Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

[pood]

And still you have given no evidence that we live in a simulation and only you are conscious in it. What makes you so special?

 

[excreationist]

And still you have given no evidence that we live in a simulation and only you are conscious in it. What makes you so special?

The first step is to generate the visuals and audio of what a character would see and hear (as a video game or video file). Do you think that is possible AI would be capable of that in the future?

 

[pood]

And still you have given no evidence that we live in a simulation and only you are conscious in it. What makes you so special?

The first step is to generate the visuals and audio of what a character would see and hear (as a video game or video file). Do you think that is possible AI would be capable of that in the future?

I am asking you what evidence you have not just that we live in a simulation, but that there is a 50 percent chance that you alone are conscious in it. Without that evidence and an explanation of how you calculated this probability, you have nothing.

 

[excreationist]

And still you have given no evidence that we live in a simulation and only you are conscious in it. What makes you so special?

The first step is to generate the visuals and audio of what a character would see and hear (as a video game or video file). Do you think that is possible AI would be capable of that in the future?

I am asking you what evidence you have not just that we live in a simulation, but that there is a 50 percent chance that you alone are conscious in it. Without that evidence and an explanation of how you calculated this probability, you have nothing.

My argument involves whether you think it is possible for AI videos to look and sound real...

 

[pood]

And still you have given no evidence that we live in a simulation and only you are conscious in it. What makes you so special?

The first step is to generate the visuals and audio of what a character would see and hear (as a video game or video file). Do you think that is possible AI would be capable of that in the future?

I am asking you what evidence you have not just that we live in a simulation, but that there is a 50 percent chance that you alone are conscious in it. Without that evidence and an explanation of how you calculated this probability, you have nothing.

My argument involves whether you think it is possible for AI videos to look and sound real...

This in not even a sketch of an argument.

Again:

I am asking you what evidence you have not just that we live in a simulation, but that there is a 50 percent chance that you alone are conscious in it. Without that evidence and an explanation of how you calculated this probability, you have nothing.

 

[excreationist]

And still you have given no evidence that we live in a simulation and only you are conscious in it. What makes you so special?

The first step is to generate the visuals and audio of what a character would see and hear (as a video game or video file). Do you think that is possible AI would be capable of that in the future?

I am asking you what evidence you have not just that we live in a simulation, but that there is a 50 percent chance that you alone are conscious in it. Without that evidence and an explanation of how you calculated this probability, you have nothing.

My argument involves whether you think it is possible for AI videos to look and sound real...

This in not even a sketch of an argument.

I want to use your response as part of my argument.

Again:

I am asking you what evidence you have not just that we live in a simulation,

In order to provide evidence for a simulation I need to know your beliefs on it regarding what technology you think might be possible in the future. It's all about future technology.

but that there is a 50 percent chance that you alone are conscious in it. Without that evidence and an explanation of how you calculated this probability, you have nothing.

Well it is based on premises that build on each other. The first is about possible future technology. If you want me to try and convince you I need to work out premises that you might agree to. Otherwise you'll just reject every single premise which means the argument isn't persuasive.

 

[pood]

OK. Let me know when you have some evidence and a justification for your probability “estimates.” Until then …

 

[pood]

Bet my money on a bob-tailed nag
Somebody bet on the bay

Why’d I bet my money on the bob-tailed nag?

Feeling!

Oops, came in last.

Lost my shirt.

 

[excreationist]

OK. Let me know when you have some evidence and a justification for your probability “estimates.” Until then …

It depends on how you'd respond to this:

The first step is to generate the visuals and audio of what a character would see and hear (as a video game or video file). Do you think that is possible AI would be capable of that in the future?

I need to work out premises that you might find reasonable.

Otherwise those probabilities were based on my feelings. Similar to how AI researchers came up with probabilities about AI eliminating humans. I've tried explaining it before and you just scoff. If you can't help me with premises it will just repeat exactly as it has before. You don't agree with my normal premises so obviously you don't agree with the conclusion.

