Are we living in a Computer Simulation?

And Phi and Fibonacci numbers etc are all here because of the mathematics of the Computer Simulation.

I suggest that you enrol on a course in 'philosophy of science' in order understand the complex aspects of what we call 'explanation' (one of which is 'by analogy'). If nothing else such a course might provide you with a social life thereby reducing your trolling activities.

been there and done that.

Now why again the ad hominem?

I just point to ideas, even by high level scientists and you keep attacking me personally. Or you are one of those government-trolls.

I even have to assume you don't even read what I write. The only thing you seem to be doing is attacking me personally.

You've been ripped off ! Get your money back ! They didn't teach you about the fallacy of 'argument from authority'.

they did.

Nice try, but it won't work

But tell me how much have you studied this area of Computer Simulation?

Hodg, really, why are you wasting your time arguing with him?

good point. I will stop that now. I tried but he is very unreasonable.

I have published experimental research in peer reviewed journals on psycholinguistics, a subject which has considered AI models of neuroscience and rejected them.

How about you ?

Fresco is a very intelligent poster, well versed in scientific jiggerpokery. He is respected by most serious minded people on A2K.

I don't know much about you, but I do know you're a thoroughly dishonest attention seeker who's a bit of a pseud.

And making up your own 'dictionary' definitions doesn't alter that.

I would be interested in reading your papers, Fresco. While you write about AI. I work in AI in speech recognition and natural language processing. We do real work (not just talking about it) where we measure accuracy scientifically. Our revenue depends on results. We do quite a bit with linguistics. I have never had much use for psycholinguistics. I am not sure why this matters.

What you are doing here is attacking anyone who expresses any idea that you disagree with. You aren't attacking the idea, you are attacking the person. That is the goal of your clique... to shut down anyone from posting any idea that you think is wrong. You aren't questioning the ideas. You are attacking the person.

Your papers might be wonderful. Your behavior here, forceably shutting down any opinion with personal attacks is intellectually dishonest. Bringing up Nazis in a thread about computer simulation makes Izzy very happy. But, in any objective sense it is ridiculous.

Someone please tell Izzy what the word "ignore" means .

Modern spech recognition devices rely on fast statistical analysis and 'best fit ' . They cannot handle semantic expectancies or paralinguistic features related to social context which humans seem to make significant use of, especially when 'signal quality' is poor. The fact that computers can mimic some aspects of speech recognition does not imply that we do it that way.

As far as 'forum activities' are concerned, you yourself have admitted to be on a 'trolling mission'. By that I take you to mean 'disruptive behavior for its own sake'. You are therefore hardly in a position to criticise others who object to that behavior, especially when the material presented by such posters falls far short of some of your own in terms of potential credibility, especially on a forum like this which purports to offer 'expertise'. And in case you don't yet get it, that 'expertise' includes the ability to offer several levels of analysis beyond the topic, including the motivation of the poster, and the cultural zeitgeist which gives rejection of the post significance.

1) Sure... and yet tens of millions of people talk to Siri and Alexa every day. What's your point? Engineers and Scientists are doing great work in speech recognition that consumers are finding quite useful (hands free technology is likely even saving lives). Philosophers can blather on about what things are all they want. We engineers and scientists just make them work anyway, and most of us don't care at all what the philosophers are saying. It is meaningless to our work.

2) I am against group think. When "trolling" is defined as expressing any opinion outside of the ideological bubble that exists here, I am all for trolling. And, that is the way that you are using the word.

The OP started a thread to express an opinion. It didn't hurt anyone. Like anyone else you had the choice to either ignore it, or to engage. Instead your little clique decided that this opinion had to be shut down with personal attacks.

My "mission", as much as I have one, is to defend the ability for people with different ideas to express them without being personally attacked. I would like to have a place were people with different opinions can discuss them without being drowned out with insults. When you bring up Nazis in a thread about Computer Simulation you are crossing a line.

So that's your line.
My line goes beyond beyond the popular culture phenomenon of 'The Matrix' to consideration of all cultural aspects of 'information' and the manipulation of such information. And that manipulation extends beyond the surface gullibility we have here to the very essence of behavioral control itself, which it could be argued is a subtext of 'the Matrix'.
The Nazi reference is merely one well documented illustration of the pitfalls of 'control' and the current political issues about manipulation of social media may be another.
Issues of 'reality' raised by 'the Matrix' (e.g. Plato's Cave) would require detailed epistemological and ontological discussion beyond the apparent capabilities of the questioner, with his simplistic concept of 'truth'.

You are really showing off your vocabulary Fresco, but I want to know what you are really saying.

On this thread, the OP expressed an idea. Then a bunch of people all jumped in to attack him (the person, not the idea). The goal of the in-crowd here seems to be to stifle the idea and to prevent any discussion. Anyone here could have just ignored the thread... but they didn't. Instead they came here to discredit and attack the poster.

What does this have to do with the your idea of "behavioral control"?

What discussion ? This guy makes assertions and does not debate.
If he is prepared to discuss the philosophical issues suggested by the film (ontology, epistemology, status of 'self', theories of truth etc), let's hear it. Otherwise all we have is a bit of attention seeking junior high school banter.

Maybe you are right, that doesn't explain why you are here. I am objecting to the group think here... where any idea that isn't acceptable needs to be shut down with personal attacks.

If you want a discussion, then engage. If you don't think it is worthwhile, then don't engage. The nasty attacks are inappropriate.

In the absence of a coherent banning policy, I am here as a self elected 'elder guardian' of A2K standards ! There are plenty of crackpot forums out there to suit the activities of this poster, as he well knows.

I don't think you are "self-elected", I think that there is a clique that provides a fair amount of support for your efforts at behavioral control.

I am the resistance. I prefer a forum where ideas that are considered to be "crackpot" ideas by the in-crowd are protected. You don't have to engage, no one is asking you or anyone else to participate in any discussion here. I will push back at the attempts to drive out ideas or people just because the in-crowd disapproves.

There are plenty of forums that support group think; many allow you to filter out any ideas with which you don't agree. This isn't one of them (and hopefully that isn't what this is becoming). Engage or don't engage. It is the bullying that I oppose.

Well, as I have written before, a lot of these people are government trolls.

It is their job to do what they do. That also explains why they are doing it and why they don't stop.

People don't believe that this is happening but research has shown this o be the case,