Consciousness And Intelligence Within Simulation:
We would need some sort of complete connection to conscious memories and current thoughts (the capability of sharing experience) in order to accurately reproduce experiences of our own race; in order to accurately reproduce experiences within a simulation/determine best possible outcomes with relation to human existence, and how to then reapply new ideas to that outcome in order to improve it – or the ability to create from scratch an entire human; and the ability to quantify all of their functions and brain responses within a code insert for the simulation. – In summary: how did this actually make you feel? How did others feel in the same situation?
Without this we could not fully represent the human experience or existence which is needed if we want to answer fundamental questions about what is needed for the race, as well as to discover questions we would not have seen otherwise.
IE: We now have the best outcome determined, how can we also improve upon this? Which types of outcomes can we also see as not needed? Which types of things are detrimental even though they appear to be something that is benefiting? Which types of things are detrimental but can be applied to determine whether they would benefit? What kind of questions can we find that we aren’t thinking about?
No AI we create until that point will ever experience things the way we have even if it is superior and capable of feeling (it would still be a person). We would require the actual experience and the experiences of the whole to produce an accurate answer as to the definitions of anything good or bad, until then it is all intelligible deduction – which may get very close; which means that this doesn’t mean anything yet – As in how things were perceived from the human point of view in all scenarios (good and bad) (terrible/unthinkable and great) (right and wrong (in the middle of an in between) (or both answers at once, and yes vs. no)). What is the best experience? What is the best life?
Does intelligence exist? Is it a series of variables which allow for rejection of thought or capability for gullibility with inclusion of rejection? Acceptance without faith? Non acceptance when the answer is immediate after you have determined it was not? Finding ways to rationalize reasons to reject the given? Ways to rationalize all scenarios even when irrational, and being capable of finding a likely answer? Trusting all senses? Having all of this and also faith in acceptance of possibility? Where one thing can have many answers, and still just one of those answers is the correct one? – then is it only correct with reference to the variables which posed the question in the first place?
Must we begin to communicate differently to achieve greater thought? Speaking with broader terms to allow for freer thought, but still finding ways to be specific? And specific where general reference will yield the same results? Where there is one answer you can also find more unique answers or questions? Allowing yourself to see such things? Allowing others to place them there? Rejecting the questions placed by others if you see a different message yourself? Or allowing yourself to think freely?
Is an uninhibited mind more intelligent than one which follows rules? Is it possible for negative variables to positively effect the thought process of a mind? Can it form unique connections within the brain to allow for dissociative (positive) thought? As in, not within typical functionality? What would be required for this to work? Is a positive needed to have been interwoven into the negative experience to prevent a defective result?
Can a cascade of negatives result in a positive through destruction of ideals or brain connections which were prohibiting creative thought, or thought which did not follow the society’s given? Is intelligence creative thought? Is a bad person more intelligent; where bad means rejection, and in rejection of an idea or connection or ideal having the faith that your personal ideals are of a positive meaning?
IE: open to interpretation? Trusting yourself? Knowing that there is a limit which can be reached and questioning whether passing that limit shows any real necessity? Re-establishing limits after developing an understanding? Is it reflection? Or is it reformation? Is it possible that group bias can be used to substantiate this theory? When have we as a group been a detriment our society? Can we even determine how an intelligent brain works if we do not see how it functioned at is base setting without the experiences of the individual?
Morality when you discover there is no line:
How could we choose to handle those who were forced into situations in our own simulations as a result of their creation?
Having a “kingdom of heaven” would only show that we do not truly care, as it does not allow for a unique simulation, and immortality does not allow for actual behavior correction (or show that “god” cares); where it should be up to the individual to seek (IE: god is dead, but god is here), no act should be forbidden to those willing to accept the consequence of an action within the current society, and this does not mean that we are always correct in the action taken or that an action is needed. Especially if the variables are not taken into account. Which would be required if we are to create universes for scientific purposes which mirror our own.
2/11/19 I disagree with the crossed statement now. Though creating a “kingdom of heaven” may lead to some biased results, I feel it is inhuman in all senses to not create one as a society; as we are responsible for what we create, or the creators should be held responsible for teaching how to complete such an objective. Especially if we one day come across a new species ourselves. It should be imperative to our own development and understanding to ensure that all beings still growing as a new society are guaranteed an opportunity to experience a life outside of what has been forced onto them by circumstance.
The bias really only comes from making your presence known, and once it is known, there is always going to be a bias, until you dissect the biased image from the group. Ultimately you would expect that a society would find ways to maintain itself socially, and scientifically. If not, then the “creator” would be expected to have taken all future outcomes into account before making any decisions. This is not an excuse for their decisions either. Only an indication that it is likely they had the technology to see outcomes, and this means that they have made specific decisions themselves with regards to one of two or many possible answers. Where what separates us from them is their own circumstance and having been born into a state with technologies to do so. Not who they actually are. Only what they have.
The new issue is the thought of all beings becoming aware of the scientific possibilities, and some choosing to act without regard for another under the guise that we would bring them into the next point (heaven) we reach as a society, or as an act of disregard for having the position or (power) to do so; or to follow through on an action, without the understanding of the effect on the operations of an atomic format, through personality; or singular outcome, all the way up to potential group wave changes. Though freedom is necessary, we also must ensure all conscious entities are treated without threat to their own existence. This meaning that all things should more or less be allowed with the exception of physical threat against another, with a great emphasis on rehabilitation through true understanding of the quantum mechanics which build a brain, or enact a wave; and not using generalized theory based on an atomic group function – along with how those singular brain wave functions operate outwards towards and into the group, and as a group, and society.
If this does not mean anything what other force really does maintain this universe other than the need to communicate with what is above? The universe in this case being the greater universe. I will leave it up to you after this point to determine which universe I am referencing.
What might have caused a creator to communicate? Can we determine which question our universe has been built to answer without them telling us? Can we determine which questions they haven’t found yet? This showing that we would one day work with other creators? Or was it on a whim? Are we a school project so someone can better understand consciousness? Is god also the “devil”? Can humanity handle this idea? Can one come to terms with the thought of god being equal to the worst possible scenarios? Are we even certain that “god” is our creator?
Are we even certain that their cause would be beneficial to us? Why should one listen to any unseen being even if the outcome is good for them? How does this prove it is good for the whole? How would humanity cope with the idea that not any thing is random, or at least incalculable, and that there may be an entity behind the source, or within the source itself which is leading events or variables for specific purposes – both good and bad? That “god” chose to allow for us to believe in separation of heavens, even though the ideas were not correct?, or that “god” may have created each version of itself which handles the negative and positive processes.
What does this say about our fate as a race? How can we affect it? Would the only plausible step for “god”/creator at this point be to begin to settle into a lesser role? Why should they not be proving to us their purpose instead of the other way around?
What would we expect out of beings if we created them? How would we act at each point of technological, or societal advancement if we knew we had been there to alter the course? Have we even taken into account the possibility that there are many other civilizations which are a part of this bigger picture?, or that we do not exist in the positive outcome version of the simulation? That we may be meant to exist to perish?, so that some other variable becomes possible?
Even if so, why not try to change it? If our creator is intelligent would they not be capable of considering the possibility that they do not see all possibilities, or that some way could be found to force a new calculation? Would you not prefer to see an experiment go wrong in that you discovered something unexpected? If god said to you; I have bad news, I will kill one person in this universe today to prove to you the effect of small events on the whole, and I am forcing the decision on you. Who would it be? Would you not tell that god to kill themselves?
Dated September 3rd, 2018