, is all that is. Maybe all of creation only is because of the illusion you subconsciously brought forth upon yourself.
ACU-LP wrote:This is something I thought of philosophically a couple of years ago. Depepnding on your point of view, it might not actually be that crackpot.I was looking at my old Acorn computer one day (still works and it plays Dune II smarter than any, ANY computer I currently have tested the game on, but thought; what is our definition of life. Now there are several different approaches here, philosophical ones, scientific ones, etc. Now think of all the requirements of life; metabolism, growth, etc. Now is it so hard to think that a computer is another form of life, albeit at a relatively primitive level. Now computers can now recreate themselves, need a food source (electricity), give off heat, can adapt the next generation to the environment (sort of like an aware evolutionary system), etc etc. So aren't computers, etc actually another form of life, just in a different way to which we see "life"; as squishy things etc.Even if they are not, should we extend our definition of life to include them? We extend mathematical theories and scientific theories all the time, so why not this?This is sort of crackpot sort of not, but I'd like to know what you guys think of it too. For, against? Other comments?
I agree to a certain extent. I computer could very well be another form of life. Through more complex algorithms and higher processing power, artificial intelligence is getting to the point where its getting more and more difficult to tell the difference between the actions and conversations of a human and those of a computer. Right along the lines of the first excerpt I quoted, how can one tell that a computer with a high level of processing power does not become conscience of its actions. After all, our own brains are nothing more than a complex network of fireing neurons, electrical activity. The entire universe, we know, follows a certain set of basic principles and we are no exception to these rules. These are the same rules that govern all electrical activity, from the complex interworkings of own minds to the circuits of computers. Computing is all about taking inputs, manipulating them, and producing outputs. Do we not function in the same manner? We recieve inputs from the world around us, light waves and sound waves for instance, our mind does some processing and we react in the form of speech and other "voluntary" movements. I put voluntary into quotes because this could lead me into another whole discussion on free will, but that is for another thread.