I meant to say that 'we are 'simulated (biological beings)'. Your interpretation of those words was 'we are (simulated biological) beings', which is perhaps what Data is. Data is an imitation human in the same world as its creator. The sim hypothesis is that we're biological beings in a different (simulated) world. I've said this over and over, included in the very statement you quoted above your response there.
We're simulated biological beings
Do you mean to say that? It's revelatory. If your position is that the simulators are creating androids or robots, as in Data from Star Trek but perfectly biological. — fishfry
This works.I say your mind is just your own subjective experiences and thoughts.
In my world, I do both. I am not in the GS world, so I don't do either there.I mean, you do have subjective experiences, right? You don't just eat breakfast.
I find 'process' not to fall under the term 'object'. It's not an assertion of ontology, just how I use the language.No mind object. Disagree. There IS a mind object.
Apologies for slow reply fishfry, but another topic has consumed much of my attention and I didn't even see your notify in my mention list. — noAxioms
I meant to say that 'we are 'simulated (biological beings)'. — noAxioms
Your interpretation of those words was 'we are (simulated biological) beings', which is perhaps what Data is. Data is an imitation human in the same world as its creator. — noAxioms
The sim hypothesis is that we're biological beings in a different (simulated) world. — noAxioms
I've said this over and over, included in the very statement you quoted above your response there. — noAxioms
No, it's not Blade runner. No robots/replicants. — noAxioms
You seem quite determined to paint a very different picture from the one Bostrom posits. — noAxioms
Your running with this idea for most of the post seems more designed to disengage than to communicate. — noAxioms
(me) I say your mind is just your own subjective experiences and thoughts.
This works. — noAxioms
In my world, I do both. I am not in the GS world, so I don't do either there. — noAxioms
I find 'process' not to fall under the term 'object'. It's not an assertion of ontology, just how I use the language. — noAxioms
I'll sign off if I feel I'm done. Don't like to ghost a conversation. Your post was way off the mark, which made it very easy to keep the reply short.Ok thanks. I was wondering if perhaps my last post was so far off the mark that you gave up on me (possible); or so brilliant that I thoroughly refuted your argument (unlikely); or you just got bored (also possible. I'm simulated out myself). — fishfry
No factory anywhere. No bodies in the GS world. The bodies are in this world. I, like most people, Bostrom included, presume I have a body.The last thing I remember is that you said the sims have actual bodies, made in the sim factory operated by the simulators. If I understood you correctly, that has massive implications and I find it hard to believe this is what Bostrom had in mind.
You're thinking of an android. A simulated anything is the product of a computer simulation. A storm simulator has one simulated storm. The storm is probably not created, but is rather already there, part of the initial state. The purpose of simulating it is to see where it goes, and how strong it gets, and which areas need to evacuate.By simulated to you mean manufactured?
Then we're pretty stuck. Most people can at least get that much out of Bostrom's abstract. If you can't, but rather insist on this weird replicant track, I don't know how to unmire you.I do not know what that means.
You don't think you have a body then? You think perhaps you were created in a factory instead of being born of your mother? I said that nobody (but you) suggests this, but you persist.You said the sims have bodies.
At my keyboard. Both it and I are in this world, the world that I experience. You seem to find that to be an odd answer.Where are you?
I'll sign off if I feel I'm done. Don't like to ghost a conversation. Your post was way off the mark, which made it very easy to keep the reply short. — noAxioms
No factory anywhere. No bodies in the GS world. The bodies are in this world. I, like most people, Bostrom included, presume I have a body. — noAxioms
You're thinking of an android. — noAxioms
A simulated anything is the product of a computer simulation. — noAxioms
A storm simulator has one simulated storm. The storm is probably not created, but is rather already there, part of the initial state. The purpose of simulating it is to see where it goes, and how strong it gets, and which areas need to evacuate. — noAxioms
Then we're pretty stuck. Most people can at least get that much out of Bostrom's abstract. If you can't, but rather insist on this weird replicant track, I don't know how to unmire you. — noAxioms
You don't think you have a body then? — noAxioms
You think perhaps you were created in a factory instead of being born of your mother? I said that nobody (but you) suggests this, but you persist. — noAxioms
Third: what type of computing power would be required to 'house' this virtual universe? Are we talking about computers that are bigger than the universe itself? Is this possible even in principle? — jasonm
Here's the simple reason why you're not understanding all of this. — night912
You are refusing to acknowledge what the hypothesis is proposing. — night912
Take note of what's being emphasized there because it's important. It doesn't mean, "to accept the hypothesis as being true." So, instead of looking at our reality as a simulation, as the hypothesis proposed, you're looking at a simulation within our reality. — night912
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.