The simulation hypothesis has nothing to do with an imitation of a person, which would be an android or some other 'fake' human. So when somebody suggests 'if all is a simulation', this is not what is being referenced. For example:Take simulations of people. It is possible to make a figure that is so like a person that people think it is a person - until they talk to it. — Ludwig V
RogueAI is probably not suggesting an imitation person here.What if this is all a simulation and everyone you think is conscious are really NPC's? — RogueAI
In the VR scenario, the mind would be hooked to the simulated empirical stream, but it would not be itself an AI. In fact, simulation (at least of a closed system) needs only brute calculation with no intelligence at all. It's just executing physical interactions, tedious work not in need of intelligence.I think a simulation scenario could be otherwise. Maybe we are all AI, and the programmer of the simulation just chose this kind of physical body out of nowhere. — Patterner
The "simulation hypothesis" is indeed quite different from the hypothesis that there are imitations of people around. I'm not quite sure that it has "nothing to do" with fake people.The simulation hypothesis has nothing to do with an imitation of a person, which would be an android or some other 'fake' human. — noAxioms
What if this is all a simulation and everyone you think is conscious are really NPC's?
— RogueAI
RogueAI is probably not suggesting an imitation person here. — noAxioms
On the face of it, this looks like a generalization from "there are some fake. imitation, simulated people around" to "everything is a simulation".The simulation hypothesis proposes that what humans experience as the world is actually a simulated reality, such as a computer simulation in which humans themselves are constructs." — noAxioms
What empirical evidence could possibly confirm or refute this? I don't see this as a hypothesis at all, but as a methodological decision. In the 17th century, physicists decided to eject anything that seemed incapable of mathematical treatment, so colours and sounds were banished to the mind, placed beyond the scope of science. Science did not need those hypotheses.mathematical universe hypothesis, — noAxioms
So how does a simulation differ from reality?simulation is simply an explicit execution of an approximation of those laws, on a closed or open system. — noAxioms
Fair enough. But in those cases, it is clear what the simulation is a simulation of. We know what the real thing is. As you say, this has nothing to do with a simulation of everything.They perform for instance simulations of car crashes at the design phase, the result of which eventually generates a design that is safer. — noAxioms
The bit about imitation people (human-made constructs) is very relevant to the 'thinking computer' topic, and relevant only if not all people/creatures are conscious in the same way (a process running the same physics). The idea is preposterous at our current level of technology, so any imitation people would probably be of alien origin, something that cannot be ruled out. They'd not necessarily qualify as what we term a 'computer'.The "simulation hypothesis" is indeed quite different from the hypothesis that there are imitations of people around. — Ludwig V
OK, if not all the people are simulated the same, then the ones that are not (the NPC's) would be fake, not conscious, but controlled directly by some AI and not the brute implementation of physics that is the simulation itself. There has to be a line drawn somewhere between the simulated system and what's not the system. If it is a closed system, there need be no such line. A car crash simulation is essentially closed, but certain car parts are still simulated with greater detail than others.On the face of it, this looks like a generalization from "there are some fake. imitation, simulated people around" to "everything is a simulation". — Ludwig V
Under simulation hypothesis (both Sim and VR), the forgeries are any external input to a non-closed system. Bostrum posits a lot of them.On the contrary, a forgery can only be a forgery if there is such a thing as the real thing. — Ludwig V
Disagree. The car thing was my example: Simulation of a vehicle that has never existed. Our world could in theory be a simulation of a human word made up by something completely non-human, and perhaps not even a universe with say 3 spatial dimensions, or space at all for that matter. There need be no real thing. I personally run trivial simulations all the time of things that have no real counterpart. Any simple 1D-2D cellular automata qualifies.In all of these cases, there is always a question what is being imitated or forged or whatever. — Ludwig V
I hope to explore that question in this topic. For one, our physics has been proven non-classical, and thus cannot be simulated accurately with any classical Von-Neumann computer no matter how speedy or memory-laden. But that restriction doesn't necessarily apply to the unknown realm that is posited to be running said simulation. But it's good evidence that it isn't humans simulating themselves.What empirical evidence could possibly confirm or refute this? — Ludwig V
Sort of. Yes, they have a model. No, it isn't a model of something that exists. There isn't a 'real thing' to it.Fair enough. But in those [car crash] cases, it is clear what the simulation is a simulation of. — Ludwig V
The skull-vat view does not feed the mind a set of artificially generated lies. VR does.I'm afraid I don't have the time to respond in detail to what you say about actual simulation and virtual reality. Perhaps later. I'll just say that, so far as I can see, the BIV hypothesis either presupposes the existence of normal reality or describes all of us right now. (The skull is a vat.) — Ludwig V
