Convince me I'm not in a Simulation.

Descartes says the only thing he could be abosolutly sure was real was himself and with that the only thing any of us can be sure is real is ourselves.

"I think, therefore I am"

so what was he before he thought?

to quote Zhuangzi:

Once Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Zhuangzi. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuangzi. But he didn't know if he was Zhuangzi who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi. Between Zhuangzi and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things.

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:15 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:10 PM, tokn said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:08 PM, Babar said:

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

 

yeah exactly. it's a fucking joke, isn't it?

 

no.

 

a dog, for instance, would have consciousness but it is not self-aware. it cannot recognize that it has a self (ex. mirror test).

 

a person, for instance, has consciousness and is self-aware.

 

self-consciousness is not relevant to this discussion, because it's more of the degree to which you notice your actions and analyze them (often overanalyze them). i've never heard it related to ai. it's more psychological.

this is what I meant

Babar, someone is understanding you. Capitalize on the moment!!

there is no causality relation in this "I think therefore I am". In latin it reads as "puto ergo sum", and according to philologists,

arhem, well i'm not too sure about the causality stuff, but well these guys say Descartes didn't imply these two ideas were successive, but rather co-occurent.

Descartes is a badass.

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:30 PM, Babar said:

there is no causality relation in this "I think therefore I am". In latin it reads as "puto ergo sum", and according to philologists,

 

arhem, well i'm not too sure about the causality stuff, but well these guys say Descartes didn't imply these two ideas were successive, but rather co-occurent.

 

Descartes is a badass.

damn right!!! nice!!

yeah, the supposition or step between "thinking" and "self-realization of being" was never his intention.

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:23 PM, Babar said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:15 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:10 PM, tokn said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:08 PM, Babar said:

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

 

yeah exactly. it's a fucking joke, isn't it?

 

no.

 

a dog, for instance, would have consciousness but it is not self-aware. it cannot recognize that it has a self (ex. mirror test).

 

a person, for instance, has consciousness and is self-aware.

 

self-consciousness is not relevant to this discussion, because it's more of the degree to which you notice your actions and analyze them (often overanalyze them). i've never heard it related to ai. it's more psychological.

 

thank you.

So a dog is conscious because it experiences some kind of inner life (has feelings etc). What about a lizard ? An ant ? A computer program ? Where's the limit ?

 

 

also : who the fuck is Holy Cow ? How does he fucking know about my awe-fucking-some shoes. Seriously?. SERIOUSLY azoh hdz oalhjdza Am I being stalked ?

paranoia score : 2/10

paranoia relevancy : 2/100

i think it's entirely possible that there are different levels of consciousness. it's difficult to imagine, because we've only ever experienced one type of consciousness and it's difficult to think about what thought would be like if you were only a little ant that was controlled by pheromones and instinct and had no conception of self or time. that doesn't mean it's not conscious though. the easy way out is saying, "only humans and cute mammals are conscious." well, why? the problem is, we haven't really found a criteria for consciousness yet (what does this organism/system require to have consciousness?). you could say EVERYTHING has consciousness, but then you get into the predicament where everything really does have consciousness (even the system called "my ass and the chair i'm sitting on"). it doesn't functionally get you anywhere.

also, you have the phenomenon of being unconscious. you're still alive, but where'd your damn consciousness go?

if you believe in god, it's really easy to explain consciousness (it's just god's observing these individual systems--your consciousness is an extension of god). however, i don't know of any empirical explanations for it (maybe one of you know more than I do, I'm not too wise on philosophy).

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:52 PM, Hoodie said:

it's difficult to think about what thought would be like if you were only a little ant that was controlled by pheromones and instinct and had no conception of self or time.

Not really; look at how spot-on the marketing for Axe body-spray is.

Plato cave allegory probably fits. I think that is the best possible answer to the simulation question, because there is little reason to investigate beyond. It is very possible that all things could be simulations, then what simulates that, on and on. The main question is of the limits of our own consciousness and knowledge, and whether it just keeps going on and on and on [which I believe it does] means that the best thing to do is appreciate what little part of the curve you inhabit.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:02 PM, Holy Cow said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:52 PM, Hoodie said:

it's difficult to think about what thought would be like if you were only a little ant that was controlled by pheromones and instinct and had no conception of self or time.

