Argument from possible simulation

[excreationist]

BTW it would be good if people who think they're definitely aware/conscious (even if they're in a simulation) could explain why....

 

[abaddon]

How's that - the "thusness" of your awareness - not more trustworthy knowledge than a tricky demon or an alluring delusion or a simulation maker?

Either you're aware or you're a philosophical zombie. It "does not have conscious experience, qualia, or sentience". Otherwise you have the sensation of these things. Whether or not you're in a simulation you still have these sensations and that is known as "awareness".

Yes, exactly. "Whether or not you're in a simulation". That's what I'm getting at - the "whether or not" there, and how it implies we can find something more real, more fundamental, than the speculated simulation.

Is the world a simulation? Well, they say my brain simulates a world... but that's news that comes to me from inside the simulation. It doesn't change that the one surest thing I know is that same "I'm aware" non-zombie-ness that you've attested to. So, I really don't give a damn what all else than Me (or Awareness or Consciousness) is simulated, because that has no practical consequences whatsoever. Whatever else may lack reality in existence, I know that I don't lack it because of the aforementioned awareness.

BTW it would be good if people who think they're definitely aware/conscious (even if they're in a simulation) could explain why....

Because there's nothing more sure than awareness. It's the one most basic thing within experience that requires no speculation at all. You can only come to doubt awareness/consciousness by mentally abstracting away from the basic fact of experiencing it. But it requires that you have awareness to do that.

-----

ETA: Sorry that I inserted myself during your convo with skepticalbip. His point is different from mine, so now it must be like having 2 convos at the same time... oops.

 

[excreationist]

It doesn't change that the one surest thing I know is that same "I'm aware" non-zombie-ness that you've attested to. So, I really don't give a damn what all else than Me (or Awareness or Consciousness) is simulated, because that has no practical consequences whatsoever. Whatever else may lack reality in existence, I know that I don't lack it because of the aforementioned awareness.

BTW it would be good if people who think they're definitely aware/conscious (even if they're in a simulation) could explain why....

Because there's nothing more sure than awareness. It's the one most basic thing within experience that requires no speculation at all. You can only come to doubt awareness/consciousness by mentally abstracting away from the basic fact of experiencing it. But it requires that you have awareness to do that.

Thanks! I've attempted to explain why I think I am aware but this hasn't satisfied connick and skepticalbip... so maybe you could help....

 

[abaddon]

skepticalbip's asking where the awareness comes from in a simulation. You say it's a feature of the simulation. Physicalists think it's a feature of a brain but nobody knows that either.

With the notion that all the known world is a simulation, it's too easy to make assertions. Any problem that comes up for the idea can be asserted away. There's no truth that comes from this. So if you were looking for a ground to stand on, something sure-enough that'd help you decide between what's real and what's delusion, you've obliterated that with the simulation hypothesis.

This "could be" speculating doesn't result in any justifiable beliefs at all. Any communications with your "possible" god might really be your own mind making stuff up. I don't want to only cast doubt on everything though... I wanted to convey that since you're an aware being yourself and you know yourself way better than you'll ever know about any simulation, that you can trust you better than this "possible" god.

 

[excreationist]

abaddon:
On the topic of connick and skepticalbip, I just wanted you to continue to say things like "there's nothing more sure than awareness".... i.e. the awareness that I experience... Their rejection of this is just about the only thing I strongly disagree with in their posts....

 

[abaddon]

I'm not seeing where they say what you say they're saying.

Probably we all agree we're not philosophical zombies, because each of us knows independently that we're not a zombie. To be aware at all is to not be a zombie. I think the purpose of that concept is to wonder about other people, or about robots, whether or not they are aware like us persons. Since you're not a robot, you can wonder about robots.

 

[excreationist]

I'm not seeing where they say what you say they're saying.

.....If it is possible that we are in a simulation then it is also possible that we are not aware. "Awareness" may be as fictitious as the points in Pac Man......

Though you said "there's nothing more sure than awareness". You also said "Probably we all agree we're not philosophical zombies". If it is possible we aren't aware then I think that would mean we're a philosophical zombie...

That only indicates good programming. "You" actually 'think' that you are aware. It only seems reasonable if, as you seem to assume, everything that you can sense is only a simulation, then your 'awareness' could also be a simulation. Maybe Pac-Man could 'think' he is aware if programmed to.

He seems to be saying that I could just "think" I'm aware and I'm not truly aware.... in post #119 he responded to my assertion that either something is aware or they are a philosophical zombie. (or it has no behavior implying awareness) He said:

I don't see how 'philosophical zombie' has any meaning if you are only a computer algorithm (like a 15th generation version of a Mario Brother) and part of the simulation

But actually it is very meaningful - game characters can act like they're conscious yet have no internal sensation of awareness/qualia (the definition of a philosophical zombie).

