You know nothing, but I am the Lizard King. Less of your presumptuous "we" when you dare to question yourself in public.

That brings into question whether we can truly know anything at all. — Torus34

Cogito ergo sum.

It has recently been shown, rather convincingly [for me, at least,] that we cannot distinguish between living in a simulation and living in a 'real' universe. — Torus34

Only if the simulation is perfect and seamless. I dont think perfect is a real thing. A single flaw would be testable, repeatable and therefore detectable.

That brings into question whether we can truly know anything at all. — Torus34

It means that “knowing” is on a spectrum, with absolute certainty at one end and no certainty at all on the other. You are using “to know” as “to be certain”, which is false.

That brings into question whether we can truly know anything at all.

Comments? — Torus34

Depends. Totalising skepticism is quite popular with students and philosophy neophytes it seems. But some level of skepticism is useful and appropriate. I don't think humans ever arrive at absolute truth or 'ultimate reality' as opposed to the truth or reality about contingent matters. We can have reasonable confidence in many things, but absolute certainty is unavailable to us. What more do you need? If we are living in the Martix, or we're a brain in a vat, we may as well enjoy/participate in the illusion. What choice do we have? :wink:

That brings into question whether we can truly know anything at all. — Torus34

Not knowing the ultimate nature of the universe is not the same as knowing nothing at all. You can only explore and learn about the reality in which you exist - and it's all you need to know about. Whether you live in a real universe or a simulated one makes no difference to the knowledge you gain. And it's not likely you'll ever step outside of either.

What grounds are there to believe "we are living in a simulation"? or, more precisely, to doubt that physical reality is more – other – than a simulation?

Hi, Vera.

A nice, pragmatic response. I can see Dewey looking over your shoulder. Pragmatism is a great way to cut Gordian knots.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Hi, 180 Proof. [Love the handle!]

The problem isn't whether it's a probable possibility but, rather, that it cannot be logically ruled out.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

The problem isn't whether it's a probable possibility but, rather, that it cannot be logically ruled out. — Torus34

The "logic" may be valid but its soundness is dubious at best. An infinity of such notions "cannot be logically ruled out", but so what? Life is short, we need to sort out which of relatively few ideas are worthy of our limited time and energy to seriously consider. By all means, as I'm not aware of any nontrivial^^ grounds, please cite some for bothering to make an effort to think through "the simulation hypothesis". :chin:


^^(a distinction that makes no ontological and/or existential and/or pragmatic difference)

The "logic" may be valid but its soundness is dubious at best. An infinity of such notions "cannot be logically ruled out", but so what? Life is short, we need to sort out which relative few ideas are worthy of our limited time and energy to seriously consider. — 180 Proof

:up: Yes, that's the conclusion I came to. And yes, you point out the other salient matter here - it doesn't make any difference to the experience wherein I exist and make choices in the only reality I know.

Do you think your consciousness and mind can be reduced to a bunch of switching actions? Can the pain of a stubbed toe emerge from flipping enough light switches on and off in some pattern? To me, these possibilities do not merit consideration, so we are not living in a simulation.

It has recently been shown, rather convincingly [for me, at least,] that we cannot distinguish between living in a simulation and living in a 'real' universe.

That brings into question whether we can truly know anything at all.

Comments? — Torus34

There is a serious question begged here: what is the litmus of knowing at all? the very concept of one standard generating conditions for deviation brings that standard into sharp relief.

But really, if you can't tell the difference between one and the other, then there is no difference, and whatever difference you place OUTSIDE of the pov in question, as with yours and my shared understanding that one is right the other wrong, it is to be called metaphysics.

Can the pain of a stubbed toe emerge from flipping enough light switches on and off in some pattern? — RogueAI

Yes, that's pretty much how nerve impulses work.

It has recently been shown, rather convincingly [for me, at least,] that we cannot distinguish between living in a simulation and living in a 'real' universe. — Torus34

We neither live in a simulation nor a ‘real’ universe, if ‘real’ here means an environment unaffected in its meaning by linguistic and material interactions among humans and between humans and that world. We co-construct the sense of the real through social interaction as well as via individual perspectival practices. The real is enacted, not passively observed.

Yes, that's pretty much how nerve impulses work. — Vera Mont

How do nerve impulses create conscious experiences?

:up:

How do nerve impulses create conscious experiences? — RogueAI

How are "conscious experiences" "created" without "nerve impulses"? :roll:

How are "conscious experiences" "created" without "nerve impulses"? — 180 Proof

Consciousness requires nerve impulses??? No possibility of machine consciousness? No possibility that this is a simulation?

