How Far?

[Krypto]

This kinda has ideas from the Matrix, Star Ocean 3, and whatever movies or novels or games that have included them.

I've pondered this for a very long time now, I just haven't posted it here yet. The introduction of the PS3 and XBOX360 got me thinking about it again. As technology continues to improve, each new generation vastly improves over the previous incarnations, showing no developmental end in sight.

My question's not about gaming systems, but it's about life itself. How far will we continue to develop AI? Will we reach a point where we can no longer do anymore? Or will we be able to develop AI enough to where it can think for itself?

If we are able to develop AI to the point where it can think and act for itself, for our own entertainment purposes, or whatever...then how can we be so sure that we ourselves aren't some product of an advanced race? What if we're just a game to some super-advanced civilization?

It also makes you wonder about religion. I'm not religious, really, I'm agnostic. I think that there is *some* kind of God, but I don't choose any certain religion. What if our "God" isn't what we think? Maybe Jesus Christ was the an AI program of the original maker of our little game? Even further into this little rabbit hole, maybe instead of just programs made for other people's entertainment, we're the players themselves? The ultimate game, with real consequences. What if "Heaven" is just us returning to the "real world"?

It's things like these, that make Keanu Reeves go "Whoa..."

Questions, opinions, debates?

....GO!

[Magna Harrier]

Well, the possibility of us being the creation of some advanced race isn't really reliant on OUR ability to produce self-aware AI... perhaps that capability was blocked from us on our "creation". That being said, our ability to create such self-aware AI isn't reliant on our own creation by some higher power... they're both independent factors of possibility.
On that note, have we worked out what counts as "self-aware"? The ability to recognize self is subjective.... do we base it upon the ability to draw conclusions? To question? To dream? At one point do we draw the line between aware, independent being, and a super-developed A.I. that merely has exellent learning capability? I've always felt that way too many folks are too eager to draw a line between the two feilds. Can an entity be partially aware? Can it have half a "soul"? Wil we end up with the AI equivalent of animals before we reach human level?
As for being created by another, higher power, well, as we have no real way to confirm any theory to that effect, there's not much use in supposing anything. I have'nt been given any reason to believe so, so I don't really give much thought to it. Sure, there's the possibility. There's also the possibility that the mug I'm drinking out of will melt into lava in my hands spontaneously. It's just incredibly improbable and unlikely.
But, on that note, are we talking "designed", as in our current point of evilution, or as in someone tampered with our genetic ancestors towards a certain purpose?
And if we're just part of a great cosmic AI propagation, why are we so geared towards biological replication?

[Krypto]

But, on that note, are we talking "designed", as in our current point of evilution, or as in someone tampered with our genetic ancestors towards a certain purpose?

Hmm, I'd say designed as in, like we would design a video game. Perhaps our world was designed as a place to test out self-aware AI. Starting out with some of the less intelligent species, all the way to the more advanced species as time and technology improved.

Well, the possibility of us being the creation of some advanced race isn't really reliant on OUR ability to produce self-aware AI...

Quite true, but should occur to you at some point that if we're able to do it, then it is entirely possible that we ourselves are the product of an advanced race.

If it's not obvious already, I do like abstract thinking. :)

[Noble]

Its like the Hitch Hiker's guide to the galaxy. We are being controlled and manipulated by mice, who are actually from a different dimension.

And man did that movie SUCK!

[MikeKAY]

You know, not long ago I read an essay online that drew parallels between the computers we make and ID*. A portion of it was about how a modern computer resembles a human (think in the context of brain=CPU, etc, etc) and another portion was about how they would perceive us if they became self-aware. Its point was vaguely that God had made us in his image and now we are likewise creating "life" in our own imagine. Of course we aren't finished yet; the essay also pointed out of each generation of computers gets gradually more advanced, apparently a parallel to evolution.

I guess that would kind of be what you are talking about.

*Intelligent Design.

On a different note, the analogy you are making does put things in an interesting perspective when looking at the universe. Remember when Morpheus was talking about laws? We have our own laws that subjugate us, and the entire universe for that matter, except of course that we can't break ours. Think about the big bang, to this day we can "see" the "echo" from the big bang. From the moment the big bang happened, there were already forces acting on it. The laws of Physics, Thermodynamics, etc, where already inexplicably there and they ruled how the big bang expanded and played out and still do to this very day. They somehow exist on a "higher" level of authority to the universe, which seemingly has no choice but to obey. This can take us back to the Bible; "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1. In this context one could look at God's Word as law. Now back to your point about the Matrix, the Architect created the Matrix, in a way everything in the Matrix was subjugated to him, yet he was a "part" of the entire construct.

