Now, which part of the wheel is moving twice the speed? I guess that would be the top of wheel. — Lionino
Here is the solution that occured to me, and it might not be very good. But let's say that all sorts of things do start to exist, at random. Why should we expect that different sorts of things that start existing would be able to interact with one another? Maybe stuff is popping into being all the time and it just makes no difference to us. A premise in the framing of the problem seems to suggest that if anything starts to exist, we will be able to observe it. But is this premise warranted? After all, nothing can determine what is uncaused. — Count Timothy von Icarus
What? A cohost? So is the OP question yours or not? Are you are real person? :wink: Something seems off to me. — Tom Storm
The meaning we create in reality is closely linked to making a mark on history. It does not need to be noticeable or make you famous, rather it is about being part of this entropic universe. As I live in this reality I am in sync with the entropic forces of this universe, I am part of something and that has meaning, however minute that meaning is to us and how essentially meaningless that is within the context of what we consider having purpose. — Christoffer
Taking that the machine operates based on its programming, and not on the laws of nature, you would not really be uncovering true reality, but a subset of it. — Lionino
Ok, in that case, I'll enter the simulation when I'm declining in my terminal illness — Vera Mont
Of course. My main concern is to uncover the true nature of reality — Count Timothy von Icarus
Because the alternative is death. If I could opt for virtual experience of my own choosing, why would I prefer no experience of any kind at all? — Vera Mont
Yet the distinctions we make between hallucinations and veridical experiences are not so dependent on whether one can spot experiential differences between two supposedly identical experiences. What distinguishes hallucinations is that nothing is experienced, hence the word 'hallucination'. To call it 'experience' is a fallacy of ambiguity. — jkop
You fixed the only thing anyone can object to. But I was fine was fine with the original. — Vera Mont
:lol: True.As one has had parents, a sibling, a spouse and children, I can tell you that's one of the worst ideas, ever. Think of what you have had to hold back. — Vera Mont
It is also very disrespectful to the people you love and people who love you. I can't think of anything more selfish. — JuanZu
It all reads like an exercise in destroying oneself and leaving an abomination in its place. — NOS4A2
Maybe. Of course, nobody changes or achieves anything, so the relations, tearful reunion once over, are static and the whole exercise is pointless. — Vera Mont
Plus, they risk discovering which loved ones are missing — Vera Mont
Yeah, in my stupidity I didn't think it through. I don't actually want that tension mucking with what is to me the central question. I edited in a third option, what do you think?That's why I think losing oneself in forgetfulness is a deal-breaker for many.
Just think how terrified we all are at the prospect of senility. — Vera Mont
But Heaven is presumably a real place, importantly populated by other real entities, such as dead loved ones. You get to resume your real relationships with these people. Whereas with the simulation, you would be condemned to spend the rest of your life with very advanced, animated chatGPTs.The idea of Heaven doesn't seem to bother Christians or Muslims, so why should a disembodied dream trouble an atheist? — Vera Mont
The conditions under which the two experiences arise are radically different, and beer drinking is certainly more than the experience. — jkop
On the other hand, what guarantee do we have that we are not plugged in in a machine right now? — Lionino
The vote distribution makes me suspect people did not understand the question. They would be more willing to go into the machine IF they kept their past memories and knew they were living a lie? Odd. — Lionino
Yes, I thought that too. But maybe the point is that people much prefer to keep their memories than to abandon them? — Pantagruel
At the first place: why is ordinary life so bad?
Aren't we here for others too? — ssu
That third challenge is hilarious. — Michael
probably the point — petrichor
If, instead, every single human or animal entity would be "inhabited" like my own avatar, that might be a different story. — petrichor
I wouldn't enter for this reason alone. — petrichor
A "fully-immersive simulation" prosthesis (with no off-switch / exit) = a lobotomy plus continuous 24/7 morphine drip. — 180 Proof
Offered an alternative of my choice, I'd certainly opt for my version of Utopia. But I would still like to remember everyone and everything I liked about this life. — Vera Mont
No, I would not agree because I would not trust the technology to not have a bug which might lead to a nightmarish experience. — Art48
None at all, save that the world as you know it now is probably not arranged in a way that you would have likely chosen in the simulation.In this case, I have a question: if I picked “could forget,” would there be any discernible difference between my experience of the world now, and my experience after the procedure? — Art48
f I could not distinguish the two types of experience, then maybe I’d accept the procedure because, for all I know, I might currently be in a simulation, and so I would merely be trading one simulation for another, more enjoyable simulation. — Art48
Why do brains create consciousness? Its the same as asking why do two gases at room temperature combine together to form a liquid that we need to drink to live. — Philosophim
This has nothing to do with moral facts and everything to do with moral beliefs. — Michael
To make it simple. Explain to me the difference between these possible worlds:
