I agree with you partially. I know that my body has two legs, two hands, two eyes, one nose with two nostrils, two ears, etc. There may be a one-in-infinity chance that my body and the universe are not real but are part of a simulation or a hallucination or a dream or an illusion. However, my consciousness is real. There is no doubt in my mind that my consciousness is real. I am conscious, therefore I am. I can't prove to you or anyone else that my consciousness is real. You may call me a philosophical zombie and I won't be able to prove to you that I am not a philosophical zombie. Conversely, your consciousness is real for you but you can't prove to me or anyone else that you are not a philosophical zombie.

Science-fiction is fun. — Truth Seeker

Science-fiction must have a plot, and the characters as well as the storyline. The OP seems to lack all the essential elements of qualifying for SF.

If you read Hume, he says all human knowledge is either in the domain of "matters of facts" or "relation of ideas - geometry, arithmetic or algebra". In which category of human knowledge do simulation, illusion, hallucination, hypotheses and dreaming belong to?

Are you talking about the untestable hypothesis that our perceived world could be a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion? Then they are untestable ideas. If we could test them then the results would be in the "matter of facts" but we can't test them.

Are you talking about the untestable hypothesis that our perceived world could be a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion? Then they are untestable ideas. If we could test them then the results would be in the "matter of facts" but we can't test them. — Truth Seeker

Ok your point accepted. :cool:

Thank you.

You are welcome my friend.   Having agreed the OP is not testable or verifiable in formal logic, we still can keep discussing it under philosophy of psychology.  People dream and have illusions, and it is also part of human mental events.

Under what circumstances do humans have illusions, hallucinations, simulations and dreams?
Some mental events seem to be conscious and self-induced nature such as the simulated perceptions, simulated thinking or making up the hypotheses for the scientific experiments in order to seek pleasure or as part of religious ceremonies or to find some scientific truths via coordinated experiments.

However, some mental events are unconscious and out of one's control such as dreaming, hallucinations or illusions.  These mental events seem to occur from drug inducements, hypnosis, during sleep or simple misunderstanding and misperception of the world objects, events and structures.

How does one's idea of self relate to the mental events?  Do some mental events have any deeper significance in religious meanings or esoteric nature?  Have some world famous artists' creations based on this type of mental events? 

There is a lot of meat in the OP from the perspective of philosophy of psychology.

We create simulated worlds e.g. in weather simulations and computer games. People have dreams and hallucinations. Visual illusions are also common. Elon Musk thinks that our perceived world is a simulation created by our descendants. I wish we knew more.

I wish we knew more. — Truth Seeker

Yeah interesting stuff actually.

So you just take things as they seem to you?

Yes, indeed.

I am a pragmatist - no point wasting time on untestable ideas.

I am a pragmatist - no point wasting time on untestable ideas. — Truth Seeker

That would make you an empiricist, not a pragmatist.

I am both a pragmatist and an empiricist. They are not mutually exclusive.

Thanks for the welcome. The true nature of the self, to keep it brief, is the being that exists in the mind prior to any sense perception. In other words, there is no self without sense perception of the world.

And where'd the mind come from? What's its true nature? But ok. What if the true nature of the self is the Being in the mind? But what if the true nature of the human Organism were not the self located in mind, but the Being of that organism? I.e. the be-ing (of) the organism, mind/self immaterial. Is there two beings "making up" the human. If so, is one more "important"? If not, which one is real? Isn't the other necessarily an illusion. I know this would not have been so for Descartes, still within a locus of history whose Narrative was dominated by dualism and the Church. But for us, isn't it obvious that the organism be-ing aligns with the rest of Nature, and the self, an oddity unique to a single conceited ape, is the illusion? That organism has sensation. Is that what you mean by there is no self without sense...? But perception is constructed by Mind, displacing the organisms sensation with illusions. The self is one of them.

