Does reality pass the Turing test?

[partinobodycular]

Consider that the bulk of the population may be made up of gullible buffoons.

I used to think that the number of buffoons was actually pretty small. I mean most people are normal rational people... right? But then 63 million people voted for Donald Trump, and I thought, naw, this can't be right. People aren't really this gullible. But then they did it again, and I thought, okay that settles it, I'm in the matrix. Which is actually pretty comforting, because it means that all of this insanity and suffering isn't real, and all of my anxiety is simply caused by the fact that I think that it's real. But if it's not, then that makes life a whole lot easier to navigate, because if life is just an illusion then all that I need to worry about is how I choose to interact with it. Do I wanna moan and complain about who's doing what to whom, or do I just wanna be a bright spot in an otherwise dreary world.

As I understand it GTA allows people to choose how they wanna play the game. You don't have to run around shooting and killing people. I choose not to run around shooting and killing people, or worrying about who's 'woke' and who's 'Maga'... I don't care! I can just be me... in my unimportant world, doing my unimportant things, and I'll let everybody else do the same. I'll wish them the best, and I'll help them where I can, but in the end it's up to you to do you.

What you propose is an AI that's a simulated human intelligence that exists in our world, not an NPC that exists in a simulated world.

Which do you want to discuss? Whether we live in a simulation or the rights of sentient AI?

I'm much more interested in the subject of NPC's. Just what would an NPC look like? And how do I know that you're not one? Is it really impossible to tell the difference? Can it ever be said that reality 'looks' like a simulation?

You ask how any are demonstrably different, but to tell you'd have to be able to step outside the created world. There's no way to compare from within it.

That would appear to be the case... but is it true, and is it better to live as if it's real, or as if it's an illusion? Because if it's an illusion then there are things that I'm worrying my pretty little head about, that I really don't have to. Life is simply gonna do what life is gonna do, and I can spend my time getting all caught up in the insanity of it, or I can just chill out and do my best to brighten up my little corner of it.

If, however, someone comes along and says "I'm the one who made all this," and then demonstrates that by doing things that are absolutely impossible within the framework of our world, then we'd do well to pay attention.

Alas, I still wouldn't know if that was real, or simply part of the illusion. So it seems to me that the reasonable thing to do is to just be me, and in my case that means living by the council laid out in Micah 6:8, to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God... which doesn't mean threatening my neighbor with eternal damnation in hell, or assuming that I'm in any way better than them. Humbly means humbly.

 

[partinobodycular]

How we perceive, store and process information varies from person to person. Given enough people, there will be charismatic leaders who pop up, and some of them will be nutcases. And many will join the herd to follow a charismatic leader no matter how nutty the leader is. Herding is kind of a natural thing for us to do.

Has humanity evolved to be swayed by the charismatic? Like anomalous deviations from the norm in a chaotic system? In which case it would seem like humanity's actions are an effect caused by something outside of its control, and that humanity isn't the actual cause of those actions. Which harkens back to @Modern Day Job's post at the beginning of this thread, or @AV1611VET's analogy of a puppetmaster. Neither of which would seem to be in keeping with humanity as a collection of free agents, but more in keeping with the idea of humanity as a simulation. Having a semblance of autonomy, but no real control?

 

[AV1611VET]

Has humanity evolved to be swayed by the charismatic?

The closest you're going to get to a simulation isn't even a simulation at all.

It is a possession -- a demon possession.

One that results in automatic handwriting, and other diabolical things.

As Paul put it ...

2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Those turning away from the Truth are setting themselves up to be used as a magnet, to be drawn unto fables.

Notice there's no option in the matter, they WILL turn to fables.

And no missing links, cause-and-effect evidence to the contrary, decimal places, or continual revisits to the drawing board are going to stop them.

Every single country on Earth can have a Christian symbol on its flag and God mentioned in its national anthem, and it's not going to change their minds.

So, no.

Humanity hasn't been swayed by the charismatic.

It is being led by the diabolical.

 

[Ophiolite]

2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

It is in the nature of Brits to be more sensitive to irony. That superpower was unnecessary here.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is in the nature of Brits to be more sensitive to irony.

Like when God used them to give us the King James Bible?

 

[Yttrium]

Has humanity evolved to be swayed by the charismatic? Like anomalous deviations from the norm in a chaotic system? In which case it would seem like humanity's actions are an effect caused by something outside of its control, and that humanity isn't the actual cause of those actions. Which harkens back to @Modern Day Job's post at the beginning of this thread, or @AV1611VET's analogy of a puppetmaster. Neither of which would seem to be in keeping with humanity as a collection of free agents, but more in keeping with the idea of humanity as a simulation. Having a semblance of autonomy, but no real control?

It's just typical herding behavior. What would you expect to see if it isn't a simulation?

 

[Chesterton]

I always hesitate when referring to the possibility that reality is a simulation, because it implies that there's a 'genuine' reality that it's based upon.

I don't know of any way to get around the fact that there has to be a genuine, or more primary reality, unless you just want to say it's "turtles all the way down" and stop thinking about the question.

Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." So we are in part simulation.

But in this instance that's not necessarily the case. 'Simulation' is just a convenient way of getting the concept across, that reality may not be as 'real' as it appears to be. What's 'out there', may not actually be out there at all.

There are any number of different Turing type tests for AI, but the question is, could reality itself pass a Turing test?

That's kind of confusing. If "simulation" is just a convenient word, can you think of a more accurate word to get the concept across?