 

[pood]

As I say, let me now when you have some evidence, and a way to calculate your probabilities other than your feelings

 

[excreationist]

As I say, let me now when you have some evidence, and a way to calculate your probabilities other than your feelings

The possibility of future technlogies is the main premise. That involves starting with what's possible now and going forward. You'd only consider it evidence if you think that future technology is possible. A premise is those simulations being possible. You reject that premise so therefore you'd reject any conclusions (or maybe that reasoning I just used is a logical fallacy)
I think the AI researchers can only come up with their probabilities of AI exterminating humans using feelings. Since my 50/50 odds guess is about future technology (related to p zombies) there aren't really any hard data points. Well current simulations/video games are relevant - and these all involve p zombies.

 

[pood]

The possibility of future technologies is not evidence that we in the putative present live in a simulation,

Feelings are not a basis for calculating probabilities.

 

[pood]

And as noted, your claim is much bolder — not just that there is a 50 percent chance we live in a simulation, but that you alone are conscious in it.

Again, what makes you thihk you are so special?

I know, the simulators are trying to “save money.” But in that case, why make ANYONE conscious, and why YOU in particular?

 

[excreationist]

The possibility of future technologies is not evidence that we in the putative present live in a simulation,

If there are simulations in the future simulating the present then it is possible that those having the experience of being in the present could be in a simulation.

Feelings are not a basis for calculating probabilities.

They can be - I think some bookies do that. If you need a probability I think that's bettter than nothing. And those bookies ultimately making a profit might mean they are pretty good at using feelings to generate probabilities.

And as noted, your claim is much bolder — not just that there is a 50 percent chance we live in a simulation, but that you alone are conscious in it.

Again, what makes you think you are so special?

I know, the simulators are trying to “save money.”

Yeah all the NPC behaviour would be generated by AI like in the videos - rather than simulating brains with about 80 billion neurons and then somehow making them "conscious".

But in that case, why make ANYONE conscious, and why YOU in particular?

I'll try and explain it in terms of the Roy game.

So Morty puts on the helmet and wakes up in the life of Roy. He initially still remembers his true identity (Morty) but assumes it was just a nightmare. (I'm not saying that part also happened with me). The source of the consciousness is Morty's brain. Morty is controlling Roy and currently only thinks he is Roy. So I'd be like that - the particular person that is controlled by the player. The simulation isn't generating any consciousness - it is just connecting the player's consciousness with the character they're controlling and the consciousness belongs to the player existing in the world outside of the simulation.

 

[pood]

Let’s further break down how far fetched and indeed goofy this idea is.

@excreationist appears to be taking this stuff from the racist philosopher Nick Bostrom. I mention that Bostrom thinks blacks are inferior to whites not because that in and itself makes his simulation argument wrong (which would be ad hom) but because one has to automatically question the judgment of a supposed prominent philosopher who holds nutty views on race. Maybe Bostrom isn’t a great philosopher after all but a standard-issue goofball?

He proposes that we in the putative present are “ancestor simulations” of people living in the future. How far in the future? Five hundred years? A thousand? Ten thousand?

But what the hell are “ancestor simulations?” Suppose we had the technology right now to do such simulations, and I wanted to simulate my ancestors from 5,000 years ago. An immediate problem crops up:

I know absolutely nothing about my ancestors from 5,000 years ago.

So how the hell am I supposed to be able to simulate them? It would be like asking an amnesiac to write his autobiography.

Even if I did know something about them, why would I want to simulate them?

Note that Bostrom is claiming that all the people in the simulation are conscious, which involves a claim for which so far there is no evidence: that consciousness is substrate independent. MAYBE that is true — I can certainly entertain the possibility — but so far there is no evidence for the claim.

But excreationist is claiming not just a 50 percent chance that we live in a simulation, but that HE ALONE is conscious in it. The solipsism here is staggering. Since I know for a fact that I am conscious and self-aware, I am perfectly entitled, by his own reasoning, to claim that I alone am conscious and that excreationist and everyone else are p zombies. My ego, alas, is not so large as to make that claim.