BTW even if a person is completely deceived or wrong about what they're aware of (like a brain in a vat) they still have the sensation of awareness/qualia.

 

[abaddon]

excreationist,

My point was basically just that the concern about a simulation is very abstract. But then you wanted me to support your notion that awareness doesn't contradict a simulation, which wasn't anything like my point. I'd say that since you ARE aware, that's a problem for the notion of being simulated.

I wouldn't know what I or anyone could get from being a robot in a simulation. Not when I'm the only center of awareness that I'm very sure of so that all stuff about any gods/programmers who program minds is just blah blah about "could be" abstractions.

 

[excreationist]

excreationist,

My point was basically just that the concern about a simulation is very abstract. But then you wanted me to support your notion that awareness doesn't contradict a simulation, which wasn't anything like my point. I'd say that since you ARE aware, that's a problem for the notion of being simulated.

Do you think our awareness is solely due to "physical" processes? (physicalism/materialism) If so then isn't it possible for a world based on physical processes to be simulated? (and have consciousness within it)

I wouldn't know what I or anyone could get from being a robot in a simulation.

Well Black Mirror has many examples of the uses of having conscious beings inside simulations.

Not when I'm the only center of awareness that I'm very sure of so that all stuff about any gods/programmers who program minds is just blah blah about "could be" abstractions.

I think in our possible simulation we can't really know the details - even if we were told we can't tell that from other delusions/hallucinations....

 

[excreationist]

....I wouldn't know what I or anyone could get from being a robot in a simulation.....

I assume you're talking about philosophical zombies. Well they're NPCs... they don't have a conscious experience but on the other hand they aren't capable of genuine suffering...

 

[Learner]

I think in our possible simulation we can't really know the details - even if we were told we can't tell that from other delusions/hallucinations....

Perhaps it's better when having some awarness and an existence, that one starts forgetting about having any notion of simulations (not you directly ex.), if one can't tell the difference - accepting that THIS is the reality for them, even if this was a simulation

 

[George S]

....I wouldn't know what I or anyone could get from being a robot in a simulation.....

I assume you're talking about philosophical zombies. Well they're NPCs... they don't have a conscious experience but on the other hand they aren't capable of genuine suffering...

I am a robot -- a moist robot -- designed by a changing environment for survival. A self-repairing robot living in a soup of bacteria and viruses. A self-directing robot living not only in the original environment for which designed but also many unsuitable environs. Consciousness is what it is like to be a self-aware moist robot whether inside a simulation or not.

 

[Learner]

I think in our possible simulation we can't really know the details - even if we were told we can't tell that from other delusions/hallucinations....

Perhaps it's better when having some awarness and an existence, that one starts forgetting about having any notion of simulations (not you directly ex.), if one can't tell the difference - accepting that THIS is the reality for them, even if this was a simulation

I should have added...


Unless ... You have that inquisitive mind, for thought-provoking, theory-pondering interest.

 

[excreationist]

I think in our possible simulation we can't really know the details - even if we were told we can't tell that from other delusions/hallucinations....

Perhaps it's better when having some awarness and an existence, that one starts forgetting about having any notion of simulations (not you directly ex.), if one can't tell the difference - accepting that THIS is the reality for them, even if this was a simulation

I should have added...


Unless ... You have that inquisitive mind, for thought-provoking, theoretical-pondering interest.

Hi what do you mean? That that kind of mind doesn't believe in simulations or they do?

 

[Learner]

Sorry ex, I mean they do (or, are more likely to, if not all do).

 

[fromderinside]

i don't believe in simulations as reality. Why do so. It takes much effort to do so. Why waste it on simulating something when a material process will do it with least energy dissipation rules. After all there are infinite time and space available.

 

[excreationist]

i don't believe in simulations as reality. Why do so.

Well there is demand for VR experiences that seem increasingly immersive and "real". Countless TV shows and movies show the demand for even more immersive experiences where the brain interfaces with computers. In simulations you can easily try out different scenarios such as go on a crime spree, participate in a high-class orgy or live out an entire life (Morty playing "Roy")

It takes much effort to do so. Why waste it on simulating something when a material process will do it with least energy dissipation rules. After all there are infinite time and space available.

Let's say the focus is our Sun. It has 10⁵⁷ atoms. If you approximated it and used Machine Learning to help with the accuracy, you could create a plausible simulation of it with a fraction of the atoms... e.g. 10¹⁵ atoms.... plus in a simulation you could instantly change any aspect of the simulated Sun....

