would thoroughly enjoy abusing them, although I'm not sure I would enjoy it actually, knowing that they aren't actually suffering. — bert1

Are you a sociopath then?

People tend to treat others as if those others don't really exist, as if they are merely shells with no inner life, other than the one stipulated by other people. — baker

I do not. Is this projection?

That basic awareness should be absent while memory and identification is fully functional simply makes no sense to me. — unenlightened

Computers have memory, and they identify themselves, but they have no awareness. Think of a p zombie as a perfect computer simulation of how a human behaves, without any of the internal stuff.

I neither claimed nor implied that color-signedness "serves no function". — 180 Proof

How else can I interpret

Sentience" may be epiphenomenal and serve no more of a function than color-sightedness. — 180 Proof

Also, what you say about "love" is a non sequitur with respect to the question posed in the OP. — 180 Proof

My OP was about "Loved Ones", so really it was your talk of loving teddy bears and sports teams that was a non sequitor.

You did stipulate what you wished, and it ended up implying dissent is lies and consensus is truth. I would wear a tinfoil hat and cardboard sign if it meant I didn’t have to agree with such absurdities. — NOS4A2

Not necessarily lies, I apologize. I left out other possibilities.
"Dissent" from universal expert consensus, i.e. climate deniers (are you one?), is either lies, or Dunning-Kreuger idiocy. Of course there is always the theoretical possibility of "Maverick Genius", but for our purposes we can ignore that one.

However, you have taken it one step further. I say, "Let X be true...", and you immediately raise your finger and say "I dissent! This contradicts my experiences and intuitions!". I don't know what to say, other than you must have been a joy to teach.

What is the size of the set of possible states of the universe? I suspect this is the true nmax. Would this be a number best expressed as x^y^z?

From special relativity, the Lorentz factor is unbounded as v approaches c. — jgill

If all the energy of the universe were somehow marshalled to accelerate a single particle, what would its Lorentz factor be? I have no clue, but I suspect it wouldn't come near 23^2017^3138934, let alone a real monster like 10^10^10^10

That doesn’t make it true, either. Your stipulation is just that, a stipulation, like they stipulated phlogiston or a pantheon of gods. — NOS4A2

In my imaginary scenario I have the power to stipulate whatever I wish. But please, "dissent" away. Is that you I see with the tin foil hat and cardboard sign?

betrays my intuition and experience — NOS4A2

That does not make it false.

I am stipulating that p zombies are real in this scenario, and you still won't accept it. This is lying to yourself, just as "dissenting" from overwhelming scientific consensus, unless you truly have the expertise to do so. You should have chosen 'a'.

We love people we do not have a "connection" with e.g. celebrities, authors, leaders, the dead, etc. We also love inanimate or abstract objects e.g. stuffed animals, our country / city, our sports team, vehicles, cultural objects, power, wealth, etc — 180 Proof

Try telling your partner you love them like you love your teddy bear or your sports team. These are not the same relationships, even if the word "love" can be used for all of them.

"Sentience" may be epiphenomenal and serve no more of a function than color-sightedness. — 180 Proof

This possibility is what the p zombie thought experiment suggests. I've never heard the suggestion that color sightedness serves no function.

Not care. It's about my "sentience", not theirs. — 180 Proof

Doesn't love require connection? How can you connect with someone you know isn't there?
Why the scare quotes?

An innocent person also deserves happiness and fulfillment, which the world offers, would you deny them this?

Sophmoric argument.

Worries about zombies is a vestige of the Christian idea of a soul. — Jackson

No, p-zombies are a thought experiment, not the kind of thing that keeps most people up at night.

If I had to put my "philosophy question" baldly, it would be: "are relationships, especially loving ones, contingent on the sentience of the other party?"

That makes no sense. P zombies resemble us in every outward way — Bartricks

Yet, p zombies are thoughtless, as are you.

An asinine reply worthy of a p zombie.