But why should either he or I be the sole conscious entity in a simulated universe? To save money?

Huh? If our descendants are able to create billions of simulations or whatever daft number Bostrom came up with, surely they must be awash in wealth and leisure time? Why would money be an object? Apparently if they are lollygagging around making endless simulations they don’t have to work for a living!

“Z-12, we must save money by making only one person in the simulation conscious!”

“Of course, X-42, but who should that person be?”

“Excreationist, of course!”

“Oh, of course!”

OK, they don’t have to be “ancestor” simulations (the problem of doing that noted above). They can just be simulations, as an art form. We already have that in the form of video games, which I guess you can call simulations or pseudo simulations (note the paper I linked arguing it is mathematically impossible to simulate the universe since the universe is non-algorithmic).

But even if I could make the entities in the simulation conscious, why would I do that? Why would I subject these simulated entities to all the pain and suffering they experience in this allegedly simulated world? Are our descendants all unethical moral monsters?

Excreationist seems to recognize this because his argument is two-pronged: not just that most or all simulated people (except for excreationist) are p zombies in order to save money, but to spare them from suffering. But then we are back to the same question: why is excreationist and excreationist alone the sole exception, the only one conscious?

 

[excreationist]

Let’s further break down how far fetched and indeed goofy this idea is.

@excreationist appears to be taking this stuff from the racist philosopher Nick Bostrom.

Actually I'm basing it more closely on the Roy game, which you seem to be ignoring. I tried explaining it carefully but you seemed to miss that part - maybe you had your eyes closed at the time. Maybe you just prefer criticizing a straw man that has lower hanging fruit.

I mention that Bostrom thinks blacks are inferior to whites not because that in and itself makes his simulation argument wrong (which would be ad hom) but because one has to automatically question the judgment of a supposed prominent philosopher who holds nutty views on race. Maybe Bostrom isn’t a great philosopher after all but a standard-issue goofball?

He proposes that we in the putative present are “ancestor simulations” of people living in the future. How far in the future? Five hundred years? A thousand? Ten thousand?

It depends on how quickly that kind of technology would develop. An optimistic guess might be less than 100 years in the future. Maybe it would be less than 10,000 years.

But what the hell are “ancestor simulations?” Suppose we had the technology right now to do such simulations, and I wanted to simulate my ancestors from 5,000 years ago. An immediate problem crops up:

I know absolutely nothing about my ancestors from 5,000 years ago.

So how the hell am I supposed to be able to simulate them?

That is why I'm not talking about ancestor simulations. I'm talking about the Roy game. It just involves a plausible character which might include a lot of non-historical content.

Even if I did know something about them, why would I want to simulate them?

Well the Roy game seems pretty popular. The creator of the game in the arcade is charging players and could make a profit on it depending how low they keep the costs.

Note that Bostrom is claiming that all the people in the simulation are conscious, which involves a claim for which so far there is no evidence: that consciousness is substrate independent. MAYBE that is true — I can certainly entertain the possibility — but so far there is no evidence for the claim.

But excreationist is claiming not just a 50 percent chance that we live in a simulation, but that HE ALONE is conscious in it.

I tried to explain to you how the Roy game works. BTW you said that everyone in the simulation being conscious "involves a claim for which so far there is no evidence". So you're saying the opposite also has no evidence? I'm saying that there is no consciousness for anyone in the simulation - the player controlled character's consciousness exists externally.

The solipsism here is staggering. Since I know for a fact that I am conscious and self-aware, I am perfectly entitled, by his own reasoning, to claim that I alone am conscious and that excreationist and everyone else are p zombies. My ego, alas, is not so large as to make that claim.

But why should either he or I be the sole conscious entity in a simulated universe? To save money?

As I said in the Roy game the consciousness exists outside of the simulated universe. Saving money for the developers means more profits for them.

Huh? If our descendants are able to create billions of simulations or whatever daft number Bostrom came up with, surely they must be awash in wealth and leisure time? Why would money be an object?

