Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-15-2012, 04:06 PM   #76
red1
raps fan
 
red1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,216
Default Re: Scientists Plan Test to See if The Universe is a Simulation

This is ridiculous. If I wasn't real would I be able to do this

red1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 04:20 PM   #77
shlver
코비=GOAT
 
shlver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,293
Default Re: Scientists Plan Test to See if The Universe is a Simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by miller-time
Even without the simulation idea, the notion of the self is largely made up by other parts of the brain. Often we make decisions before we are even consciously aware of them.

There is also a lot of filling in the blanks and short cuts the brain takes to give us the illusion we are living in a continuous state. For instance when you move your eyes around quickly the optic nerve actually stops sending signals to the brain (so you aren't receiving any visual information) but surprisingly the brain fills in the blanks so we don't even notice that we are technically blind for milliseconds at a time. Another fill in is the blind spot where the optic nerve crosses the retina. Here there are no photo-receptors yet when we look out at the world we don't notice we are missing a relatively large piece of it.

The world we experience and the world as it is are two different things. On some level our experience is simulated by the brain itself.
All of our experiences are constructed by the brain itself. The correspondence between our perception and reality is a modelling system. Useful to us but not actual reality or truth.
shlver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 05:01 PM   #78
TheeBeast
Local High School Star
 
TheeBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,290
Default Re: Scientists Plan Test to See if The Universe is a Simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by shlver
We do not use language to think. Did Helen Keller not think before she got instruction? That's absurd. Using the symbolic system of language was a huge evolutionary step that allowed us to differentiate from simple thinkers to the society we have today.
Why do you make the assumption that we created language to think of ourselves differently? Thinking is just information processing of simple, logical rules. Language is just a higher, more complex manifestation of that process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shlver
All of our experiences are constructed by the brain itself. The correspondence between our perception and reality is a modelling system. Useful to us but not actual reality or truth.

I put that wrong. I meant once we came to the point where human civilization had a complicated system of language, we began to think of the world differently- what I personally believe is the whole ego, self-centered way mind state came from. Where do you think religion arose from? Is religion not related to how we believe the universe was created?

An MIT student did research and found out that people who speak different languages [which is the comparative method], indeed think differently and language does in fact shape thought and how we see the world around us:

Quote:
For a long time, the idea that language might shape thought was considered at best untestable and more often simply wrong. Research in my labs at Stanford University and at MIT has helped reopen this question. We have collected data around the world: from China, Greece, Chile, Indonesia, Russia, and Aboriginal Australia. What we have learned is that people who speak different languages do indeed think differently and that even flukes of grammar can profoundly affect how we see the world. Language is a uniquely human gift, central to our experience of being human. Appreciating its role in constructing our mental lives brings us one step closer to understanding the very nature of humanity.

I often start my undergraduate lectures by asking students the following question: which cognitive faculty would you most hate to lose? Most of them pick the sense of sight; a few pick hearing. Once in a while, a wisecracking student might pick her sense of humor or her fashion sense. Almost never do any of them spontaneously say that the faculty they'd most hate to lose is language. Yet if you lose (or are born without) your sight or hearing, you can still have a wonderfully rich social existence. You can have friends, you can get an education, you can hold a job, you can start a family. But what would your life be like if you had never learned a language? Could you still have friends, get an education, hold a job, start a family? Language is so fundamental to our experience, so deeply a part of being human, that it's hard to imagine life without it. But are languages merely tools for expressing our thoughts, or do they actually shape our thoughts?

[..........]

Believers in cross-linguistic differences counter that everyone does not pay attention to the same things: if everyone did, one might think it would be easy to learn to speak other languages. Unfortunately, learning a new language (especially one not closely related to those you know) is never easy; it seems to require paying attention to a new set of distinctions. Whether it's distinguishing modes of being in Spanish, evidentiality in Turkish, or aspect in Russian, learning to speak these languages requires something more than just learning vocabulary: it requires paying attention to the right things in the world so that you have the correct information to include in what you say.

Such a priori arguments about whether or not language shapes thought have gone in circles for centuries, with some arguing that it's impossible for language to shape thought and others arguing that it's impossible for language not to shape thought. Recently my group and others have figured out ways to empirically test some of the key questions in this ancient debate, with fascinating results. So instead of arguing about what must be true or what can't be true, let's find out what is true....

[.......]

Even basic aspects of time perception can be affected by language.For example, English speakers prefer to talk about duration in terms of length (e.g., "That was a short talk," "The meeting didn't take long"), while Spanish and Greek speakers prefer to talk about time in terms of amount, relying more on words like "much" "big", and "little" rather than "short" and "long" Our research into such basic cognitive abilities as estimating duration shows that speakers of different languages differ in ways predicted by the patterns of metaphors in their language. (For example, when asked to estimate duration, English speakers are more likely to be confused by distance information, estimating that a line of greater length remains on the test screen for a longer period of time, whereas Greek speakers are more likely to be confused by amount, estimating that a container that is fuller remains longer on the screen.)5
[........]