Consciousness requires nerve impulses??? — RogueAI

At least in h. sapiens it does.

No possibility of machine consciousness?

Non sequitur.

No possibility that this is a simulation?

For starters, what difference would such a "possibility" make to us ontologically, existentially or pragmatically?

At least in h. sapiens it does. — 180 Proof

Science has no idea how brains produce consciousness. You would think, after all this time, we would have some idea, but the theories are all over the place. Eventually, people are going to question basic assumptions, such as "matter is real" and "brains cause consciousness".

To tie this back to the OP, if there's no explanation for how our own brains make us conscious, why should we even consider the idea that consciousness can come from an entirely different substrate? Why is that even taken seriously? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

"For starters, what difference would such a "possibility" make to us ontologically, existentially or pragmatically?"

If you knew for certain you were in a simulation, wouldn't you want to try and get in touch with the simulation creator?

Science has no idea how brains produce consciousness. — RogueAI

Not quite true (e.g. vide T. Metzinger), but even if you're right, philosophy has only fantasy (i.e. folk psychology), not even an "idea how".

Not quite true (e.g. vide T. Metzinger), but even if you're right, philosophy has only folk fantasy (i.e. folk psychology), not even an "idea". — 180 Proof

I don't want to derail the thread. Just pointing out some problems with Simulation Theory. Imo, they're insurmountable, but who knows.

A recurring theme I guess...

Does the simulation hypothesis also apply to those running the simulation?
Elon Musk on the Simulation Hypothesis
Could we be living in a simulation?

As thought experiments go, I think it shares a category with other ideas, where both the idea and its negation are compatible with attainable evidence.

Dream argument
Evil demon
Brain in a vat
Last Thursdayism
intangible invisible dragons
...

On the traditional account, we can know whatever happens to be the case.

We neither live in a simulation nor a ‘real’ universe, if ‘real’ here means an environment unaffected in its meaning by linguistic and material interactions among humans and between humans and that world. We co-construct the sense of the real through social interaction as well as via individual perspectival practices. The real is enacted, not passively observed. — Joshs

And yet what you don't know can still kill you.

How do nerve impulses create conscious experiences? — RogueAI

By communicating the sensation of a toe striking the foot of the bed all the way up the spinal cord to the brain, which then uses more nerve impulses to process that information and turn into an experience.
The "creation" of an experience is a team effort among many neurons networking.

No possibility of machine consciousness? — RogueAI

Only a very remote one. AI has not - AFAIK - exhibited toe pain.

No possibility that this is a simulation? — RogueAI

If it's a simulation, there is no physical consciousness and no physical toe of which to be conscious, so no physical nerves and no electrical impulses.
So then , whether it emerged

from flipping enough light switches on and off in some pattern? — RogueAI

depends on whether it's a computer simulation (yes, it's off/on switches)
or some other kind of simulation (which we don't know how it works)

If you knew for certain you were in a simulation, wouldn't you want to try and get in touch with the simulation creator? — RogueAI

For my part, no. But if you did, try prayer.

process that information and turn into an experience — Vera Mont

How does the information get "turned into an experience"?

How does the information get "turned into an experience"? — RogueAI

Do you really think the lesson on neurological function belongs here? I'm not really qualified to teach it.
They are: https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/4-1-we-experience-our-world-through-sensation/

Obviously, my point is that science hasn't explained how consciousness/minds come from matter.

"Decades-long bet on consciousness ends — and it’s philosopher 1, neuroscientist 0"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02120-8

If science can't explain something as fundamental as our own experience, why should we think it can explain whether consciousness can arise from computers? Why should we even entertain the notion that we're living in a simulation?

Obviously, my point is that science hasn't explained how consciousness/minds come from matter. — RogueAI

*sigh!* OK goddoneit

*sigh!* OK goddoneit — Vera Mont

Pointing out materialism/physicalism's failure to explain consciousness doesn't entail "goddoneit". Mysterianism has been gaining in popularity lately.

No one can logically rule out that I am the Lizard King and have knowledge not accessible to mere mortals.

Yet everyone does rule it out, in spite of my announcement above. Fools!

But the idea that reality is a simulation implies that there is a "higher reality" in which this simulation takes place. It is the scientific version of religious speculations about heaven and hell and eternity, etc. And has almost as much basis. The superstitions of those who think themselves immune from superstition are a wonder to behold.