He does seem to throw the resources around, yes. A lot of it presumes that Moore's law continues unabated for arbitrary more time, which is preposterous. We're already up against quantum resolution, and chip fabs requiring nearly maximum practical resources.Bostrom's speculation has always smelled grossly unparsimonious, to me. — wonderer1
I'm not sure about whether or in what way the actual physics of the person/computer are relevant. Clearly, we know that human beings are persons without knowing (in any detail) about their internal physics. On the other hand, the commentary on the current AIs seems unanimous in thinking that the details of the software are.if not all people/creatures are conscious in the same way (a process running the same physics). — noAxioms
One needs to specify that "the same" means here. Otherwise, any difference between people (such as brain weight or skin colour) could lead to classifying them as not conscious, not people. I'm sorry, what are NPCs?OK, if not all the people are simulated the same, then the ones that are not (the NPC's) would be fake, not conscious, — noAxioms
Yes, there is an issue here. We can, of course construct, imaginary worlds and most of the time we don't bother to point out that they are always derived from the world we live in. As here, we know about real cars that really crash and what happens afterwards (roughly). That's the basis that enables us to construct and recognize simulations of them. "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" are extensions of that ability.Sort of. Yes, they have a model. No, it isn't a model of something that exists. There isn't a 'real thing' to it. — noAxioms
That's a bit unfair, isn't it? We know quite well what is VR and what is not, so it is clearly distinguishable from reality. Nobody pretends otherwise. Of course, we can frighten ourselves with the idea that a VR (In some unimaginably advanced form) could be used to deceive people; "Matrix" is one version of this. But, unless we are straightforward positivists or followers of George Berkeley, the fact that the difference between VR and reality is perfectly clear and the problem is no different from the problem how we tell dreams from reality.The skull-vat view does not feed the mind a set of artificially generated lies. VR does. — noAxioms
Not sure what is being asked. I mean, what aspects of physical processes would, if absent, not in some way degrade the subjective experience?Which aspects of physical processes correspond with subjectivity? — Wayfarer
The idealists for one would disagree with this. Idealism tends to lead to solipsism, where only you are real and all the other humans are just your internal representations (ideals) of them. You've no hard evidence that they're as real as yourself. Of course, modern video games are terrible at displaying other people, and you can tell at once that they're fake. But we're assuming far better technology here where it takes more work to pick out the fakes.Clearly, we know that human beings are persons without knowing (in any detail) about their internal physics. — Ludwig V
'The same' means, in a Sim, that both you and the other thing (a frog say) are fully simulated at the same level, perhaps at the biochemical level. You and the frog both make your own decisions, not some AI trying to fool the subject by making a frog shape behave like a frog.One needs to specify that "the same" means here. — Ludwig V
Google it. Standard video game term for Non-Playing-Character. It typically refers to a person/creature in a game that isn't played by any actual player, They tend to be bad guys that you kill, or race against, or whatever. In the Sim scenario, it would be a person not actually conscious, but whose actions are controlled by an AI that makes it act realistically. In VR, NPC refers to any person not under virtual control, whether self or AI controlled.I'm sorry, what are NPCs?
Conway's Game-of-Life (GoL) is not in any way derived from the world in which we live, so there's a counterexample to that assertion.We can, of course construct, imaginary worlds and most of the time we don't bother to point out that they are always derived from the world we live in. — Ludwig V
Well yes, since there'd not be much point in simulating a car that crashes under different physics. The intent in that example is to find an optimal design based on the simulation results. Not so under GoL.As here, we know about real cars that really crash and what happens afterwards (roughly). That's the basis that enables us to construct and recognize simulations of them.
Those are not simulations. Heck, the physics of those worlds are both quite different than our own. The Hollywood guys are hardly paid to be realistic about such things."Star Trek" and "Star Wars" are extensions of that ability.
If it's good enough, then no, it would not be easily distinguished from a more real reality, especially since the lies are fed to you for all time. Unl[ike with a video game. you have no memory of entering the VR. Of course all our crude VR does it feed fake vision and sound effects to you. Not the rest. You can feel the headset you're wearing. But even then, sometimes you forget.... It's pretty creepy in some of the scary games.We know quite well what is VR and what is not, so it is clearly distinguishable from reality. — Ludwig V
Yes, that's the idea (one of them) under consideration here. How do you know it's false? Just asserting it false is beyond weak.Of course, we can frighten ourselves with the idea that a VR (In some unimaginably advanced form) could be used to deceive people;
Implausible too, but that's entertainment for you."Matrix" is one version of this.