 

Not really; look at how spot-on the marketing for Axe body-spray is.

horrifying thoughts like these.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:02 PM, Holy Cow said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:52 PM, Hoodie said:

it's difficult to think about what thought would be like if you were only a little ant that was controlled by pheromones and instinct and had no conception of self or time.

 

Not really; look at how spot-on the marketing for Axe body-spray is.

also, every time you get wasted you are altering your consciousness, including lack of perception of time because your memory becomes borked. sorta interesting how humans crave that sort of thing.

So where are we in this thread so far? Let me ask a question: is there anyone who thinks one of the following:

(A) We are definitely living in a simulation

(2) We are definitely not living in a simulation

(D) It is possible to refute the notion that we are living in a simulation

(4) It is impossible to verify that we are living in a simulation

And if so, please say why.

I think (4) is definitely false. We could realize we are in a simulation in one of several ways. We could derive the "correct" laws of physics from some other more fundamental theory, and discover that there is a discrepancy between those laws and the ones we see, or more generally we could find an Easter Egg.

People interested in this thread should read Greg Egan's sci-fi novel "Permutation City", and the writings of Nick Bostrom.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:12 PM, Joseph said:

So where are we in this thread so far? Let me ask a question: is there anyone who thinks one of the following:

 

(A) We are definitely living in a simulation

(2) We are definitely not living in a simulation

(D) It is possible to refute the notion that we are living in a simulation

(4) It is impossible to verify that we are living in a simulation

 

And if so, please say why.

 

I think (4) is definitely false. We could realize we are in a simulation in one of several ways. We could derive the "correct" laws of physics from some other more fundamental theory, and discover that there is a discrepancy between those laws and the ones we see, or more generally we could find an Easter Egg.

 

People interested in this thread should read Greg Egan's sci-fi novel "Permutation City", and the writings of Nick Bostrom.

I have concluded that we are definitely not living in a simulation because it is impossible to capture the infinitecimally small continuity in "stuff" that is necessary for consciousness. This of course is based on absolutely zero science.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:19 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:12 PM, Joseph said:

So where are we in this thread so far? Let me ask a question: is there anyone who thinks one of the following:

 

(A) We are definitely living in a simulation

(2) We are definitely not living in a simulation

(D) It is possible to refute the notion that we are living in a simulation

(4) It is impossible to verify that we are living in a simulation

 

And if so, please say why.

 

I think (4) is definitely false. We could realize we are in a simulation in one of several ways. We could derive the "correct" laws of physics from some other more fundamental theory, and discover that there is a discrepancy between those laws and the ones we see, or more generally we could find an Easter Egg.

 

People interested in this thread should read Greg Egan's sci-fi novel "Permutation City", and the writings of Nick Bostrom.

 

I have concluded that we are definitely not living in a simulation because it is impossible to capture the infinitecimally small continuity in "stuff" that is necessary for consciousness. This of course is based on absolutely zero science.

if we were a simulation, whatever was simulating us would need a computer as big as our universe because, for every sub-atomic particle in our universe, they would need a couple of bits of data representing things about it (i'm not big on physics, but it would need to know its spin and location in the simulation, right?). that would be a very large computer, not to mention that if they actually want to record our universe as it progresses in time... well, forget it. then again, maybe their universe is infinite and they can afford to do something like that.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:05 PM, vamos scorcho said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:02 PM, Holy Cow said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:52 PM, Hoodie said:

it's difficult to think about what thought would be like if you were only a little ant that was controlled by pheromones and instinct and had no conception of self or time.

Not really; look at how spot-on the marketing for Axe body-spray is.

horrifying thoughts like these.

You want to know what's truly horrifying? I'm a cow, which means that to most of the world I am created and grown to later be slaughtered so that they may feed on my meat However, in India I am routinely worshiped as a sacred entity. I ask you, which fate is worse? At least I know where I truly stand with most of the world.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:06 PM, Hoodie said:

also, every time you get wasted you are altering your consciousness, including lack of perception of time because your memory becomes borked. sorta interesting how humans crave that sort of thing.