 

[connick]

I was saying that my sensation of awareness involves awareness whether or not I'm in a simulation. I think it is related to Descartes point that we have the sensation of thinking (even if the thinking is controlled by something else). I might create a thread about that topic...

I understand where you are coming from. Descartes believed that "cogito ergo sum", "I think, therefore I am", was an undoubtable philosophical principle. However, Descartes' argument tacitly assumes that certain logical axioms and the inferences they entail are true. I think those assumptions hold up if we also assume that we aren't being fundamentally deceived, but in the absence of this assumption, I don't see how logic or our apparent awareness get a pass. Personally, I think that Descartes might not have taken radical skepticism far enough and that the most we might be able to say is "est aliquid", or "there is something". Maybe even that isn't true, as absurd as that may sound.

Certainly, I can't even imagine what it would mean if our apparent experience of being aware was a deception, but if we're entertaining the idea that everything could be a delusion, why not our very experience of awareness? Of course, all of this goes well beyond your original argument, so let's return to that for a moment.

Let's assume that we are in fact aware, whether this is "actual" or simulated awareness (whatever that might mean). This doesn't help the problems with your argument for the likelihood of our being in a simulation or any other assumptions about the nature of what is outside of such a simulation.

As we have now agreed, the world outside of a simulation is unknowable. As such, we can make no reasonable assumptions about the likelihood of our being in one. Certainly, nothing within a simulation necessarily provides any information about an outside world, so no matter how many simulations we perform, regardless of their complexity or difficulty in computation, we can't use that information as a basis for understanding that outside world.

Then, as far as a creator being responsible for a simulation, be it a deity or a side effect of some natural phenomenon, the same limitations hinder your argument. It is quite possible that the rules of logic and physics that we observe are as fictitious as those that exist in Pac-man's universe. Pac-man can't occupy the same space as a ghost, but we could change the simulation to make that possible. He can't pass through walls, but we could make that possible. He can't turn the hands of time backwards, but we could make that possible. With very little effort, we could completely reshape the fabric of his universe in ways that would be unimaginable and indescribable to him (if he were to be aware). For us, notions like time and causality and identity could be artificial constructs as well. In this regard, we are as impotent as Pac-man when it comes to grasping the very nature of an outside world. Even though I hardly begin to articulate a way in which a simulation might be creator-less (in even the broadest sense of the term "creator"), I have to admit that possibility if I accept your first premise.

I'm thankful, therefore, that I am not the one making the argument that we might be in a simulation. The onus would be on you to explain why a simulation could not be creatorless. Knowing an outside world is unknowable, I think that burden is unbearable.

So, to return to what I said at the outset, yes, it is possible that we are in a simulation or otherwise being deceived. However, if we accept that premise, every subsequent premise is unproveable and, therefore, dismissable. While it's an unassailable premise, it's a mute and fruitless position. To escape this fate more impotent than solipsism, to have any discussion about anything at all, we have to reject the premise axiomatically, with the only justification being that otherwise we can't say anything about anything.

In summary, your original post should have stopped at "It's possible we're in a simulation." Nothing more could be asserted beyond that and the only coherent responses that come to mind are, "yes, it's possible" and "yes, it's possible, but let's assume it's not".

 

[excreationist]

.....Certainly, I can't even imagine what it would mean if our apparent experience of being aware was a deception, but if we're entertaining the idea that everything could be a delusion, why not our very experience of awareness? Of course, all of this goes well beyond your original argument, so let's return to that for a moment.

Let's assume that we are in fact aware, whether this is "actual" or simulated awareness (whatever that might mean). This doesn't help the problems with your argument for the likelihood of our being in a simulation or any other assumptions about the nature of what is outside of such a simulation.....

What do you think of my argument that either we are aware or we are a philosophical zombie? Either we experience the sensation of qualia or we don't. Even if the qualia is wrong we would still have the sensation of awareness..... the point of this is that we can know something about our simulation... (that we are aware) (or at least I am aware, I can't prove your awareness)

In summary, your original post should have stopped at "It's possible we're in a simulation." Nothing more could be asserted beyond that and the only coherent responses that come to mind are, "yes, it's possible" and "yes, it's possible, but let's assume it's not".

Maybe it is flawed but so would other existence of God arguments be yet the other arguments still exist. I still think there would be a creator of the simulation - "a person or thing that brings something into existence". Or do you think a simulation can bring itself into existence? Though then it could be said that the simulation is its own creator....

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...
Maybe it is flawed but so would other existence of God arguments be yet the other arguments still exist.

No one that I have seen has claimed that there are not 'existence of god arguments'. The suggestion I see is that they are not logical, rational, or even reasonable. How can anyone logically argue about the nature of something that can not be known, if it does exist?