Not sure what is being asked. I mean, what aspects of physical processes would, if absent, not in some way degrade the subjective experience? — noAxioms
It presumes that human consciousness is a purely physical process (physicalism), and thus a sufficiently detailed simulation of that physics would produce humans that are conscious — noAxioms
Last I checked (which has been a while), they can do bugs, and even that is probably not a simulation of the whole bug, let alone an environment for it.If you're open to the possibility that consciousness could emerge from a computer simulation, are you also open to the idea that consciousness is already emerging in the simulations we're currently running? — RogueAI
Pretty much, yea. All the same arguments (pro and con) apply.This runs smack into the 'hard problem of consciousness', which is that no description of physical processes provides an account of the first-person nature of consciousness. — Wayfarer
As for Baldur's Gate, that (like any current game) doesn't simulate any mental processes, and even if it did, the simulated character would be conscious, but the game is no more conscious than is the universe. It merely contains conscious entities. A computer simulating a bat would not know what it is like to be a bat, but the simulated bat would. — noAxioms
... I am not supporting the simulation hypothesis in any form. I'm looking for likely ways to debunk it, ... — noAxioms
That means that yes, even the paper and pencil method, done to sufficient detail, would simulate a conscious human who would not obviously know he is being simulated. — noAxioms
Thank you for telling me that. It helps a lot.Keep in mind that I am not supporting the simulation hypothesis in any form. I'm looking for likely ways to debunk it, but in the end, there can be no proof. — noAxioms
I agree with you, though I would describe it as hand-waving. I agree also that sometimes it is best to roll with the punch if someone takes an idea seriously and I don't. I've done it myself. It may not result in them changing their mind, but it does allow some exploration and clarification.I think that sounds like magic, but everyone else is taking it seriously, — RogueAI
So if I miniaturized the AI hardware and grafted it into the frog, it becomes a simulation instead of a VR?You and the frog both make your own decisions, not some AI trying to fool the subject by making a frog shape behave like a frog. — noAxioms
What made the game? Though I grant you, it is quite different from the kinds of simulation we have been talking about, and far from a VR. But it is an abstraction from the world in which Conway - and you and I - live.Conway's Game-of-Life (GoL) is not in any way derived from the world in which we live, so there's a counterexample to that assertion. — noAxioms
I agree. I can't answer for Conway's intent, but it looks to me as if the intent is to explore and play with the possibilities of a particular kind of system. In which it has definitely succeeded, in most interesting ways.The intent in that example (sc. the simulation of a car crash) is to find an optimal design based on the simulation results. Not so under GoL. — noAxioms
Well, I would say that those films are simulations of a fantasy scenario/world. But I'm not fussed about the vocabulary here. I am fussed about the idea that they have no connection with the actual world. That is simply false. For a start, there are human beings in it, not to mention space ships, planets and suns. As to the physics being different, that doesn't seem to bother people like Hume ("the sun might not rise tomorrow morning") or Putnam ("Twin Earth"). We can, after all, imagine that physics is different from our current one, and, believe it or not, there have been people who did not believe in our physics, but something quite different. Perhaps there still are.Those (sc. Star Trek and Star Wars) are not simulations. Heck, the physics of those worlds are both quite different than our own — noAxioms
Yes, there may be a need to say more. But the idea that VR might be used to deceive people itself presupposes that what is presented by the VR is not real. What might be more troublesome is a VR that re-presented the actual world around the wearer. Pointless, though there might well be a use for it in some medical situations. On the other hand, it couldn't work unless it was possible for the wearer to actually (really) act.Yes, that's the idea (one of them) (sc. the idea that VR might become good enough to deceive people) under consideration here. How do you know it's false? Just asserting it false is beyond weak. — noAxioms
I have the impression that idealists do not think that human beings have any internal physics. (Do they even think there is any such thing as physics?) I was not taking that issue into account, but was assuming a shared background assumption that we could call common sense. Are you an idealist?
It simulates no mental processes at all. It answers on its own, not by simulating something that it is not. It is an imitation, not a simulation of anything.ChatGPT certainly simulates mental processes (or seems to. More about that in a second). — RogueAI
That of course depends on your definition of 'conscious'. Most of the opponents of machine consciousness simply refuse to use the word to describe a machine doing the same thing a human is doing.Do you think it might be conscious?