I love how humans default to thinking that they're so much "more" than me, a humble cow. One could make a compelling argument that both humans and cows are mostly livestock which society feeds off of; albeit in two entirely different ways. I like to think that when humans come to the realization that they're not too different from me, that's when they're willing to swap-out a few brain-cells and "bork" their memories in the hopes of releasing a little tension.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:28 PM, Holy Cow said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:06 PM, Hoodie said:

also, every time you get wasted you are altering your consciousness, including lack of perception of time because your memory becomes borked. sorta interesting how humans crave that sort of thing.

 

I love how humans default to thinking that they're so much "more" than me, a humble cow. One could make a compelling argument that both humans and cows are mostly livestock which society feeds off of; albeit in two entirely different ways. I like to think that when humans come to the realization that they're not too different from me, that's when they're willing to swap-out a few brain-cells and "bork" their memories in the hopes of releasing a little tension.

um, we do have more complex cognitive processes. i'm not saying humans are the "end all" of intelligence (that would be an LOL) but they are fundamentally different from cows and able to utilize information more efficiently. ffs, cows are not bred for intelligence, they are bred for docility.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:28 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:19 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:12 PM, Joseph said:

So where are we in this thread so far? Let me ask a question: is there anyone who thinks one of the following:

 

(A) We are definitely living in a simulation

(2) We are definitely not living in a simulation

(D) It is possible to refute the notion that we are living in a simulation

(4) It is impossible to verify that we are living in a simulation

 

And if so, please say why.

 

I think (4) is definitely false. We could realize we are in a simulation in one of several ways. We could derive the "correct" laws of physics from some other more fundamental theory, and discover that there is a discrepancy between those laws and the ones we see, or more generally we could find an Easter Egg.

 

People interested in this thread should read Greg Egan's sci-fi novel "Permutation City", and the writings of Nick Bostrom.

 

I have concluded that we are definitely not living in a simulation because it is impossible to capture the infinitecimally small continuity in "stuff" that is necessary for consciousness. This of course is based on absolutely zero science.

 

if we were a simulation, whatever was simulating us would need a computer as big as our universe because, for every sub-atomic particle in our universe, they would need a couple of bits of data representing things about it (i'm not big on physics, but it would need to know its spin and location in the simulation, right?). that would be a very large computer, not to mention that if they actually want to record our universe as it progresses in time... well, forget it. then again, maybe their universe is infinite and they can afford to do something like that.

I'm almost certain that this is false... I don't really see how size matters in this case. I think it would have to do more with how many commands per second a computer could perform, or something to that effect.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:28 PM, Holy Cow said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:05 PM, vamos scorcho said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:02 PM, Holy Cow said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:52 PM, Hoodie said:

it's difficult to think about what thought would be like if you were only a little ant that was controlled by pheromones and instinct and had no conception of self or time.

Not really; look at how spot-on the marketing for Axe body-spray is.

horrifying thoughts like these.

 

You want to know what's truly horrifying? I'm a cow, which means that to most of the world I am created and grown to later be slaughtered so that they may feed on my meat However, in India I am routinely worshiped as a sacred entity. I ask you, which fate is worse? At least I know where I truly stand with most of the world.

 

 

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:06 PM, Hoodie said:

also, every time you get wasted you are altering your consciousness, including lack of perception of time because your memory becomes borked. sorta interesting how humans crave that sort of thing.

 

I love how humans default to thinking that they're so much "more" than me, a humble cow. One could make a compelling argument that both humans and cows are mostly livestock which society feeds off of; albeit in two entirely different ways. I like to think that when humans come to the realization that they're not too different from me, that's when they're willing to swap-out a few brain-cells and "bork" their memories in the hopes of releasing a little tension.

You know what's delicious? Subsituting ground beef into your favorite Indian recipes. It feels so wrong and extra delicious.

  On 2/8/2012 at 8:52 PM, Hoodie said:

also, you have the question: is it ethical to turn the simulation off?