Rich people tend to worry about money. I mean if one option cost $1 million and another cost $10 million and the simulations seemed to give the same result which option would you choose? Would you flip a coin or just choose the more expensive option?

Apparently if they are lollygagging around making endless simulations they don’t have to work for a living!

I don't have to work for a living either (I'm on the disability support pension) but that doesn't mean I could afford options that are a factor of a million or a billion times more expensive. And remember it doesn't take decades in the outside world's time to play one game of the Roy game.

“Z-12, we must save money by making only one person in the simulation conscious!”

Like I tried to explain in the Roy game they don't really "make" that person conscious - they just connect the external consciousness of the player into that character's senses.

“Of course, X-42, but who should that person be?”

“Excreationist, of course!”

“Oh, of course!”

I could explain why people might want to live my life - or at least those with an INTP type personality. And what I was saying about girls throughout my life, etc. If I could relive my life I could have prevented my depression and manic episodes and start dating before the age of 29, etc. (there were at least 7 or 8 girls interested in me in high school) The depression was from atheism and girl issues. The mania was from not sleeping (which I can solve now by having sleeping tablets) and having grandiose unrealistic beliefs (like being the President of the US). (and also learning to not have significant negative emotions - and I now believe "If at any point, Life runs out of problems to give us, then as players, we will unconsciously invent problems for ourselves") https://markmanson.net/life-cheat-codes

OK, they don’t have to be “ancestor” simulations (the problem of doing that noted above). They can just be simulations, as an art form. We already have that in the form of video games,

Yes that it why I'm calling them "video games".

which I guess you can call simulations or pseudo simulations (note the paper I linked arguing it is mathematically impossible to simulate the universe since the universe is non-algorithmic).

I'm talking about simulating a person's experience of the universe. You don't need to simulate most of the universe.

But even if I could make the entities in the simulation conscious, why would I do that? Why would I subject these simulated entities to all the pain and suffering they experience in this allegedly simulated world? Are our descendants all unethical moral monsters?

Excreationist seems to recognize this because his argument is two-pronged: not just that most or all simulated people (except for excreationist) are p zombies in order to save money, but to spare them from suffering. But then we are back to the same question: why is excreationist and excreationist alone to the sole exception, the only one conscious?

I tried to explain it in terms of the Roy game.

Anyway there is a game called Alter Ego.

Alter Ego | Life Simulation Game

What if you could live your live over again?

www.playalterego.com

It allows you to crudely relive lives starting from birth to death. I liked trying different approaches including cheating on partners. It is like choose your own adventure where you have options. It was created by a psychologist who sometimes gives a bit of a commentary. In Alter Ego there is nothing special about you. So it could be random chance that I'm involved. You initially set up the personality and I guess success is partly from your personality.

 

[excreationist]

Some more videos:



So here the AI is generating the behaviour of the characters. The characters claiming to be truly conscious (which I could make happen in Sora 2) doesn't stop the AI from being able to generate them...

 

[bilby]

The possibility of future technologies is not evidence that we in the putative present live in a simulation

Indeed. And why would a future individual want to live in a completely realistic simulation of the past, in the role of expendable peasant, third class?

If the world is a simulation, and excreationist is the real person immersed therein, why the fuck did he chose to play a weird internet rando from the early 21st Century, rather than someone of historical significance, or someone from his own time who has a better life than his everyday existence?

If you were some sad loser in the 29th century, playing a computer game set 800 years in the past, surely you would choose to play a role that could do more interesting and entertaining things with your life?

If I could play a realistic game set in the 13th century, I would want to play a king, an emperor, or at least a character with enough clout in society to forge an entertaining life for myself, rather than choosing the role of a guy living in a leaky hovel slowly starving to death in the freezing cold - Whatever period of history my game is set in, I would want to be entertained by my simulated life, rather than driven to depression and despair by my mediocre social standing.

When you play Pacman, you want to be controlling Pacman himself; Or maybe you might want to control one of the ghosts. But who would choose to control one of the little immobile dots that gets eaten; Or a short fixed segment of the maze wall?