It probably means creating a map of brain neurons and synapses organization and running that in a dynamic simulation that not only follows neural activity (and input), but also simulates changes to the map, the creation/deletion of neural connections.Now, when you drill down on "simulate mental processes", what does that ultimately mean?
I don't think it takes very many, but to me, consciousness is a gradient, so the question is not if you're conscious, but how conscious. It is more of an on/off thing with a definition like Wayfarer uses, of having first person subjectivity or not. I don't really understand that since I don't see how an device with local sensory input doesn't have first person subjectivity.think that sounds like magic, but everyone else is taking it seriously, so you also have to take seriously the idea that it might not take a whole lot of switching operations to generate consciousness. — RogueAI
... that the thing simulated is conscious. The simulation itself is no more conscious than is real physics. As I said just above, a sufficiently good simulation of a bat would not know what it is like to be a bat, but the simulated bat would.So it seems that if we're going to take simulation theory seriously, we should be equally open to the idea that some of the simulations we're running now are conscious.
I suppose it would require one to identify a construct as a creature. One can I think implement a Turing machine in GoL, so one you have that, there's little it cannot do.Maybe some of the "creatures" in Conway's Game of Life are conscious. Why not?
The simulation hypothesis does not suggest that any physical planet (Earth) was created as an approximation of some design/model/real-planet. It is nothing but a hypothesis of something akin to software being run that computes subsequent states from prior states. A VR is a little simpler and more complicated than that because the subsequent states are computed not only from prior states, but also from external input. Sim is deterministic. VR is not.Surely the problem is the one frequently pointed out, with the word "simulate" being ambiguous between "describe or theoretically model" and "physically replicate or approximate". — bongo fury
That was very serious. Sim is simply a computation, and any computation that can be done by computer can also be done by pencil and paper, albeit a lot slower and a lot more wasteful of resources. But time is simply not an object. One might consume 50 sheets of paper and one pencil a day, and the only reason it wouldn't work is because Earth would die before you got very far in a simulation of something as complicated as a person in a room.So the question occurs, are you holding this
That means that yes, even the paper and pencil method, done to sufficient detail, would simulate a conscious human who would not obviously know he is being simulated.
— noAxioms
up for ridicule, or serious consideration?
For the last 5 centuries or so, science has operated under methodological naturalism which presumes exactly this, that everything has natural (physical) causes. Before that, it operated under rmethodological supernaturalism where supernatural (magic) was the cause of anything inexplicable, such as consciousness, the motion of the planets, etc. Presuming magic for the gaps contributed to keeping humanity in the dark ages. The other big cause was general illiteracy, but that continued until far more recently.I think [physical processes producing consciousness] sounds like magic, but everyone else is taking it seriously — RogueAI
No. If you miniturize the VR set (the device that feeds fake sensory input to you, and conveys your responses to the VR) to fit a frog, then a frog can enter the VR just like the human does.So if I miniaturized the AI hardware and grafted it into the frog, it becomes a simulation instead of a VR? — Ludwig V
From this world yes, but it isn't a simulation of this world.But it is an abstraction from the world in which Conway - and you and I - live.
I'm using 'world' in many ways. There's the world that we experience. If it's a simulation/VR, then there is another world running that simulation, upon which this world supervenes. Maybe that world also supervenes on an ever deeper world, and (as Bostrom hints), it is turtles all the way down.I thought we were using "world" in the first sense.
I would not say that. They are not 'simulations' as the word is being used in this topic. Those films (any film) are mere depictions of those fantasy worlds, not simulations of them.Well, I would say that those films are simulations of a fantasy scenario/world.
Good point, that VR need not involve deceit. One can use a VR setup to say control an avatar in some hostile environment. The military uses this quite a bit, but those are not simulations. Not all VR is a simulation, but this topic is only to discuss the ones that are. I cannot think of a VR into a simulated world that doesn't involve the deceit of making that simulated world appear real to the subject. It actually being real or not depends on your definition of 'real'.But the idea that VR might be used to deceive people itself presupposes that what is presented by the VR is not real. What might be more troublesome is a VR that re-presented the actual world around the wearer. Pointless...
No, but their reasoning made a nice counterexample to your assertion that other people are necessarily as real as yourself. In a VR, and even in a Sim, this isn't necessarily true. I enumerated three different kinds of people, each of which operates differently. I suppose I should give them names for easy reference.Are you an idealist?