I think the problem is more: is it ethical to turn it on?

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:19 PM, Fred McGriff said:

I have concluded that we are definitely not living in a simulation because it is impossible to capture the infinitecimally small continuity in "stuff" that is necessary for consciousness. This of course is based on absolutely zero science.

There's nothing to suggest that consciousness requires continuity to exist. In fact I think all evidence points in the opposite direction. Consciousness probably is computational, ie supervenes on the execution of a program. Also there's very good reason, in physics, to believe that space is discrete at some level anyway.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:28 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:19 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:12 PM, Joseph said:

So where are we in this thread so far? Let me ask a question: is there anyone who thinks one of the following:

 

(A) We are definitely living in a simulation

(2) We are definitely not living in a simulation

(D) It is possible to refute the notion that we are living in a simulation

(4) It is impossible to verify that we are living in a simulation

 

And if so, please say why.

 

I think (4) is definitely false. We could realize we are in a simulation in one of several ways. We could derive the "correct" laws of physics from some other more fundamental theory, and discover that there is a discrepancy between those laws and the ones we see, or more generally we could find an Easter Egg.

 

People interested in this thread should read Greg Egan's sci-fi novel "Permutation City", and the writings of Nick Bostrom.

 

I have concluded that we are definitely not living in a simulation because it is impossible to capture the infinitecimally small continuity in "stuff" that is necessary for consciousness. This of course is based on absolutely zero science.

 

if we were a simulation, whatever was simulating us would need a computer as big as our universe because, for every sub-atomic particle in our universe, they would need a couple of bits of data representing things about it (i'm not big on physics, but it would need to know its spin and location in the simulation, right?). that would be a very large computer, not to mention that if they actually want to record our universe as it progresses in time... well, forget it. then again, maybe their universe is infinite and they can afford to do something like that.

No, if they had a consistent laws of physics they could just specify those laws and the initial conditions, no need to artificially push every atom around by hand

Also keep in mind that there's no evidence to counter that our universe is infinite.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:32 PM, Hoodie said:

ffs, cows are not bred for intelligence, they are bred for docility.

...and humans are not bred for docility these days? They are certainly not bred, or at least conditioned, for intelligence en-masse. Thankfully, there are exceptions to the rule such as many of the posters in this thread. You'll make me think twice when I bite into my delicious humanburger later on tonight.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:19 PM, Fred McGriff said:

I have concluded that we are definitely not living in a simulation because it is impossible to capture the infinitecimally small continuity in "stuff" that is necessary for consciousness.

This is assuming that the universe in which the simulation was simulated mirrors our own potentially simulated universe. Maybe in the universe of the simulators creating consciousness is much simpler. They deliberately made it impossibly difficult for those within the simulation so that the sims could never be certain about anything.

Descartes does use the phrase "I think, therefore I am" in the Discourse on Method, but not in the Meditations on First Philosophy. The Meditations puts it better, though, when he says something like, 'whenever I think that I think, it must be true that I (know that I) exist.'

Babar: A dog is conscious in the sense that it has some kind of perceptual awareness of objects and responds to them. But it is not self-conscious precisely because it does not have 'inner awareness' or an 'inner life,' in the sense of knowing that it is a dog, or being able to ascribe all of its actions to itself as the selfsame agent that performed those actions.

This idea is going to gain in popularity over the next couple of decades i think unless everything collapses.

He – what he now was – had not evolved here. What he was now was a simulation of a creature, an organism designed to be at home in the pressure ice of a water world. But only a simulation. He was not what he appeared to be.

He was beginning to wonder if he ever had been.

The ice inside the water planet did not really exist; neither did the water planet itself, nor the star it orbited nor the galaxy beyond nor anything of what appeared to be real no matter how far out you might think you were looking. Nor how far in you looked, either. Peer into anything closely enough and you would find only the same graininess that the Real exhibited; the smallest units of measurement were the same in both realms, whether it was of time or extent or mass.

For some people, of course, this meant the Real itself was not really real, not in the sense of being genuinely the last un-simulated bedrock of actuality. According to this view everybody was already in a pre-existing simulation but simply unaware of it, and the faithful, accurate virtual worlds they were so proud of creating were just simulations within a simulation.