One difference between philosophy and science is that philosophy insists on logical certainty, which is a category error when applied to the empirical world. This is why progress is so scant.

It just has to do that thing about another 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (hundred quadrillion) times, and by that time it can expect one to have appeared! — hypericin

Oh dear, I misread. Boltzmann brains are not expected to appear every 10^500 years. Nope, that's not even scratching the surface of scratching the surface. They are expected to appear every 10^10^50 years, which is quite another matter.

Our poor god hasn't even begun, after all. I don't even know how to do this one. It is a quantity of time that is not just beyond conception, it is beyond description at all.

We can't be, that's the problem. — Michael

And yet, if for every passing year a god were to count one atom in the (observable) universe (there are between 10^78 and 10^82 of them), by the time it had counted all of them it wouldn't have made the slightest perceptible dent in its waiting time for a single Boltzmann brain to appear. If for every atom, it begins anew the entire yearly enumeration of every atom, still, not the slightest sliver of progress, it's waiting would have not even begun.

If,
for every atom, it starts the process of,
for every atom, it starts the process of,
for every atom, it starts the process of,
for every atom, it starts the process of,
for every atom, it starts the process of,
for every atom, it starts the process of,
counting one atom every year,

Then, great! That's progress!
It just has to do that thing about another 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (hundred quadrillion) times, and by that time it can expect one to have appeared!

Infinity is a hell of a thing.

So both M (Boltzmann brains) and S(M) (common sense life) are extraordinarily unlikely, but given that S(M) is less likely than M, what greater explanatory power does it have? — Michael

I looked through it again, this is the argument I was looking for: "In a single de Sitter Universe with a cosmological constant, and starting from any finite spatial slice, the number of "normal" observers is finite and bounded by the heat death of the Universe. If the Universe lasts forever, the number of nucleated Boltzmann brains is, in most models, infinite; "

This is not a problem specific to my post, it is a problem for everything! It sounds silly, but I don't know how to counterargue without insisting on specific physics that rule it out. Assuming the above conditions, how can we be confident we are not Boltzmann brains?

Replace S(M) with common sense life and M with Boltzmann brain. — Michael

But here S(M) does possess explanatory power above M. With M we wonder how this extraordinarily unlikely event happened.

That is what I was asking you earlier, I don't fully understand the thrust of the theory. Boltzmann brians are phenomenally unlikely, so why is that a viable theory?

That is far more complex than just a brain forming in a void. — Michael

But I never proposed that complexity be the sole criterion for choosing a theory. That leads to absurdities like this.

Interestingly, the article cited a calculation that a Boltzmann Brain should be expected to appear once every 10^500 years. Truly an unfathomable duration, if any stock is to be placed in calculations like this. And still hard for me to believe this should happen with even that frequency. I wonder how often say a molecule of water is expected to appear.

Is math something we discovered, or something we invented? — Count Timothy von Icarus

But this is a different question than whether the math is instantiated in the world. For instance, I believe the Mandelbrot set was discovered: after all, it has an endless capacity to surprise. But it is not instantiated in the world. At best, tiny fragments are echoed in computer programs. Similarly, numbers like 10^100000000000000000000 are numbers, but we needn't believe that magnitudes of this scale exist in reality.

How does our limited cognitive power offer up a finer grained (indeed, infinitely finer grained) reality than that which seems apparent? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It seems straightforward to me. From our perspective, reality is so fine grained it appears to be continuous. Real numbers are a mathematical abstraction of the seemingly continuous quantities that present themselves to us. Whether or not reality itself is continuous at its fundamental level is an entirely different question.

In this related argument, 3D space and time are illusory, a sort of hologram created by 2D information theoretic structures. — Count Timothy von Icarus

3D space and time are the built in models our brains build from the 2D perceptions it receives. Does it follow that the model is wrong? It is hard to see it's survival value if so.