Maybe not in the VR scenario. Still, maybe it's the truth of our existence.I think a simulation scenario could be otherwise. Maybe we are all AI, and the programmer of the simulation just chose this kind of physical body out of nowhere.
— Patterner
In the VR scenario, the mind would be hooked to the simulated empirical stream, but it would not be itself an AI. — noAxioms
I am not familiar with any arguments for how physical processes provide an account of the first-person nature of consciousness. It seems the answer from anyone who takes that stance boils down to: "Since we can't find anything other than physical processes using the methods of physical processes, there must not be anything other than physical processes. Therefore, the question of how physical processes provide an account of the first-person nature of consciousness is, they just do."This runs smack into the 'hard problem of consciousness', which is that no description of physical processes provides an account of the first-person nature of consciousness.
— Wayfarer
Pretty much, yea. All the same arguments (pro and con) apply. — noAxioms
Agreed. With no reason to suspect things are not as they seem, I won't seriously consider the possibility that I'm living in a simulation, or a simulation myself, or a Boltzman brain, or whatever else. But I don't see reason to consider one type of simulation scenario any more ... "realistic" than any other.In any case, I know I am not living in a simulation. — NotAristotle
.. that the thing simulated is conscious. — noAxioms
I think that sounds like magic, but everyone else is taking it seriously,
— RogueAI
I agree with you, though I would describe it as hand-waving. I agree also that sometimes it is best to roll with the punch if someone takes an idea seriously and I don't. I've done it myself. It may not result in them changing their mind, but it does allow some exploration and clarification. — Ludwig V
The simulation hypothesis does not suggest that any physical planet (Earth) was created as an approximation of some design/model/real-planet. — noAxioms
It is nothing but a hypothesis of something akin to software being run that computes subsequent states from prior states. — noAxioms
That was very serious. — noAxioms
That means that yes, even the paper and pencil method, done to sufficient detail, would simulate a conscious human who would not obviously know he is being simulated. — noAxioms
That means that yes, even the paper and pencil method, done to sufficient detail, would simulate a conscious human who would not obviously know he is being simulated. — noAxioms
That's pretty much Bostrom's argument, a sort of anthropic reasoned hypothesis that demonstrates a complete ignorance of how simulations work.I think I have heard it said that if a future people decided to make a simulation, they would make A LOT of such simulations. And these simulations would be nested -- simulations within simulations. — NotAristotle
That was one of the counterarguments that I think itself fails to hold much water. If each simulation runs several internal simulations, the leaf ones (us) would be exponentially more in number than the base levels. Of course this exponential simulations that are simulating other machines running simulations is a big part of the reason the premises fall apart.If there are a huge number of simulations within simulations, that means only a small number of these simulations will be simulations that do not have a simulation that they are themselves running. But if we are living in a simulation, we must be living in one of the simulations that is not itself running a simulation. In that case, the odds that we are living in a simulation would be astronomically small.
Why not? I mean, if you deny that consciousness emerges from physical process, then it falls right out of the gate, but presuming physicalism, the simulated person wouldn't act correct if the simulation got the physics wrong.On the other hand, I do not think we would be conscious if we were "in" what you are calling an actual simulation.
How? Incredulity? I'm trying to gather actual evidence for both sides. Lots of people 'know' things for sure, and lots of what people 'know' contradicts what other people 'know'. Humans are quite good at being certain about things for which there is no hard evidence.In any case, I know I am not living in a simulation.
This is better worded. It's an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence to be taken seriously. The various proponents seem to to use very fallacious arguments in an attempt to demonstrate that evidence.I won't seriously consider the possibility that I'm living in a simulation, or a simulation myself, or a Boltzman brain, or whatever else. — Patterner
That means that no observer can have knowledge of the workings of such a universe.A theory in which most observers are of the Boltzmann Brain type is ... unacceptable: ...
The issue is not that the existence of such observers is ruled out by data, but that the theories that predict them are cognitively unstable: they cannot simultaneously be true and justifiably believed. — SCarroll
I didn't say it did, any more than does the alternative view. The topic surely is discussed in more relevant topics on this forum or on SEP pages. It is a digression here. The Sim hypothesis presumes, as does the last 5 centuries of science, a form of physical monism. There's no hard problem to be solved. There's nothing 'experiencing' you first person.I am not familiar with any arguments for how physical processes provide an account of the first-person nature of consciousness. — Patterner
Well, if you simulating a collection of electronic switches (which a human is, in addition to a lot of other supporting hardware), and you consider that such a collection (the human) is conscious, then yes, the simulated thing will be conscious... that the thing simulated is conscious.