Are we part of a computer game? Probably not. Do our little synthetic realities mimic our life? Most definitely. We may in fact be following in God's footsteps with our creations, which makes sense if we are "made in His image."

Either way, there will be some kickass games in the future! :lol:

[Solario]

Quite true, but should occur to you at some point that if we're able to do it, then it is entirely possible that we ourselves are the product of an advanced race.

Fact remains that if we're not a product of an advanced race, then we certainly are a product of our past generations.

And as much as people like to differentiate themselves from machines with A.I., we are in actuality not very different.

Think about it, what do you do when you breath, sleep and eat? When you breath and eat you are picking molecules from your surroundings, inhaling the air, digesting the food, and when they reach their destination, the lungs and the stomach, you disassemble the molecules, take what you need, and release the rest of the trash. Much like when a mechanic for example, when a car is disassembled and the usable parts are used as spare parts for another car or when a computer goes on the net and filtrates the usable infomation and dumps the rest. When you sleep, your body is repairing mental damage, that it might have substainded during the time you are awake, what this is, is biological rebooting.

Machines with genuine A.I. are just like us, except less squishy.

Anyway that's my semi-related rant.

[Magna Harrier]

A good night's sleep has given me at least one element I'd require to call something aware: The ability to draw conclusions, and questions based on those conclusions.

[Randomus]

The revelation that 2+2=4 makes Keanu go 'Whoah'. You don't need to get into any philosophy to achieve that effect.

[Magna Harrier]

Then there's the question of whether or not philosophy is a requirement for self-awareness. Dolphins seem to get along fine without it, but then they get all the tuna they want. I'd be much less introspective we my life that full of joy as well.

[Jade_Dragon]

Well, on a deeper level, this brings up the question of what reality is. If we can simulate a reality, that is "not real", as in it exists only in the "mind" of a computer, then is it possible to distinguish that reality from a "true" reality? In other words, you are asking, is the real world merely another simulation? The inverse of that is, is a simulation yet another real world?

The bigger question is whether the "simulation" we're theorizing about is the simulation in a computer's mind, or one in YOUR mind. In fact, a computer can't really accomplish anything on its own, it exists in this case to create a universe for a human. If you fantasize about a universe, perhaps by writing, is that a "true" reality? If it is possible to link your mind to a computer system and simulate a reality, complete with sensory input that totally convinces your mind that it is real, then is EVERY universe that your mind can concieve real? Is, in fact, reality ONLY within your mind, and what we think of as outside reality, the "real world", actually only a thing that is percieved by our minds to create the TRUE reality... our inner being.

Philosophise about THAT. :D

[Xielos]

Its this type of thinking that almost drove me insane, so whileI'd love to make a real reply, I really don't want to go down that road again.

[Mahaf]

Wil we end up with the AI equivalent of animals before we reach human level?
Actually, it's quite possible already to mimic animals in AI almost perfectly. It's easy to do so because every animal responds a certain way to certain stimuli. They all respond this way, it's their nature, and they do not have the intelligence we do to act in a different way. They do exactly what nature specified they do in such a situation, making it relatively easy to copy them perfectly. That's where making human AI becomes near impossible- some humans will fight in a certain situation, while some will flight. If given that same situation with a different setting, that same fighter might flight. If given that same situation with a weapon, the flighter will fight. Not only that, but it depends on the mood the person is in at the time. A depressed person might just wait for his death to come upon him. On the other hand, someone who just fell in love will fight tooth and nail to stay alive and see their loved one again. That's why human AI is so hard to do. Humans don't differ in their actions situation-to-situation, even if that situation is quite clearly the same. Animals do not do this. They respond a certain way to certain situations, pretty much without fail. They have one response to a stimuli, and they react according to the stimuli. You could say there are very rare exceptions, but there's an exception to every rule. This one is simply too few and far between to need to be taken into account.

EDIT- On reality.

If we were to all (Every human being alive) agree this text was blue, then in reality, it would be blue. All of our reality is based on our views, and the views instilled upon us by past generations. 120 years ago, something that captures a surrounding and plants it onto a piece of paper wasn't reality. Now, it is a reality.

