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 — jorndoe
Science has no idea how brains produce consciousness. — RogueAI
Suppose there is a scientist alive today who fully understands how consciousness emerges in the brain.
Do you think that you would be able to understand that scientist's explanation without having studied the relevant science yourself?
A more accurate and nuanced statement than yours above is that scientists have developed and are continuing to develop more accurate understanding of aspects of how consciousness emerges from brains. Criticisms arising out of anti-scientific ignorance don't even reach the threshold of mildly interesting after awhile. — wonderer1
Science "pursues knowledge" and AFAIK philosophy does not (but rather makes explicit and interprets (for flourishing) what we do not – perhaps, cannot – know). In either regard, "The Simulation Hypothesis" seems to me an idle thought-experiment.... the pleasure of pursuing knowledge. — Torus34
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.