Elon Musk thinks that our perceived world is a simulation created by our descendants. I wish we knew more. — Truth Seeker

Under what basis and evidences, life could be a simulation? Simulation sounds like you have control in starting and ending the simulation, and also being able to rerun the simulation whenever you wanted. Recall when you are playing the Role Playing Computer games? You can control what RPG you want to play, and Exit anytime when you don't want to play any more?

But there are many things in life you have absolutely no control such as being born, ageing and death. How could life be a simulation, if you don't have any control over these things?

Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTNvcy5LZPo where Elon Musk explains why he thinks we are living in a simulation. I don't agree with him.

Thanks for the welcome. The true nature of the self, to keep it brief, is the being that exists in the mind prior to any sense perception. In other words, there is no self without sense perception of the world.

You are most welcome. Why would there be no self without sensory perception of the world? If I am unable to touch, smell, hear, taste and see would my sense of self disappear? I doubt it. I would still be able to think and have emotions and have a personality and have values.

Why would there be no self without sensory perception of the world? If I am unable to touch, smell, hear, taste and see would my sense of self disappear? I doubt it. I would still be able to think and have emotions and have a personality and have values. — Truth Seeker

Ues, if you lost your senses after your self developed. But your self wouldn't develop if you didn't have the senses from the beginning.

How do you know this? Do you have any research that you can cite as evidence?

Being unable to perceive anything, so not being able to tell what is beneficial or harmful. Not being able to interact with anyone or anything. How do you suspect someone born into that situation would develop? Can you give any hypothetical idea of progression? Can you tell me what thoughts and/or emotions you would have? What values? What you will learn over time?

I don't know. I have never met a human without the capacity to touch, smell, hear, taste and see. If a zygote was so defective that the foetus did not have any capacity to touch, smell, hear, taste and see and after birth, the baby continued to be like this we could study how such a baby grows and develops. As far as I know, such a baby has never been born. I could speculate what it may be like for such a baby to grow into an adult but that would be pure speculation - not facts.

I could speculate what it may be like for such a baby to grow into an adult but that would be pure speculation - not facts. — Truth Seeker

I don't understand. You just told Nemo that you "would still be able to think and have emotions and have a personality and have values."

Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTNvcy5LZPo where Elon Musk explains why he thinks we are living in a simulation. I don't agree with him. — Truth Seeker

He is not saying life is simulation. He is saying that civilisation is simulation, because it is such a short time of history compared to the whole universe.

All civilisation will end, and they could end anytime. We could be living in a simulation, and this is his point. It sounds like a metaphor.

I was speaking about myself - not about a foetus. If I suddenly became unable to touch, smell, hear, taste and see I would still be able to think and have emotions and have a personality and have values. I don't know if the same is true for a foetus and a newborn baby that is unable to touch, smell, hear, taste and see.

Looks like I didn't understand him.

Looks like I didn't understand him. — Truth Seeker

Thank you for your confirmation. It's good that we can eliminate simulation from the idea of self and life. We can move on to the other mental states or events such as illusion, dreams, hallucinations and hypotheses for the investigations.

I understand. But that's not the scenario Nemo suggested. Nemo did not say "without sense perception." Nemo said "prior to sense perception."

But you don't want to even consider what might happen if someone was born with no sense perception? I don't think speculation is unheard of in philosophical settings. Lacking the ability to learn anything about anything outside of it's own physical being, and lacking even the ability to sense its own physical being, what mental state would it have when born? And what might it come to know, or emotionally feel?

The true nature of the self, to keep it brief, is the being that exists in the mind prior to any sense perception. In other words, there is no self without sense perception of the world. — Nemo2124

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I'm thinking "self" and "mind" are the same. And I do not think either exists prior to any sense perception.

I didn't say we can eliminate the idea of simulation. We could be aliens experiencing a simulation of what it is like to be a human on Earth. Death could be the exit from this simulation.

We can imagine what it may be like for a newborn baby without any sensory perceptions. Even if he or she does not have any capacity to see, hear, smell, touch and taste he or she could still have proprioception. It's possible that his or her brain would hallucinate to fill the sensory gap.