[ChairLegOfTruth]

Then there's the question of whether or not philosophy is a requirement for self-awareness. Dolphins seem to get along fine without it, but then they get all the tuna they want. I'd be much less introspective we my life that full of joy as well.

What makes you think that Dolphins lack philosophy?

Self awareness in pretty much universal above a certain neural connectivity; cats and dogs are both self-aware and so are most other animals. However it the capibility of philosophy or Sapiency that defines 'intelligence'. There appears to be no physical basis for Sapiency, indeed current thinking leans to a Quantum foundation for intellect. The brain acts a a quantum computer entangled within itself and thus allowing self referentialism across the whole neural net at a complexity that far outstrips the brain's physical structure.

Newborn Humans lack self-awareness; they're just extensions of their mother until about 6 months. Then they begin to develop a sense of self, becoming more independent as a they become more mobile. As threy become more mobile the complexity of their brains is also increasing.

As for the future... anyone here ever hear of The Singularity (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=The+Singularity&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)?

[sheld0n]

On reality.

If we were to all (Every human being alive) agree this text was blue, then in reality, it would be blue. All of our reality is based on our views, and the views instilled upon us by past generations. 120 years ago, something that captures a surrounding and plants it onto a piece of paper wasn't reality. Now, it is a reality.

Some people believe that the Earth is flat. Does it make it not round?
The way we see things and the way they are, are actually two distinct things. We can call things differently, but their meaning remains the same.
If we said this text is blue, it would be just another name for white, it wouldnt magically change into blue.

[Solario]

Some people believe that the Earth is flat. Does it make it not round?
The way we see things and the way they are, are actually two distinct things. We can call things differently, but their meaning remains the same.
If we said this text is blue, it would be just another name for white, it wouldnt magically change into blue.

While you are right about shapes and sizes and tangable stuff like that, you can't argue that if we all of a sudden precieve blue as a orange, it would still be blue.

It's kinda like that "How do I know what I precieve as Orange is orange to you? Just because it has the same name doesn't mean that from my perspective it's the same." (Sorry if that sounded confusing.)

[Jade_Dragon]

While you are right about shapes and sizes and tangable stuff like that, you can't argue that if we all of a sudden precieve blue as a orange, it would still be blue.

It's kinda like that "How do I know what I precieve as Orange is orange to you? Just because it has the same name doesn't mean that from my perspective it's the same." (Sorry if that sounded confusing.)

I've always thought about that problem. If the sensation that the color blue produces in my mind is the same that the color orange produces in your mind, then in a very real sense, I see blue the way you see orange. But because I call it "blue", and blue appears as something else to you, there is no way you can ever know that this is happening. You assume I percieve blue the same as you because we communicate the SYMBOL, and not the perception of the symbol.

The bigger question is, in the absense of our perception, which is the only way we CAN define "blue", just what IS blue? A wavelength of light reflected from an object? What importance does that wavelength hold if there is no one around to interpret it? Is "blue" an actual thing, or just the symbolic representation of a thing?

It's the old "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound" argument. What is a sound? A vibration of the air? Or our mind's perception of our ear picking up the vibration in the air? The vibration exists even in the absense of an ear, but is that "sound"?

[MikeKAY]

Nothing like a nice mind-phuck to make your day, eh chaps? :D

[Jade_Dragon]

"I think not", said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.

Or another variation I love, "I think I am, therefore, I am... I think..."

[sheld0n]

I've always thought about that problem. If the sensation that the color blue produces in my mind is the same that the color orange produces in your mind, then in a very real sense, I see blue the way you see orange. But because I call it "blue", and blue appears as something else to you, there is no way you can ever know that this is happening. You assume I percieve blue the same as you because we communicate the SYMBOL, and not the perception of the symbol.

You could notice the difference, because for example, blue goes well with green, while orange doesnt.


While you are right about shapes and sizes and tangable stuff like that, you can't argue that if we all of a sudden precieve blue as a orange, it would still be blue.

It would be blue, we just wouldnt notice the difference. The way we percieve things, does not affect these things objectively.
If everyone turned blind, you can't argue that colors would cease to exist entirely. We just wouldn't know about them.

Now, returning to the original discussion about the reality of reality :)
Creating self-concious AI doesnt affect the chance that this world is fake, but if we did manage to create it, it would certainly prove that its doable.