That way though, arguably, madness lay. Or a kind of lassitude through acceptance that could be exploited. There were few better ways of knocking the fight out of people than by convincing them that life was a joke, a contrivance under somebody else’s ultimate control, and nothing of what they thought or did really mattered.

The trick, he supposed, was never to lose sight of the theoretical possibility while not for a moment taking the idea remotely seriously.

-- Iain M. Banks - "Surface Detail"

Fred: Let's say you really are just a simulation of a person in a simulation of a world, even though you experience things as if you are a human being in a physical world. You know how to use the words 'simulated person' and 'simulated world' meaningfully, so that you can think the thought, and express the thought in language, that 'I am a simulated person in a simulated world.'

But what do these terms mean? What do they refer to?

If you are not a simulated person in a simulated world, but just a real, ordinary person in a real, ordinary world, then 'simulated person' and 'simulated world' refer to kinds of computer programs, let's say. This is because 'I am a simulated person in a simulated world' is true if and only if those terms in that sentence refer to computer programs that exist and are running. And since you are not a computer program in this case, 'I am a simulated person in a simulated world' is false.

In contrast, if you are a simulated person in a simulated world, then these terms mean something different, because they are used truly in sentences if and only if they refer to something different than in the ordinary case. The reason why is a little complicated because you have proposed an especially clever version of the 'brain in a vat' hypothesis (the thought that I am not a person, but a brain in a jar hooked up to electrodes, being stimulated by a computer program to have experiences as if I am in a real world, when in fact I am not). So let's take that case first.

If you are a brain a vat, then the words you use refer not to things in the 'real world,' but instead to the things that the computer stimulates your brain in order to experience (or, more precisely, to the features of the computer program that cause you to have those experiences). So then, 'brain' refers not to brains as we ordinarily understand it, but instead, to features of computer programs that stimulate our brain so as to cause experiences that seem to us just like ordinary experiences of brains (even though they are not really brains that we are seeming to experience). Right? In other words, if you, the brain in a vat, say 'There is a brain,' when is that sentence true? Not when there is a real brain in front of you, but instead, when there is a computer simulation of a brain. So 'brain,' in the language that you, the brain in a vat, speak, does not mean real brain but instead simulation of a brain. The same goes for 'vat' -- it doesn't mean a real jar filled with liquid, but instead the simulation of one, or the features of the computer program that cause you to have an experience as if there is one in front of you that you are talking about.

However, you yourself are a computer simulation of a person--you seem to yourself as if you're a normal, 'real-life' human being, and so it is false for you to say, 'I am a brain in a vat,' given the meaning of the terms in that sentence--for you are not a computer program that causes experiences as of brains and as of vats, but instead you're a computer program that causes experiences as of being a person.

If you were to say 'I am a real brain in a real vat, then you'd have to use different words with different meanings than the words 'brain' and 'vat' as you use them--call them 'r-brain' and 'r-vat.' But you are in a simulation, so who would teach them to you? How would you ever experience a real brain and a real vat so as to understand that 'r-brain' and 'r-vat' refer to those real things? You can't, ex hypothesi.

Now, the reason your version is tricky is because your claim is not that you are a real brain in a real vat, but that you are just a part of a (real) computer program. But the argument works the same: Your use of the term 'computer program' (or 'simulation') doesn't refer to real computer programs; it refers to whatever it is that causes you to have an experience that seems to you like you are looking at, reading, writing, a computer program, when in fact you are not.

I dunno if that makes it clear enough, but the bottom line is that if you were really in a simulation, you could not truly and meaningfully say or think that you are in a simulation, because you would not be referring to a real computer program but instead to the simulation of a computer program.

*farts*

encey you need to post this shit more often. awesome post.

  On 2/9/2012 at 12:06 AM, encey said:

If you are a brain a vat...

 

*farts*

* inhales *

Then, I presume, your name is Morbius and the Time Lords will pay for their treachery?

All joking aside, that was an excellent post and I can only hope to provide levity in the wake of its magnanimous stead.