Even what might be deemed frivolous aspects of language can have far-reaching subconscious effects on how we see the world. Take grammatical gender. In Spanish and other Romance languages, nouns are either masculine or feminine. In many other languages, nouns are divided into many more genders ("gender" in this context meaning class or kind). For example, some Australian Aboriginal languages have up to sixteen genders, including classes of hunting weapons, canines, things that are shiny, or, in the phrase made famous by cognitive linguist George Lakoff, "women, fire, and dangerous things."

[..........]

In fact, you don't even need to go into the lab to see these effects of language; you can see them with your own eyes in an art gallery. Look at some famous examples of personification in art — the ways in which abstract entities such as death, sin, victory, or time are given human form. How does an artist decide whether death, say, or time should be painted as a man or a woman? It turns out that in 85 percent of such personifications, whether a male or female figure is chosen is predicted by the grammatical gender of the word in the artist's native language. So, for example, German painters are more likely to paint death as a man, whereas Russian painters are more likely to paint death as a woman.

The fact that even quirks of grammar, such as grammatical gender, can affect our thinking is profound. Such quirks are pervasive in language; gender, for example, applies to all nouns, which means that it is affecting how people think about anything that can be designated by a noun. That's a lot of stuff!

CONCLUSION:

I have described how languages shape the way we think about space, time, colors, and objects. Other studies have found effects of language on how people construe events, reason about causality, keep track of number, understand material substance, perceive and experience emotion, reason about other people's minds, choose to take risks, and even in the way they choose professions and spouses.8 Taken together, these results show that linguistic processes are pervasive in most fundamental domains of thought, unconsciously shaping us from the nuts and bolts of cognition and perception to our loftiest abstract notions and major life decisions. Language is central to our experience of being human, and the languages we speak profoundly shape the way we think, the way we see the world, the way we live our lives.



http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/boro...y09_index.html

So don't give me that Helen Kelar bull shit, Language is the most important tool to any of our senses and does in fact influence the way we perceive reality.

Last edited by TheeBeast : 12-15-2012 at 05:20 PM.
TheeBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 05:43 PM   #79
shlver
코비=GOAT
 
shlver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,293
Default Re: Scientists Plan Test to See if The Universe is a Simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheeBeast
I put that wrong. I meant once we came to the point where human civilization had a complicated system of language, we began to think of the world differently- what I personally believe is the whole ego, self-centered way mind state came from. Where do you think religion arose from? Is religion not related to how we believe the universe was created?
What does that have to do with anything? Saying we invented language and we can use man made language to describe or "influence" our perceived reality doesn't make our perception actual reality.

Quote:
An MIT student did research and found out that people who speak different languages [which is the comparative method], indeed think differently and language does in fact shape thought and how we see the world around us:
So? What does that have to do with anything?


Quote:
So don't give me that Helen Kelar bull shit, Language is the most important tool to any of our senses and does in fact influence the way we perceive reality.
YOU said that we need language to think.
shlver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 08:45 PM   #80
TheeBeast
Local High School Star
 
TheeBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,290
Default Re: Scientists Plan Test to See if The Universe is a Simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by shlver
What does that have to do with anything? Saying we invented language and we can use man made language to describe or "influence" our perceived reality doesn't make our perception actual reality.


So? What does that have to do with anything?



YOU said that we need language to think.

So now you're putting words in my mouth....

I never said humans NEED language, nor did I say we need language to think

I corrected myself earlier when I wrote:

Quote:
The question I have is that since we [as humans] created language to think of ourselves as separate things from the universe, isn't it true by the laws of our way of communication that WE are real?

I meant that ever since the human species has come to the point of inventing our own set of languages, our perception of the universe [reality as we perceive it] has changed dramatically. If you go back to the MIT research page, there's more details there.

Quote:
What does that have to do with anything? Saying we invented language and we can use man made language to describe or "influence" our perceived reality doesn't make our perception actual reality.

But the thing is that trying to look for anything beyond our own perception would be like trying to bite your own teeth. Saying that our perception is or isn't reality is beyond retarded since it's our own perceptions that CREATE what we call reality.

Get it now?....

Go check out some stuff on quantum mechanics and you'll get the picture.

Last edited by TheeBeast : 12-15-2012 at 08:51 PM.
TheeBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 09:19 PM   #81
shlver
코비=GOAT
 
shlver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,293
Default Re: Scientists Plan Test to See if The Universe is a Simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheeBeast
So now you're putting words in my mouth....