Ive been thinking about the "game theory" for a long time, that maybe our whole lives are just like, say 5 minutes passed at some astral arcade. Im not serious about it, but its definitely an interesting way to look at things.

What scares me a little more, is what if we dont really exist? What if were like NPCs, or figments of someone's imagination?

[Solario]

You could notice the difference, because for example, blue goes well with green, while orange doesnt.

I think you're kinda missing the point. I mean you percieve color go well with other colors, but other people might disagree. It's kinda like that whole "everyone has different tastes" speech, how do you know they go well together? because of their placement in the spectrum, but if you precieve the spectrum differently, they would still go well together. And if you're right, what if the color scales were constrasted for me compared to you? You really can't notice the different because of these two. I really have to quote Jade Dragon on this one: "You assume I percieve blue the same as you because we communicate the SYMBOL, and not the perception of the symbol."

It would be blue, we just wouldnt notice the difference. The way we percieve things, does not affect these things objectively.
If everyone turned blind, you can't argue that colors would cease to exist entirely. We just wouldn't know about them.[/quote]

There's a different from seeing a color as a different color than not seeing color at all.

What scares me a little more, is what if we dont really exist? What if were like NPCs, or figments of someone's imagination?

But anyway as you said back to the original topic: I've been having thoughts like that, since I was five. I mean, I'm kinda sure I exist, of course I'm not 100% since if I wasn't I wouldn't know how to exist feels like, but how do I know the rest of you aren't a figment of my imagination for example? How do I know, I didn't subconciously create all of you and the world, because there's only me?

[ChairLegOfTruth]

Kay: 1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow.
Men In Black

Isn't pop culture great?

[sheld0n]

I think you're kinda missing the point. I mean you percieve color go well with other colors, but other people might disagree. It's kinda like that whole "everyone has different tastes" speech, how do you know they go well together? because of their placement in the spectrum, but if you precieve the spectrum differently, they would still go well together. And if you're right, what if the color scales were constrasted for me compared to you? You really can't notice the different because of these two. I really have to quote Jade Dragon on this one: "You assume I percieve blue the same as you because we communicate the SYMBOL, and not the perception of the symbol."

There's a different from seeing a color as a different color than not seeing color at all.


The message im trying to put across is that if people see the same thing differently and theres no way to verify it, the thing itself doesnt change. It could mind as well, but it doesnt.

The lack of objective means to find the truth does not defy the existence of objective truth.


But anyway as you said back to the original topic: I've been having thoughts like that, since I was five. I mean, I'm kinda sure I exist, of course I'm not 100% since if I wasn't I wouldn't know how to exist feels like, but how do I know the rest of you aren't a figment of my imagination for example? How do I know, I didn't subconciously create all of you and the world, because there's only me?

Something deep inside me always gets a little irritated when people tell me that im a figment of their imagination. No idea why :D
But anyway, what if youre programmed to think that you exist?
And when we say something doesnt exist, we usually compare it to this RL plane (like when saying Lara Croft doesnt exist, shes only in computer games). So when we say that we do/dont exist, what plane are we comparing RL to?

[Jade_Dragon]

You could notice the difference, because for example, blue goes well with green, while orange doesnt.

Yes, but it's just our PERCEPTION that orange doesn't go well with green. There could be many reasons for that, but the most logical is that because red and green are complementary colors, the brain "balks" at the color orange, which is close to red but shares the yellow component. Thus you get a "vibration" effect as your eye tries to focus on the two discordant colors.

This doesn't have anything to do with the way we percieve orange or green, though, and since you would see exactly the same effect when orange and green were next to each other, even if you saw orange the way I see blue. Of course, it's much more likely that the way we see colors can't even be compared to each other, but this is just to demonstrate the idea. ;)

Actually, I first theorized about this idea in connection with the idea of eye transplants. If you had someone else's eyes transplanted, would the signals that you got from those eyes be the same as what you remembered, or would you find the colors all scrambled? AFAIK, no one's yet managed to do this, but it could be something we get an answer to soon.

It would be blue, we just wouldnt notice the difference. The way we percieve things, does not affect these things objectively.
If everyone turned blind, you can't argue that colors would cease to exist entirely. We just wouldn't know about them.

Ah, but if no one in the world could percieve them, would they be "colors"? I'm not arguing that the wavelengths of light bouncing off of the objects would not be changed in specific ways, but is that "color". Color is, in fact, a categorization of objects based on the similarity of these wavelengths. There isn't even a single wavelength that is "green", it is the range of colors that we percieve as being similar.

