To shoot your shot I[/I]: To let go of your pride and pursue someone you are interested in.
The worst response you can get for shooting your shot is not rejection, which comes with clarity. It’s not even indifference, which is indistinguishable from disinterest, itself synonymous with rejection. The worst response you can get is the ambivalence that leaves you oscillating between “she loves me” and “she loves me not”, the ambiguous feedback that throws you into a limbo of anxiety-inducing uncertainty. Faced with such a quandary, it’s best to completely disengage and move on rather than exhaust your cognitive resources trying to interrogate the meaning of every nuance of her behavior. 200,000 years of the evolution of the homo sapien brain ought not be squandered on what is essentially gaslighting oneself. Parse reality correctly and see her for what she is: just another seemingly sentient multicellular organism doing its time in the cosmos, just one more data point in a massive simulation we call the universe, just one more extra in your unfolding narrative of humanity, just one missed layup during practice.
Nafikiri point yako iliishia hapo kwa she loves me she loves me not. Hiyo ingine ni unnecessary.
I agree. A girl who in into you will leave you with no doubts. If a woman ever acts in a way to suggest maybe, maybe not: that means she is either is rejecting you outright but trying to be polite about it, or she has better prospects elsewhere and wants you as a place holder just in case. Ruka.
Yes it is we are just in a big super computer called a black hole that’s in another bigger supercomputer the loop continues to infinity with the CPU cores being the trillions of supernovas inexistance or out of existence.
Neither have I, tbh. But the probability that we’re in a simulation is at least non-trivial. And even if we are, it would be interesting but wouldn’t change anything regarding how we should act. The discovery won’t make us Neo from The Matrix. We’d still be bound by the laws of physics and social order among other abstractions that guide our existence. We can’t escape our coding.
By insinuating we are a simulation, you strike a debate on reality. Do you want to say that what we perceive as real isn’t? Then if that is the case, this simulation must be an idea bought from a real thing…A real reality whose image we just resemble. Whenever or wherever such a reality exists you should be able to tell us… Coz everytime I hit my small toe against the table leg, it feels really real.
Even if it’s true that we’re in a simulation and the evidence for it somehow became available (e.g. if the entity running the simulation revealed that fact to us), it doesn’t follow that we can learn anything about the environment outside the simulation. After all, we would be nothing but lines of code.
Coz everytime I hit my small toe against the table leg, it feels really real.
One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.”
You guys simulationists are not any different from ‘intelligent design’ creationist theorists. You rely on a theory that a supreme being created some space of the universe for his/her own amusement. A very gory experiment. Some people have a point of view that’s different from you. Some believe in Dieties, some don’t. We have seen attrocities committed.
How comes some people have to die a painful death protecting their Deity? Which Deity conforms to your school? YOUR school of thought of total conformity with your Deity? Do you think your Deity hates all the other minor deitys? How can you exlain it?
You’re right. The simulation hypothesis can be seen as a variation of the intelligent design theory because both propose that a personal being or beings created this universe.
Not really. Neither the simulation hypothesis nor the intelligent design theory presumes to know the purpose for which the designer created the simulation or universe.
So do I. I was raised as a Christian and I haven’t abandoned the belief system. I do, however, find many atheistic and agnostic arguments extremely compelling.
Why would an omnibenevolent (all good) God allow evil and suffering to exist? I grapple with this question too bro. And I’ve yet to find a completely satisfactory answer.
Now, why would an alien running a simulation allow beings in that simulation to suffer? There’s room for speculation here, at least. Maybe it’s doing it for its own amusement. Perhaps it’s using the simulation to solve a problem or problems in its universe. Whatever its reasons (assuming that such a grand ‘extra-cosmic’ intelligence operates on our logic in which reasons drive actions), letting us suffer wouldn’t necessarily be wrong from its perspective (assuming it gives a shit about being wrong).
Is it wrong to kill the characters in video games? If using quantum computers we fabricated a virtual reality inhabited by beings so identical to us in every measurable respect that we could justifiably consider them sentient, would they have a right to life as we do?
[ATTACH=full]187292[/ATTACH]
If you created a being capable of feelings, perception and self awareness, you would prevent it from questioning your controlling it.
We humans have started with Artificial Intelligence then we have machine learning, we have artificial learning and we will soon have machine self awareness. We might be able to create a self aware machine in future.
What will that machine feed on? What will be it’s longevity in terms of our lifeterm?
Possible outcomes of a conscious artificial superintelligence:
[ol]
[li]It will help us achieve immortality and we’ll all live happily ever after.[/li][li]It will kill us all.[/li][/ol]
I think number two is the most likely outcome.