(December 5, 2014 at 11:58 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Not trying to prove a point; just throwing it out there.

Latest greatest, they are unbeatable. White will always win.

There's no inside perspective for a program because there's no "inside". Could just as easily be true for human "minds" (perspective is much easier to accomplish mechanically than "inside" is, or, if you prefer - it's easier to create a frame of reference or rule than it is to create space...perspective is an elusive word, but whatever idea we come up with for perspective it's likely to have an analog in a variety of systems) - but this says much more about us and little about whatever world is external to us, simulation or not. Perspective may -be- the simulation, rather than the world being a simulation. Then those observations you might make about our universe and it's similarities to a simulation (if you aren't satisfied with having designed simulations specifically to mimic our universe as an explanation for those observations) start to come into focus as a "biological simulation", and we see the next hurdle we have to jump before we can propose the -universe itself- as simulation with any profundity.

That's why the whole thing flirts with a comp. We're starting at the bottom, the effects, and trying to draw the line up. The effect managed by a part could cease to be present at any point along the way to the whole. I shout at inanimate objects - does that mean that the universe shouts at inanimate objects? My perceptions are similar to a simulation - does that mean that the universe is similar to a simulation?

(December 6, 2014 at 6:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: There's no inside perspective for a program because there's no "inside". Could just as easily be true for human "minds" (perspective is much easier to accomplish mechanically than "inside" is, or, if you prefer - it's easier to create a frame of reference or rule than it is to create space...perspective is an elusive word, but whatever idea we come up with for perspective it's likely to have an analog in a variety of systems) - but this says much more about us and little about whatever world is external to us, simulation or not. Perspective may -be- the simulation, rather than the world being a simulation. Then those observations you might make about our universe and it's similarities to a simulation (if you aren't satisfied with having designed simulations specifically to mimic our universe as an explanation for those observations) start to come into focus as a "biological simulation", and we see the next hurdle we have to jump before we can propose the -universe itself- as simulation with any profundity.

That's why the whole thing flirts with a comp. We're starting at the bottom, the effects, and trying to draw the line up. The effect managed by a part could cease to be present at any point along the way to the whole. I shout at inanimate objects - does that mean that the universe shouts at inanimate objects? My perceptions are similar to a simulation - does that mean that the universe is similar to a simulation?

You claim there is no inside perspective. But I recall you also admitted that it was at least a possibility that you are a simulant existing in a computer. I see this as being a contradictory position. If you are simulant, you and your reality exist only in a computer somewhere. You obviously have perspective so if you are a simulant, your perspective must also exist inside a computer. If your perspective exists inside a computer then it must be that there can be inside perspectives.

We are aware, conscious, sentient and intelligent. We have descriptions for these words, but none of which actually due the processes justice.

If we are no more than a "brain-in-a-vat", there is no way that we can know. Would then our existence be any more or less real than a highly sophisticated computer simulated neural network? Could this computer have as much awareness as an insect or some lower form of mammalian life?

Do not try this at home! I know you hate your younger sibling, but do not try this! It is strictly a hypothetical thought experiment!

If we take a brain and throw it in a vat. Theoretically, we could feed this brain chemicals and electrical impulses to simulate a reality. This brain would have no way to know it was only a simulation. It would have awareness, consciousness, sentience and intelligence.

Now the experiment. If we remove one cell at a time, when would these processes stop? If we establish a baseline and stop before a cessation of these functions and reassemble these cells in a second vat, do we have a second conscious aware being?

-Inside- perspective. Keep up. If I am a simulant I may very well exist in a "real" world (just like the simulants we actually observe do). My being a simulant does not imply or lead to any exterior world being simulation (nor does it put any of the limitations we see in our sims on the one I may be a fixture of). See how difficult it is to avoid the comp on this? You think my position is contradictory because you do not understand your own, what it's implications are...and what they -aren't-.

The pope denies solipsism. He says he cannot just be a brain in a Vatican.

(December 6, 2014 at 1:43 pm)robvalue Wrote: The pope denies solipsism. He says he cannot just be a brain in a Vatican.

So does George Lucas, he refuses to believe he's just a brain in a Jar Jar.

Nice, nice

My door denies it too. It refuses to accept that it's status is ajar.

(December 6, 2014 at 1:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -Inside- perspective. Keep up. If I am a simulant I may very well exist in a "real" world ...

the problem, of course, comes with the definition of 'real'.

"Inception" and "The Thirteenth Floor" come to mind.

What is real, now that is possibly the hardest question of all.

I wrestle with this almost every day, and I feel no nearer to any understanding. I mean, we know that we never experience reality directly, ever. We experience through filters. And that's if what we are filtering is real.

It messes with my head. I can only for now say that things are as real as they seem. There's also the dream problem, you can never truly know you aren't dreaming. It's an unavoidable problem, on top of solipsism. I've had dreams where I know absolutely that I am not dreaming. Then I wake up. It's an odd feeling to say the least.

The there's nested awakenings...

The worst dream I ever had was that I was in some kind of hell. Not in the traditional sense, but a kind of mental torment. I was in a room with a few exits, and wherever I went, I always was put back in this room. It would let me escape a bit, I'd think I'm finally free, then wham, I'm back again. It felt like an eternity, and I thought this is it, I'm in hell forever. I've never been so happy to wake up.