3D space-time might actually be an error compressing code that evolution hit upon, an effective means of encoding fitness information, rather than the structure of reality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This seems tangential to the original argument. This is not S(M), rather it is suggesting suggesting an alternate, unspecified M to 3D space and time.

Reason being that a simulator would only need to simulate the areas you're currently looking at, not the entire universe. It could be analogous to video games, which render the world around them based on the players' line of sight. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Even here it is not obvious to me. Simulations of the caliber of our actual waking lives are so far beyond us, we might never achieve them, even if technological progression continues uninterrupted for a million years. It may be beyond our universe's capacity to compute that much. Or beyond our intellect to create them. So already, this presupposes beings of godlike technological prowess, and a whole other unrelated real universe to house them, on top of all the apparent laws and objects in the simulated world. This is my basic intuition, that S(M) is never a good theory, in the absence of extraordinary evidence.

Help me understand, why should a brain spontaneously materializing be more likely than one evolving naturally?

Thier case might be the more parsimonious actually, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not at all. It is only a superficial parsimony, as you subtracting some constants, while adding a whole additional universe. It is like theism, "because god wills it" is only superficially parsimonious, when in reality it adds a whole new class of entity to the universe that makes laws, rather than follows them. How does that work? Is there a whole new set of laws that govern god's behavior?

We have an issue because mathematics tells us we should be able to have continuous things, but instead we only have discrete things — Count Timothy von Icarus

Mathematics doesn't "tell us" this. Just because reality sometimes follows structures predicted in math doesn't mean that the existence of a mathematical construct is any kind of argument for it's instantiation in reality.

I don't know if there is a drug that can sustainably alter brain homeostasis for the better.

Trite — Banno

Yours, not mine

I am the only moral agent. — Banno

Disagreements in ethics are either disagreements over the terms... — hypericin

How do these four words deal with abortion or capital punishment? — Tom Storm

They correctly frame the debate:

Is aborting a fetus treating a moral agent injustly? Is the proscription of abortion treating the mom unjustly?

To answer, you must answer:
Are fetuses moral agents? To the same degree as the mom? If so, their interests are in conflict. How do we justly resolve this conflict?

Is killing a felon treating a moral agent unjustly?

To answer, you must answer:
Does commiting terrible crimes reduce or eliminate moral agency? Is it ever just to take the life of a moral agent? How can capitol punishment ever be worth the injustice of killing the innocent?

To the degree ordinary experiencing is called-into-question by (memories of) nonordinary experiences, this is what I understand by "insight" — 180 Proof

Interesting take. Though this doesn't sound like insight in general, but rather the genesis of insights derived from drug experiences.

In my experience insight occurs while high due to the increased mental flexibility/fungability and due to the very high stimulation and inspiration caused by totally novel experience.

You can't get any better model of something than an artificial copy of it. — T Clark

The quote referring to abstract simulations. They abstract relevant features into a model, and simulate the model. I'm referring to complete simulation, also called emulation. If you have two identical things, one is not emulating the other. Simulation/emulation refer to something else: one system arranged to duplicate the behavior of another.

While it does take more power to emulate a system, you can fully emulate an older system on a more powerful system. Just look at MAME the Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator — Harry Hindu

I'm quite familiar. Exactly how does this contradict what I said?

Very good post :up:

What do you mean by "insight"? "enlightenment"? — 180 Proof

My take, FWIW: insight is the delta between understanding an idea in the abstract, and fully, viscerally getting it. I understand what you wrote about conceiving your past/present/future selves conceptually, but I don't really get it, as I lack that insight. Recently I imagined a band of hunter-gatherers foraging in the wilderness, and realized that they really were just one group of animals among all the others, and I grasped the unity of human and animal in a way I hadn't before, even though conceptually the idea is simple and commonplace. That, to me is insight, and at least in that sense, drugs may definitely facilitate them. Such things are also quite hard to articulate without them being reduced to bloodless concepts.