A better question would be, if everyone was blind, would those OBJECTS cease to exist? Obviously they would not, since you would still have touch and hearing to use as perception. However, do those objects still exist if you can't percieve them? And if you can't percieve them, then how do you know if they exist? (Yes I am going somewhere, but I'll wait for the next post. :D)

What scares me a little more, is what if we dont really exist? What if were like NPCs, or figments of someone's imagination?

Well, simply put, if you didn't exist, then you couldn't be afraid of not existing. Sort of the opposite of "I think, therefore I am." "If I were not, then I would not think (I was not)". However, I have wondered about what the reaction of a fictional character would be if he were to discover he was fictional.

[Solario]

The message im trying to put across is that if people see the same thing differently and theres no way to verify it, the thing itself doesnt change. It could mind as well, but it doesnt.

The lack of objective means to find the truth does not defy the existence of objective truth.

Of course you're right, the thing it self never changes, but our perspective of it does.

Something deep inside me always gets a little irritated when people tell me that im a figment of their imagination. No idea why :D
But anyway, what if youre programmed to think that you exist?
And when we say something doesnt exist, we usually compare it to this RL plane (like when saying Lara Croft doesnt exist, shes only in computer games). So when we say that we do/dont exist, what plane are we comparing RL to?

Hehe I wonder why it irritates you... :D

And exactly! The biggest problem with this whole scenario is that we've only existed, atleast we can only remember existing, on this plane, but we have no comparrison, so in the end we can't prove anything.

But to some small degree we can claim that if it's been thought it exists atleast on some form of plane, even if it's just a imaginative one. Anyone here read Promethea by Alan Moore? It's about this girl, Sophie Bangs, who has to come to terms with becoming a host for Promethea, which at best can be described as a story, and how Sophie moves through the different planes of existence, one of which, probably the most important one, is the Imagination. Anyway it's deeply rooted in Alan's own discovery of magic and the kabalah etc. but it does bring up a good point, what if the Imagination is just another plane of existence, that people are subconciously connected to?

And to finish off my post, and to steer it back towards a virtual reality and a AI, I unafortunately have to end with a quote from the Animatrix (despite how much I loath the sequels to the Matrix): "To an artificial mind all reality is virtual." So how do we know this isn't one either?

[MikeKAY]

Fun Fact.

The basis for the Matrix goes back all the way to ancient Greece. The idea was originally called Plato's Cave. Read the Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave

[Jade_Dragon]

The lack of objective means to find the truth does not defy the existence of objective truth.

Ah, but is there any MEANING in objective truth if it cannot be determined?

One of the fundamental theories of Quantum Physics is that you cannot simultaneously determine the speed and position of a particle at the same moment. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) To measure either of the two, you have to effect the other. So once you get through measuring speed, position has changed, and vice versa.

Now, your argument is that even though you can't KNOW both the speed and position of the particle at the same time, it HAS both, and that's the "truth". But if you cannot measure that attribute, then you cannot put that information to work. In essense, the position of the particle, even though it exists, cannot have any impact on the universe because that impact could then be observed.

The problem is that when we percieve the universe, we don't actually observe the universe itself, but rather we categorize our perceptions and turn them into symbols. So when we talk about "reality", we are usually talking about the objective, "outside" existance that our internal symbols are attempting to model. We understand that there is an "outside world" and that our perception of it is entirely in our heads. And yet, because our perception IS in our minds, that's really all we have.

It is a fact that all matter is made up of tiny particles that are themselves made up of mostly empty space. Yet our perception of the world tells us that objects are solid. We can't pass through them. We may understand that it is actually the nuclear forces acting across the space between the particles that keeps us from putting our hand through the top of our desk. But our perception is that the table is solid, and that there is no empty space in it for us to put our hand through.

[Solario]

Fun Fact.

The basis for the Matrix goes back all the way to ancient Greece. The idea was originally called Plato's Cave. Read the Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave


Doesn't surprise me, the Matrix was always a humongous ripoff, the only difference is that the first one done well (and without the religious christian angle, which I wasn't too fond of in this particular movie.)

That Plato's Cave is very interesting though and it's probably good to know about before my philosophy class next semester.

[Jade_Dragon]

Doesn't surprise me, the Matrix was always a humongous ripoff, the only difference is that the first one done well (and without the religious christian angle, which I wasn't too fond of in this particular movie.)