1. No morality.
2. It is immoral to kill babies.
3. It is moral to kill babies.
It seems to me that the only difference is that in the second one we would be correct in believing that it is immoral to kill babies. But what difference would being correct make to being incorrect? Presumably, regardless of what is or isn't the case, you wouldn't kill babies. Or would you convert to baby killing if you'd found it to be moral? In the unlikely case you'd say yes: then it's your belief that matters, not the fact-of-the-matter -- what difference does the fact-of-the-matter make? — Michael
Take care with "that's it" A contract to build a house usually leads to there being a house, which does not exist only in someone's mind. — Banno
In loose terms it brings a previously non-existent obligation into existence. There is now something in the world that was not there previously: the obligation — Banno
Do you think moral judgment in situ more a matter of habit or "choice"? — 180 Proof
So, in order for society to function, what is sacrificed is the sense of wonder and imagination of the child substituted over time by a conceptual scheme of relationships that impose a set of more or less instrumental values that define what it is to be happy and successful and direct behaviour along clearly delineated paths which aim to make individuals in some sense superfluous. The “inner child” must be continuously tortured for people to be “happy” in so far as those people are integrated properly into an efficiently functioning whole and the more properly integrated they are, the more ideal and well-oiled the society is, the more the child must be continuously neglected, tortured and beaten, up, i.e. the more the imaginative faculties and the freedom they threaten any established order with are repressed and degraded. — Baden
:up:To me, I am starting to think there is no equation possible that accurately calculates right and wrong for every possible situation — Bob Ross
that's why I am trying to work on a virtue ethical theory instead. Maybe if we have the proper virtues instilled in our characters, then we would intuit that slapping him for 10 minutes is the right thing to do, but punching him for 10 minutes is taking it too far. — Bob Ross
It doesn't seem at all appropriate to say that it believes or accepts or considers anything. That would be a very obvious misuse of language. — Michael
ChatGPT and p-zombies are just very complicated versions of the above, with p-zombies having a meat suit. — Michael
I am saying that if I had to throw you over board (knowing you will drown) to free up a life vest that would save them for this other person, then I cannot violate you to save them. — Bob Ross
Sure, cavemen grunts were simpler ...complex language like we have today is "better". — Outlander
What is the computer doing then when it processes data from a camera pointed at a table. The computer 'concludes' (probably a forbidden word) that there is a table in front of the camera in question, and outputs a statement "there seems to be a table in front of the camera". You say it's not a mental activity. I agree with that. That usage of "mental activity" only applies to an immaterial mind such as Chalmers envisions. So OK, you can't express that the computer believes there's a table there, or that it concludes that. How do you phrase what the computer does when it does the exact same thing as the human, which is deduce (presumably another forbidden word) the nature of the object in the field of view.
If you can't provide acceptable alternative terms, then I'm sorry, the computer believes there's a table there. Deal with it. — noAxioms
What does it mean to "accept", "consider", or "hold as an opinion"? Again, these aren't terms that it makes sense to attribute to a p-zombie. A p-zombie is just a machine that responds to stimulation. It's a complicated clockwork body. They're just objects that move and make sound. That's it. — Michael
Why ironic? They are already maximally anthropomorphized.It's quite ironic that you're anthropomorphising p-zombies. — Michael
Would it believe it's in pain? In other words, would it believe something it knows to be false? — RogueAI
Words popping up in my mind do not help me connect the dots of different ideas, the glyph and its content are different things. For me, it is only when I summon the content (image) in my mind that I can finally think. — Lionino
Belief" is a word in the English language that has a well-established meaning. If p-zombies are speaking English then the word "belief" means what it means in English. — Michael
There is someone who made a thread yesterday or the day before explaining how he has no inner monologue and also cannot form images mentally. — Lionino
Whatever "belief-analog" they have isn't belief. — Michael
The words they use mean what they mean in ordinary English. — Michael
The statement “I consider myself to be a p-zombie” is only true if you are not a p-zombie and so no rational person can believe themselves to be a p-zombie. — Michael