Convince me I'm not in a Simulation.

all simulations are limited emulations of assimilated assumptions on the source of our seemingly sempiternal conscious connection to the sentient multiverse, innit

  On 2/9/2012 at 9:25 PM, impotentwhitecapitalist said:

all simulations are limited emulations of assimilated assumptions on the source of our seemingly sempiternal conscious connection to the sentient multiverse, innit

watch the ride, prikface

  On 2/9/2012 at 9:37 PM, iep said:

  On 2/9/2012 at 9:25 PM, impotentwhitecapitalist said:

all simulations are limited emulations of assimilated assumptions on the source of our seemingly sempiternal conscious connection to the sentient multiverse, innit

 

watch the ride, prikface

(null)

also don't understand the stuff about technological restrictions making it unlikely. like in the old days they would have said you couldn't write a million page book because no book shelf would be big enough for it, but now you could publish a million page book on the internet, you don't even need bookshelves anymore.

you're not in a simulation.

convinced?

but you are dreaming.

  On 2/9/2012 at 9:44 PM, tauboo said:

also don't understand the stuff about technological restrictions making it unlikely. like in the old days they would have said you couldn't write a million page book because no book shelf would be big enough for it, but now you could publish a million page book on the internet, you don't even need bookshelves anymore.

that's just pure data storage. writing words down ain't no thang. we're talking about simulating brain-processes, nerve systems, even consciousness. still miles away.

  On 2/9/2012 at 9:44 PM, tauboo said:

also don't understand the stuff about technological restrictions making it unlikely. like in the old days they would have said you couldn't write a million page book because no book shelf would be big enough for it, but now you could publish a million page book on the internet, you don't even need bookshelves anymore.

that's just pure data storage. writing words down ain't no thang. we're talking about simulating brain-processes, nerve systems, even consciousness. still miles away. the closest we are coming is neural network analysis and EEG advancements. still miles away and lots of work to do. but really:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derealization

but dreaming is more abstract

are dreams an abstract version of dreams? i don't dream in my dreams though

crazy

  On 2/9/2012 at 9:46 PM, iep said:

  On 2/9/2012 at 9:44 PM, tauboo said:

also don't understand the stuff about technological restrictions making it unlikely. like in the old days they would have said you couldn't write a million page book because no book shelf would be big enough for it, but now you could publish a million page book on the internet, you don't even need bookshelves anymore.

 

that's just pure data storage. writing words down ain't no thang. we're talking about simulating brain-processes, nerve systems, even consciousness. still miles away.

 

  On 2/9/2012 at 9:44 PM, tauboo said:

also don't understand the stuff about technological restrictions making it unlikely. like in the old days they would have said you couldn't write a million page book because no book shelf would be big enough for it, but now you could publish a million page book on the internet, you don't even need bookshelves anymore.

 

that's just pure data storage. writing words down ain't no thang. we're talking about simulating brain-processes, nerve systems, even consciousness. still miles away. the closest we are coming is neural network analysis and EEG advancements. still miles away and lots of work to do. but really:

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Derealization

it only takes 15 minutes to walk a mile

  Quote

are dreams an abstract version of dreams? i don't dream in my dreams though

yeah me neither, but usually sometimes i do and then i sweat alot. i don't know why. when i have good dreams i don't like it.

i would love to simulate my dreams one day and see why that is.

*freud image*

ps. some people can do it within 3 minutes.

i prefer to last long

I haven't read the thread yet (I will when I have more time), but here's my thoughts:

God created the universe, and is capable of creation (for the record I'm agnostic, I feel it's a decent argument for God though)

Since people are capable of creation, it is possible that we may be capable of creating a universe in the future. For example, The Sims, except all of The Sims have artificial intelligence and are self-aware.

So therefore, we could be sims in God's "The Sims" program. No way to prove or disprove though. I'd say don't worry about it because there's nothing you can do, except create your own universe and become a god yourself.

  On 2/9/2012 at 9:46 PM, iep said:

  On 2/9/2012 at 9:44 PM, tauboo said:

also don't understand the stuff about technological restrictions making it unlikely. like in the old days they would have said you couldn't write a million page book because no book shelf would be big enough for it, but now you could publish a million page book on the internet, you don't even need bookshelves anymore.

 

that's just pure data storage. writing words down ain't no thang. we're talking about simulating brain-processes, nerve systems, even consciousness. still miles away.

 

I think Tauboos analogy is a good one, personally. The point is that we already have evidence, right there, that technological and scientific advances can allow us to completely sidestep seemingly insurmountable problems using approaches that are just completely impossible to imagine earlier.

As for simulating brains: http://en.wikipedia....e_Brain_Project

Though it's moving along fine right now it could be receiving a grant.