Enlightenment is harder, since I have not experienced it, at least durably, though possibly I have caught glimpses. I imagine it to be a revolutionary reframing of one's relations to oneself, to others, to the world, in a way that is more profound or at least less delusory. I imagine there are levels and many species of enlightenment.

But anyway, I see no reason people shouldn't answer in terms of their own concepts.

that would be no more a simulation of the universe than an iPhone is a simulation of an iPhone

It doesn't require an inordinate amount of resources. — noAxioms

It's an interesting thought experiment to consider the complexity required to simulate one person's experience with perfect fidelity and consistency, vs the complexity of the whole planet. In a traditional computer simulation, computational power increases exponentially with increasing fidelity, a perfect holodeck style simulation will never be achieved (famous last words, but...)

I mean, our physics can be simulated at best down to the classical level, not the quantum level. To do that, you need something with more capability, with completely different rules. — noAxioms

But still the simulation theory presumes all the complexity of the actual would, the simulation of it, and the universe with different rules hosting that simulation. Whatever that universe's laws, the simulation theory presumes far more complexity than the non-simulation theory.

How would a physics simulation know when a particular state of simulated material qualifies as a sentient being requiring being fooled? — noAxioms

I was assuming that the "subjects" are the only sentient ones, and that simulated entities are all p-zombies. It gets quite a bit trickier if these agents develop sentience on their own!

Yup! I didn't say anything, but I think this is the fatal flaw in my argument. You only have to simulate enough to fool the sentient beings, and our brains really aren't that powerful, so you might wind up with large savings in complexity.

True, you have to account for whatever universe the simulator lives in. But this might be much smaller, and less complex, than the universe the simulator portrays.

So then, by the logic of the op, how do we avoid the absurd conclusion of always preferring the simulation theory?

As for solipsism, it is simpler — Agent Smith

Solipsism implies a vastly more powerful brain than what you believe you have, as 99.9999999999.... % of it is unconscious: the part that remembers everything, so that everything is consistent, every time you check it, the part that simulates every physical phenomenon to perfect exactitude, the part that knows the entirety of every science and art, etc. etc. etc.

Where does this brain live? In this universe, or are we supposing a new one? How does it operate? Are you a dreaming god? Then what is the physics of the waking universe?

I think this is true if one assumes that the simulation is of the exact quality and complexity of the universe the computer making the simulation belongs to. — punos

You seem to be answering the argument, "How can a computer be so powerful as to simulate the whole universe, when the computer is a part of the universe?" I am not making that argument.

In this context, we can realize that plain translations, although they give an impression of being easy and clear, exactly for this reason they are very dangerous: they can give you the illusion, they can make you persuaded that you understood and that the topic and the discussion is simple and clear. — Angelo Cannata

The thing is though, we are discussing a translation. That Rubicon has already been crossed.

If I were a Sartre scholar, this may present itself as a "great danger". But as a layman, if I misunderstand, its ok. Life goes on. I would misunderstand even if I read the French.

I think your comments actually make the point that a translation is not for an audience as serious as you describe: a Sartre expert undoubtedly would be reading the original.

This opens another dramatic problem: are non-professional people condemned to be excluded from understanding anything? I would answer dramatically: “Unfortunately, yes”. — Angelo Cannata

Strong disagree. Even if it were true that I will never understand at the level of a professional (and the barrier here is far less than say, quantum physics), there are levels and degrees of understanding, each with their benefits. I understand the text more than an average person, less than an expert, and that is not worthless.

The beauty of philosophy is that its subject matter is not rarefied: it is the human condition. So in principle it is open to understanding by anyone. It is only not when artificial barriers are put in place (as here, or worse, intentional obscurantism or jargonization).

not "I" — Banno

The insensate world, including all the zombies.

Your very act of posting here demonstrates your conviction of the existence of others — Banno

I just find interaction with this group of zombies amusing.

Seriously, I never claimed to be a solipsist. Merely that solipsism is always a possibility, however unlikely.