— noAxioms
Which is to say that a collection of electronic switches is conscious. — RogueAI
The model is perhaps a design of a simulation. The simulation itself is the execution of it, the running of code on a computer for instance being one way to implement it, but paper and pencil also suffices. A simulation is a running process, not just a map.So, a simulation as a description or theoretical model, distinct from any real or imaginary structure satisfying the description. — bongo fury
Gosh. This? — bongo fury
You both seem to balk at the paper/pencil thing, but what can a computer do that the pencil cannot? If you cannot answer that, then how is your denial of it justified?This is absurd. You're not going to be able to simulate a conscious person with paper and pencil. — RogueAI
The NPC in the computer game would need that amazing level of detail to actually believe stuff (like the fact that he's not being simulated), and not just appear (to an actual player) to believe stuff.A novel or a computer game can perfectly well describe or depict a conscious human that doesn't know he is being imagined, and it can equally well describe or depict a conscious being that does know. Detail is neither here nor there. — bongo fury
A simulation is a running process, not just a map. — noAxioms
The NPC in the computer game would need that amazing level of detail to actually believe stuff (like the fact that he's not being simulated), and not just appear (to an actual player) to believe stuff. — noAxioms
Picture 'reality' R0 as the trunk of a tree. It has 9 boughs (S1-S9) coming out of it, the simulations being run on R. Each of those has 10 branches, labeled S10-S99. Those each in turn have 10 sticks (next level simulations (S100-S999), Then the twigs (S1000-S9999) and the leaves (S10000-S99999). Every one of those simulation has say 10 billion people in it, so a given person is likely to be simulated (all except the ones in R0), and most of those (90%) find themselves in the leaves, the non-posthuman state as defined by Bostrom. So finding yourself in a state where such simulations are not possible is most likely. And this is presuming only 10 simulations per world, whereas Bostrom posits far more, so the numbers get even more silly.It is unclear to me why there would be more leaf worlds, could you spell that out for me? — NotAristotle
A description of a running process is a map. The process itself is not.A running process isn't just a succession of maps? — bongo fury
It would need to simulate the NPC down to the biochemical level. The NPC would need to be conscious to believe anything, and not just appear to believe stuff. Heck, Elon Musk 'appears' to believe he's in a VR (as a player presumably, not an NPC), but it is questionable if he actually holds this belief. Ditto for a few other notable celebrities that make heavy claims but seem to have ulterior motives.Do you mean that some part of the computer running the game would need the detail? — bongo fury
An AI is needed to make a convincing NPC that doesn't do its own thinking. It is far more efficient for the actions to come from an AI than it is to actually simulate the character's thoughts and other processes. A pure closed simulation (Sim or VR) needs no AI at all, just brute capacity. No current game has any character do its own thinking, and the NPC are really obviously an NPC since barely any processing power is budgeted to doing the AI better. It's getting better, but has a long way to go before the line between players and NPCs begins to fade.Then you're talking about an AI
Heck no. A game need only simulate my sensory stream, nothing else. There's no reason to make the characters appear to ponder about what their nature is.Or do you mean that a fictional character described and depicted in the game would need the detail?
I've seen the xkcd thing, yes. I'm not the first to see it. There's lots of references to 1D and 2D simulations in that, but how else are you going to depict it in a comic?Have you ever seen this? — RogueAI
I disagree with this. In the BIV, the brain is a given. That is, human brain. Because the point of the theory is skepticism, not that we are indeed brains in a vat. If I could experience the real world, then be hooked up to a machine that simulates the same thing I have experienced, seamlessly, that I would not be able to tell the difference, then the theory has made its point.A brain in a vat need not be a brain at all, but some sort of mind black-box. Introspection is the only evidence. A non-human mind in a vat being fed false information that it is a human living on Earth has no clue that it isn't a pink squishy thing doing the experiencing, or exerting the will. — noAxioms
You both seem to balk at the paper/pencil thing, but what can a computer do that the pencil cannot? If you cannot answer that, then how is your denial of it justified? — noAxioms
You both seem to balk at the paper/pencil thing, but what can a computer do that the pencil cannot? If you cannot answer that, then how is your denial of it justified? — noAxioms
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.