"The project is a candidate for a Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) research grant from the European Commission. The grant would bring in €1 billion over 10 years. The final decision on the grant is expected in the second half of 2012. If the grant is awarded, the project will be renamed the Human Brain Project"

“If we build this brain right, it will do everything,” Markram says. I ask him if that includes self consciousness: Is it really possible to put a ghost into a machine? “When I say everything, I mean everything,”

----------------

"Year one - a documentary short which previews director Noah Hutton’s 10-year film-in-the-making that will chronicle the progress of The Blue Brain Project, Henry Markram’s attempt to reverse-engineer a human brain"

http://vimeo.com/8977365

Year two

http://vimeo.com/28040230

  On 2/9/2012 at 4:04 PM, encey said:

  On 2/9/2012 at 4:36 AM, grue said:

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

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*

 

i have a soft spot for the semantic externalist response too, but, as i'm sure you know, it only works against long-term skeptical hypotheses. if, for instance, i live my life as a normal person for 20+ years and then one night i am kidnapped and turned into a brain in a vat, then presumably the causal relationships (or whatever the externalist constraints are) that fix the interpretation of my utterances are such that by 'brain' i really do mean brains and not brains-in-the-image (e.g. the relevant aspects of the computer program). maybe over time the proper interpretation will shift and then your (putnam's) story will work, but this response can't refute the skeptical scenario where one has only recently become a b.i.v.

grue, my homey!

 

Yeah, and I think it's interesting that this mirrors the exact same problem you can raise about Descartes' cogito argument -- that he only knows he exists for as long as he is thinking, which leaves open the epistemic status of his memories as giving him knowledge that he has existed in the past.

 

In the class I'm TAing for, students asked a good question about his method of radical doubt: They said, 'But wouldn't he have to doubt his knowledge of the laws of logic, for the same reason that he doubted his knowledge of arithmetic and geometry? in which case, his argument that he exists and that God exists and gives him clear and distinct ideas to found his knowledge of arithmetic and geometry couldn't even get off the ground!

 

I don't know a lot of Descartes scholarship, but it definitely got me wondering whether anyone has written about that.

good questions from your students. i don't know a lot of descartes scholarship either, but i would imagine that the literature on the cartesian circle has touched on it. i think he makes a mistake doubting arithmetic and geometry in the first place, but i guess he thinks they're contingent or something like that, which would make more sense of it.

anyway, that question reminds me of a friend of mine who has a paper arguing that cartesian skepticism is self-undermining, because it leads to a kind of skepticism about reasoning, yet the skeptical argument itself is an instance of complex reasoning. the basic idea is like that raised by your students but it ends up helping descartes out, since even the skeptical argument can't get off the ground.

  On 2/9/2012 at 4:04 PM, encey said:

Related, but different issue: I'm teaching a class on dreaming, and next week we'll talk about an article by Ernest Sosa where he says that 'I'm dreaming' cannot be true because there would be no such thought that we are thinking; we would only be dreaming that we think it. But I just can't find that convincing. My experience of dreaming seems to 'clearly and distinctly' include conscious thought sometimes -- especially when I have been able to lucid dream ... although the thought in question quickly changed from 'I'm dreaming' to 'I'm fucking this girl in the ass,' but that's another story, as censor-worthy as the epic muff-diving tale I never got to read. (Someone PM me!)

don't know the sosa, but i don't find it totally implausible on first glance. it reminds me of moore's example of the guy who is dreaming that he is addressing parliament (i think) when he is, in fact, alseep in parliament but talking aloud. it would be strange to think that he was consciously or intentionally talking to parliament in that case, despite the accuracy of his experiences and the correspondence between his dream-intentions and his true actions, because presumably the causal relationships are all skewed. sounds like sosa might have a similar idea in mind; it's hard to say whether apparently "conscious" thoughts in dreams are the real deal because they don't play the same functional role or have the same inputs/outputs as waking conscious thoughts.

I remember reading Descartes and thinking "this man was the world's most brilliant idiot".

Descartes: demons aren't deceiving me because God's too good to allow that, and he must exist because if he didn't he wouldn't be the greatest thing imaginable, seeing as existing is clearly greater than not existing. <--fuck off.

At least, that's how i remember Descartes. Didn't he also nail dogs to posts? If not, I'm totally okay with starting that rumor here...

  On 2/10/2012 at 4:01 AM, Zephyr_Nova said:

I remember reading Descartes and thinking "this man was the world's most brilliant idiot".

Descartes: demons aren't deceiving me because God's too good to allow that, and he must exist because if he didn't he wouldn't be the greatest thing imaginable, seeing as existing is clearly greater than not existing. <--fuck off.

At least, that's how i remember Descartes. Didn't he also nail dogs to posts? If not, I'm totally okay with starting that rumor here...

lol IDK about the second part but I got the same vibe from him as well. I had respect for his thought process but it was all biast since he clearly wanted to believe in the existence of a God, based on some other logic that had him saying since Imperfection Exists (Humans) Perfection must exist (God).

Clearly things aren't that simple /black and white. But for Descartes, he was just really confused at the beginning and then after locking himself away a few months all of a sudden just got it all.

Just found this. Relevant enough i suppose.

convince me I'm not in a stimulation...

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

see brothomstates for musical fullfilment.

penetration of simulation elimination

Alright, we got a simulation!

  On 2/10/2012 at 7:35 AM, Atop said:

penetration of simulation elimination

put it on the deck... lol

The real question we should be asking is what is life's resolution?

