Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed the simulation argument, which suggests that if a civilization becomes capable of creating conscious simulations, it could generate so many simulated beings that a randomly chosen conscious entity would almost certainly be in a simulation.
Convinced by the argument, Pascal gives the mugger the wallet. In one of Yudkowsky's examples, the mugger succeeds by saying "give me five dollars, or I'll use my magic powers from outside the Matrix to run a Turing machine that simulates and kills 3 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ 3 {\displaystyle 3\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow 3} people".
The self-indication assumption doomsday argument rebuttal is an objection to the doomsday argument (that there is only a 5% chance of more than twenty times the historic number of humans ever being born) by arguing that the chance of being born is not one, but is an increasing function of the number of people who will be born.
While the computer metaphor draws an analogy between the mind as software and the brain as hardware, CTM is the claim that the mind is a computational system. More specifically, it states that a computational simulation of a mind is sufficient for the actual presence of a mind, and that a mind truly can be simulated computationally.
The argument is directed against the philosophical positions of functionalism and computationalism, [4] which hold that the mind may be viewed as an information-processing system operating on formal symbols, and that simulation of a given mental state is sufficient for its presence.
Employees felt overworked and alienated due to layoffs, increased workloads and ongoing back-and-forth arguments on hybrid work arrangements. Toxic workplaces, which are still too prevalent, added ...
Democratic Sen. John Fetterman said he expects to bring up a series of allegations against Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, when the two men sit down for their first ...
The most common objection to naïve Coherentism is that it relies on the idea that circular justification is acceptable. In this view, P ultimately supports P, begging the question. Coherentists reply that it is not just P that is supporting P, but P along with the totality of the other statements in the whole system of belief.