 

[Tuur]

That would appear to be the case... but is it true, and is it better to live as if it's real, or as if it's an illusion? Because if it's an illusion then there are things that I'm worrying my pretty little head about, that I really don't have to. Life is simply gonna do what life is gonna do, and I can spend my time getting all caught up in the insanity of it, or I can just chill out and do my best to brighten up my little corner of it.

Real or illusion as in concrete or simulation. In the end it's irrelevant: if we do live in a simulation, it's real to us.

 

[Tuur]

And if that ever happens, demonstrably and not via hearsay, I shall certainly sit up.

I take you at your word. And yet we have eyewitness accounts that some will not accept it. Even those who witness such may not.

 

[partinobodycular]

The closest you're going to get to a simulation isn't even a simulation at all.

It is a possession -- a demon possession.

One that results in automatic handwriting, and other diabolical things.

As Paul put it ...

2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Those turning away from the Truth are setting themselves up to be used as a magnet, to be drawn unto fables.

Notice there's no option in the matter, they WILL turn to fables.

And no missing links, cause-and-effect evidence to the contrary, decimal places, or continual revisits to the drawing board are going to stop them.

Every single country on Earth can have a Christian symbol on its flag and God mentioned in its national anthem, and it's not going to change their minds.

So, no.

Humanity hasn't been swayed by the charismatic.

It is being led by the diabolical.

That's about as preachy as I think I've ever seen you get. You do realize that that's ineffective, right. Not that I have a problem with it, you just keep doing you, and I'll keep trying to make sense out of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's about as preachy as I think I've ever seen you get.

Oh, my!

I didn't realize I was preaching!

Thanks for the compliment?

You do realize that that's ineffective, right.

Correct.

Just as I said it would be.

Whether it's a single post from me, or in every national anthem on Earth, it will be held in contempt.

Not that I have a problem with it, you just keep doing you, and I'll keep trying to make sense out of it.

At least you're trying! I'll give you that!

 

[partinobodycular]

It's just typical herding behavior. What would you expect to see if it isn't a simulation?

I suppose that I'm expecting wiser heads to prevail... running like lemmings off a cliff because of some charismatic leader wouldn't seem to be an effective survival strategy. Makes for an effective plot device though, if you're looking to create conflict.

Why is it that behavior that I'd find unthinkable in myself, is so easily dismissed as normal when it occurs in others?

Is it true then, I could put you in GTA and you'd accept it as normal?

What's the Turing test for reality, if not the fact that it behaves in a way that you yourself wouldn't?

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't know of any way to get around the fact that there has to be a genuine, or more primary reality,

So you are in effect saying that reality is a simulation.

 

[partinobodycular]

That's kind of confusing. If "simulation" is just a convenient word, can you think of a more accurate word to get the concept across?

How about, reality is "an artificial construct, having the appearance of objectivity without the physical manifestation thereof". See, simulation is easier.

 

[Chesterton]

So you are in effect saying that reality is a simulation.

Yes, I said it's partly a simulation.

How about, reality is "an artificial construct, having the appearance of objectivity without the physical manifestation thereof". See, simulation is easier.

Yes, C. S. Lewis referred to the elements of reality as "artifacts". But I don't know what you mean by "the appearance of objectivity".

 

[AV1611VET]

What's the Turing test for reality, if not the fact that it behaves in a way that you yourself wouldn't?

I submit it's cartoon physics.

When's the last time you say a truck drive through a painted tunnel?

 

[timewerx]

So the question is, does reality pass the Turing test? Does it act like a freely evolving natural world, or does it act more like an purposely designed simulation?

A Turing Test is a test against human behavior which is the standard used to pass the test.

So you're trying to test reality against the short-sighted, programmed/biased, and irrational behavior of humans?

If reality to you is "mankind's dominion" for all its flaws, short sightedness, and irrationality, then it will pass the Turing Test.

If reality is the world beyond the dominion of man, working quite unlike the flawed system of mankind, then it fails the Turing Test.

 

[Yttrium]

I suppose that I'm expecting wiser heads to prevail... running like lemmings off a cliff because of some charismatic leader wouldn't seem to be an effective survival strategy. Makes for an effective plot device though, if you're looking to create conflict.

Wiser heads usually prevail, but if an insane charismatic leader turns the herd against them, preying on the paranoia of the people, there will be problems.

Why is it that behavior that I'd find unthinkable in myself, is so easily dismissed as normal when it occurs in others?

Is it true then, I could put you in GTA and you'd accept it as normal?

What's the Turing test for reality, if not the fact that it behaves in a way that you yourself wouldn't?

I'm still proposing that you may be way more rational than average. It's our irrationality that can distinguish us more from AI.

 

[partinobodycular]

A Turing Test is a test against human behavior which is the standard used to pass the test.

So you're trying to test reality against the short-sighted, programmed/biased, and irrational behavior of humans?

Since 'irrational humans' are part of what's being tested, it would be poor protocol to use them as part of the standard. Therefore the only standard left for me to test them against is me. Using myself as the standard, and allowing for a reasonable deviation therefrom, do people behave rationally?

The answer unfortunately, is no. The question is, why? Is the standard unrealistic? Quite possibly.

Hence the question of reality's objectivity remains unanswered, but the course of action seems fairly clear... when they suffer, cherish them as if they're real... when they err, forgive them as if they're not.

 

[partinobodycular]

But I don't know what you mean by "the appearance of objectivity".

I could simply say that they appear to have a physical manifestation independent of an outside observer, but I'm going to augment that to include the fact that they appear to have an agency that they may not in fact have.

In other words, it doesn't matter if they're physically real or not. If they have agency, then they're real, if they don't, then what they appear to be is simply an illusion.