How much Data comprises the whole universe?

Can I hack life and get God mode? I can't find the console button. Oh wait..

~

god_mode = 1

Don't dare me. I'll hit enter!

For me it's simply a question of how much we know about the universe and if one day we'll be able to understand it all (I don't think so, seeing as every major step in physics and science brings more questions than answers).

To simulate the universe effectively we would have to know every parameters, every laws, everything... if not it wouldn't be convincing because we would end up against a wall someday, something than wasn't thought about by the 'simulator', which would mean the end of the simulation.

I only read the discourse on the Method, and loved it because I found his life philosophy to be great.

Now people hate Descartes because he believed in god and they don't. But as someone who has started believing in God spontaneously, I understand both sides. For instance, when I was reading conversations between Buddhists and Christians, I was confused the formers had no problem speaking about god. Now I understand them. You probably know the proverb : "Buddhism is not what you think". Well I'm tempted to say "God is not what you think".

The thing is people who don't like the idea of God don't have a clear idea about what God is. They just oppose to God as presented by religious people, that is persons who don't have a clear idea of what God is (most of time). I think hofstadter definition of GOD (GOD Over Djinn) is pretty well done.

But really there is not much differences between believing in God and not believing in God.

Also Descartes was right doubting geometry since non-Euclidean geometries were discovered a few centuries later (by doing modifications to euclide's axioms).

But really, God is not really interesting (to me). It's a bit too much of a mind-fuck, it's too vast, too universal. I think the idea of spirits or polytheist gods is more interesting. And by "spirit" I mean any cognitive process able to take decisions. So of course this includes individuals but also wider (or smaller) "entities". Let me give you an example : I was in Bruxelles for new years eve, and as I was walking with two buddies of mine in the streets something quite unusual happened. At some point, one of my mates hesitated entering a small adjacent street. And since I was walking to his side, I hit it with my elbow, and he finally entered the street. I didn't really wanted him to lead us into this street, so the other chap and I followed him. I just hit him because he suddenly stopped (and we were stoned). It wasn't my intention to enter this street either. So who did take the decision to enter that street ? Nobody and everyone. The whole group "took" that decision. If my buddy hadn't hesitated entering this street, I wouldn't have hit him with my elbow. And if I hadn't hit him he would just have had a peek at the street. And if the third lad wasn't absent minded, he would probably have opposed to the idea of going into this street. Conclusion: the group's spirit took that decision.

Now you might oppose to this concept because to you the word "spirit" is attached to a whole different "meaning set" : Amazonia, totems, shamans, etc... I understand that. Maybe I could "define" the idea I have in mind by grouping various words in a set and stating that the concept I want to put on the tale is at the intersection of the elements of this set. For instance : {spirit, decisional dynamic system, mind, cognitive situation}. But is this set complete? I don't think so and it will never be. So I'm decentralizing or deterritorializing the notion of "spirit" because I think the traditional notion behind the "spirit" word somehow makes sense. (Note that I could have used the word "divinity" instead of "spirit", this is an arbitrary choice).

I understand if you still don't understand my position : that deterritorialization shit needs some cognitive background in order to be achieved/understood and I apologize if I haven't been able to bring it to your mind.

Also I'd like to suggest another discussion theme to this thread – although it's not directly related to the simulated world problem, it's about parallel worlds : do you think it is possible that some people perceive time as passing backwards ?

This is an old idea of mine and I have no definite answer to this question. In order to make this question more concise, I'll anticipate one counter-argument:

- "It is not possible since physics law forbids that certain transformation happen backwards. For instance, it's not possible to produce electricity from a lightbulb by exposing it to a stream of photons."

To this, I would answer that my concept is misunderstood. I'm placing it on a phenomenological stance : in other words, physics, which expresses laws on the basis of experiments, depends on the way these experiments are perceived. If time is "seen" as passing backwards, then the cause-effect chain which these laws are based on is reversed. Thus the laws are "reversed" (or at least they are different). It's like playing a movie backwards : in this alternate reality I'm talking about, lightbulbs produce electricity when exposed to light, and the inverse transformation is not possible according to reverse physical laws that reverse-scientists reverse-discovered in this reverse alternate reality. Got it ?

Go !

  On 2/10/2012 at 12:59 PM, johnoise said:

To simulate the universe effectively we would have to know every parameters, every laws, everything... if not it wouldn't be convincing because we would end up against a wall someday, something than wasn't thought about by the 'simulator', which would mean the end of the simulation.

Wouldn't be convincing to who? To find something unconvincing, you need something with which to compare the simulated world with, right? "All" you need to do is have a set of coherent laws that work for the world that you have created. The entities in that simulation aren't going to know any different. Not only this, but if someone in the simulation ever found a glitch or a bug you could rewind the time in the simulation and they would never know. You could freeze a simulation for a trillion years and they'd never know.

Another point i'd make is that i dont think it will be current humans that do this (if it can be done), it will be AI or enhanced humans and you'd expect that our own hypothetical simulator would be pretty smart or at least part of a civilisation that was smarter than what we have now.