I never said humans NEED language, nor did I say we need language to think

I corrected myself earlier when I wrote:



I meant that ever since the human species has come to the point of inventing our own set of languages, our perception of the universe [reality as we perceive it has changed dramatically. If you go back to the MIT research page, there's more details there.




But the thing is that trying to look for anything beyond our own perception would be like trying to bite your own teeth. Saying that our perception is or isn't reality is beyond retarded since it's our own perceptions that CREATE what we call reality.

Get it now?....

Go check out some stuff on quantum mechanics and you'll get the picture.
That is wrong. You just agreed with miller-time when you said "bingo" and his statement directly contradicts yours.
You started your argument for what is real by saying we define through language what is real. Sure, we can semantically define the word real because we created language, but it is not actual reality. Look up what reality means. Reality is not created by our perceptions. What gave you such an idea?
shlver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 09:34 PM   #82
shlver
코비=GOAT
 
shlver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,293
Default Re: Scientists Plan Test to See if The Universe is a Simulation

Our brains interpret reality and what we see, hear, touch, smell, etc is a construct of what our brain interprets. What about smell or taste? It is solely the structure of the molecule and its interactions with receptors that determines what our brain interprets the molecule to smell or taste like. The smell or taste interpreted could or could not be an ACTUAL property of the molecule, but our brains do not deduce the actual property of structure.

Last edited by shlver : 12-15-2012 at 09:44 PM.
shlver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 11:28 PM   #83
TheeBeast
Local High School Star
 
TheeBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,290
Default Re: Scientists Plan Test to See if The Universe is a Simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by shlver
Our brains interpret reality and what we see, hear, touch, smell, etc is a construct of what our brain interprets. What about smell or taste? It is solely the structure of the molecule and its interactions with receptors that determines what our brain interprets the molecule to smell or taste like. The smell or taste interpreted could or could not be an ACTUAL property of the molecule, but our brains do not deduce the actual property of structure.

You mean ACTUAL molecules as interpreted by a man-made microscope?

Have you heard of the double slit experiment that clearly proves without a microscope lense to closely observe, molecules suddenly behave like waves.

Last edited by TheeBeast : 12-15-2012 at 11:42 PM.
TheeBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 11:38 PM   #84
TheeBeast
Local High School Star
 
TheeBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,290
Default Re: Scientists Plan Test to See if The Universe is a Simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by shlver
That is wrong. You just agreed with miller-time when you said "bingo" and his statement directly contradicts yours.
You started your argument for what is real by saying we define through language what is real. Sure, we can semantically define the word real because we created language, but it is not actual reality. Look up what reality means. Reality is not created by our perceptions. What gave you such an idea?

I never said language is what defines reality, rather the observer. I only said in my begining argument that our language alone wouldn't even be able to grasp such a complicated idea of our existence being some sort of alien simmulation, don't you think aliens would have a better language than us?
TheeBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2012, 12:04 AM   #85
shlver
코비=GOAT
 
shlver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,293
Default Re: Scientists Plan Test to See if The Universe is a Simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheeBeast
You mean ACTUAL molecules as interpreted by a man-made microscope?


Have you heard of the double slit experiment that clearly proves without a microscope lense to closely observe, molecules suddenly behave like waves.
A conscious observer or a "microscope lense" is not needed to collapse the wave nature of a molecule if it has one. Only a mere change in record like the density of surrounding air, even a tiny change can cause this collapse. There are double slit experiments that show interference that appear closer and closer to two single slit experiments as air density is increased.
shlver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2012, 12:06 AM   #86
shlver
코비=GOAT
 
shlver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,293
Default Re: Scientists Plan Test to See if The Universe is a Simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheeBeast
I never said language is what defines reality, rather the observer. I only said in my begining argument that our language alone wouldn't even be able to grasp such a complicated idea of our existence being some sort of alien simmulation, don't you think aliens would have a better language than us?
That doesn't mean the alien simulation doesn't exist.
shlver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2012, 02:06 AM   #87
miller-time
NBA sixth man of the year
 
miller-time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,932
Default Re: Scientists Plan Test to See if The Universe is a Simulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by shlver
All of our experiences are constructed by the brain itself. The correspondence between our perception and reality is a modelling system. Useful to us but not actual reality or truth.

Well I was sort of talking at cross purposes. Part of what I was responding to was the nature of our conscious selves. Regardless of sensory perception we still have a feeling of consciousness that exists independent of physical sensation. Whether or not our entire consciousness and sense of self is only a byproduct of brain states (an entirely naturalistic perspective), or whether it exists beyond our physical selves (as in a spiritual sense) I don't know. That is why I limited my statement to established scientific hypotheses or theories. I'm not claiming that everything is reducible to physical brain activity.

Yet.

Although if I were a betting man that is where I would put my money.
miller-time is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:55 AM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy