For the same reason, the simulation only solves for conflicts in our competing memories as needed. History is not fixed.https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1042514356347396096 …
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Memory conflicts are better (IMO) explained as due to incapacity of the brain. If evolutionary theory is true in even a general sense, we can expect the brain to have roughly the minimum functionality necessary to support intelligence. Our ancestors didn't need better. 1/3
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RamblingAK @ScottAdamsSays
Most of what we experience as "memory" is scenes and narratives reconstructed from very sparse clues. Even those can be modified by subsequent experience. This was sufficient for humans to evolve language and language-based intelligence, so we did. 2/3
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RamblingAK @ScottAdamsSays
Thus each person reconstructs old memory differently, due to hardware design. No simulation needed. 3/3
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RamblingAK
Yes, the clues are not proofs. But when you put them all together it is a consistent picture. Unlike competing ideas on reality.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
AFAIK the current quantum-dynamics-based ideas work out to be consistent. They don't solve the "where did it come from?" puzzle, but neither does simulation: where did the original non-simulation come from? Bottom line: Ockham's razor is a myth: "simple" is a value judgement.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Consistent but inexplicable.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.