That Plato's Cave is very interesting though and it's probably good to know about before my philosophy class next semester.

I'd never heard of it either, but it sums up where I was going nicely, so it fits in perfectly with what I was talking about. :D

Basically, Plato's Divided Line analogy talks about "levels" of perception. The first level is simple visual perception, like the prisoners looking at the shadows on the wall. It can be fooled. The second level, though, which I was going to get around to, is predictability. When you perceive something, and then leave, and then come back to percieve it again, you can infer that it exists even when you can't see it. You've created an image in the object in your mind, that corresponds to the "real" object in its location in the world.

Plato's third level is quite obviously reason. If you can perceive an object, and predict its appearance over time, then you can make deductions about it. You can deduce information about it that was NOT based on either actual observation, or the assumed state of the object while you weren't observing it. Thus, you form an image of the world and its natural laws.

[Solario]

In that form it can easily be compared to psychology in the form that, according to Freud that is, in the beginning of the child's life it does not grasp the complete picture. In the beginning it believes, since it has no previous experience that the world and itself is the same thing, the child suffers from delusions of grandeur. Later on in the symbiotic phase (1-3 months old) the child starts precieve the world, but it's limitedless and a basically a puzzleworld, it does not connect the mothers face with the rest of her body, but even later on the child, in the differentiation phase (When the child is about 5-10 months old), the child begins recognizing the mother, because he now precieves her as a whole. In the consolidation phase (when the child is around 24 months to three years old) the child actively starts venturing off without the mother (he did so before, but still demanded that she was always nearby because of the need of individuality whilst still having her as a secure base), because he now has an internalized picture of his mother.

[Jade_Dragon]

The two are definately related, yes. :D

[sheld0n]

Alright, let me remind you what im arguing here:

If we were to all (Every human being alive) agree this text was blue, then in reality, it would be blue. All of our reality is based on our views, and the views instilled upon us by past generations. 120 years ago, something that captures a surrounding and plants it onto a piece of paper wasn't reality. Now, it is a reality.

(underlines by yours truly)

Mahaf said that reality depends on what we see, as if our eyes were the creators of our surroundings.
Can you really read that differently? If not, can you really agree with that?

Lets bring up another example, just to make sure:
The news about the american army desacrating Koran. It was everywhere in the news, there were protests, many people died.
So, just becuase it was in the news, and everyone percieved it as real, does it mean it actually happened?

[Sable Phoenix]

I've always thought about that problem. If the sensation that the color blue produces in my mind is the same that the color orange produces in your mind, then in a very real sense, I see blue the way you see orange. But because I call it "blue", and blue appears as something else to you, there is no way you can ever know that this is happening. You assume I percieve blue the same as you because we communicate the SYMBOL, and not the perception of the symbol.

The bigger question is, in the absense of our perception, which is the only way we CAN define "blue", just what IS blue? A wavelength of light reflected from an object? What importance does that wavelength hold if there is no one around to interpret it? Is "blue" an actual thing, or just the symbolic representation of a thing?

It's the old "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound" argument. What is a sound? A vibration of the air? Or our mind's perception of our ear picking up the vibration in the air? The vibration exists even in the absense of an ear, but is that "sound"?


That's always interesting to contemplate, but after going to an art college and studying color theory and the science behind it in one form or another for several quarters, it's safe to say that it's a near certainty that the same color is perceived the same way by everyone (unless, of course, they're color blind).

[sheld0n]

And that, my friends, is what we call a screeching halt. :p


Anyway, i think reality is relative in the way nothing is ever 100% certain, but thats because the way we look at things changes, and not those things themselves...

As for everything we know being fake. Whats the difference between us being created by some higher spiecies as an experimet, and being created by a god? Does it make us less real?

Are we just players in Universe of People, a game that features forced roleplaying (ie. forgetting the real real world)?

Personally, i think our world is real in the meaning that i believe it will have a very tangible influence on my afterlife. And if there isnt any afterlife, than it pretty much cant get realer than this ;)

[Solario]

And while I disagree about the whole "others can't see colors differently than us," I do agree it's pretty much debated out. I still percieve it as individual taste, because you can't claim to be able to see colors from anyone else's eyes, but your own.

The funny thing about our universe and entire being is as Niels Bohr once said: "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."

[Krypto]

Heh, I'd have loved to contribute to this discussion, but my internet was down the past week. :mad: