simulation theory

[oniman7]

Originally Posted by skychief

I can disprove this wonky theory in five words:


I THINK, THEREFORE I AM. - R. Descartes

I believe Descartes actually said "I think I think therefore I think I am."

EDIT: nope, I'm dumb and someone else did, but it is a perspective to consider

[skychief]

Originally Posted by oniman7

I believe Descartes actually said "I think I think therefore I think I am."

EDIT: nope, I'm dumb and someone else did, but it is a perspective to consider

Okay, fair enough.

So Ive come up with a better argument to disprove the simulation theory;

I PLAY BASS, THEREFORE I AM - skychief

[MatticusMania]

The bass is a lie.

[Simo98]

Originally Posted by skychief

I can disprove this wonky theory in five words:


I THINK, THEREFORE I AM. - R. Descartes

Yes, because you think you exist (presumably), but in what manner and capacity? Take conscious artificial intelligence for example, this would be relatively easy (when compared to AI in our own world) to construct within a computerised environment where you simulate the reality the entities exist within.


It was Descartes that also acknowledged the external world and his perceptions of it are not necessarily true, nor all that can or could exist, but rather a limited and specific perception that is limited and defined by unknown and uncontrollable factors.

[12bass]

Basically the OP is a skeptical hypothesis about what we take to be reality. Descartes proposed solutions to a similar hypothesis, though in his case an evil demon was deceiving us about reality, not a simulation running on a computer. Descartes thought that a benevolent deity would not allow such a deception about reality to occur... which is not a disproof of the skeptical hypothesis so much as an optimistic assumption.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

So you don't see AI or any kind of transhumanism as even remotely feasible?

Aha, I wasn't thinking that far ahead.

I'd say that at this point we can safely treat consciousness as a biological phenomenon. If (or more likely, when) it becomes possible to create a non-biological consciousness, we'll re-assess the situation.

[skychief]

Originally Posted by 12bass

Descartes thought that a benevolent deity would not allow such a deception about reality to occur... which is not a disproof of the skeptical hypothesis so much as an optimistic assumption.

Yes and no. We can remove the "benevolent deity" factor from the discussion. Its really not material to the meaning of the statement.

In Descartes' time (17th century), there were no computers or A.I.

His statement stood on face value; i.e., if i have the capacity to be capable of thought, I must exist. If i didnt really exist, no thought process would be possible.

Thankfully, even with the advent of computers, artificial intelligence, etc, this still holds water.

[12bass]

A thinking thing can realize that it must exist if it can ask itself the existential question. However, knowing that one exists does not provide certain knowledge about what sort of thing one might actually be. A thinking thing could realize that it most certainty exists, yet still be stuck in the Matrix, deluded about the false reality that it has mistaken as real. That's where the supernatural guarantor comes into play; it (supposedly) guarantees that perceptions that we are embodied physical beings are not incorrect, and actually represent genuine perceptions of the real world. BTW, I'm not promoting Descartes' hypothesis, just trying to explain it....

[MakiSupaStar]

[Simo98]

Originally Posted by 12bass

A thinking thing can realize that it must exist if it can ask itself the existential question. However, knowing that one exists does not provide certain knowledge about what sort of thing one might actually be. A thinking thing could realize that it most certainty exists, yet still be stuck in the Matrix, deluded about the false reality that it has mistaken as real. That's where the supernatural guarantor comes into play; it (supposedly) guarantees that perceptions that we are embodied physical beings are not incorrect, and actually represent genuine perceptions of the real world. BTW, I'm not promoting Descartes' hypothesis, just trying to explain it....

Exactly. "I think therefore I am" implies that you exist, but you're existence might be a butterfly dreaming he's Zhuangzi, it doesn't help in any way to validate the accuracy of your perceptions of the external world outside of your own existence.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Musiclogic

Is the act of understanding human existance become so far beyond the intellect of todays society that everything has to be a regurgitation of old science fiction stories?

This is nothing to do with any sort of limitation specific to "today's society", or any other.

Understanding existence at a fundamental level is forever beyond our grasp, because any statement we make about it can be responded to with the question, "Why?"

[HeavyDuty]

Originally Posted by skychief

I can disprove this wonky theory in five words:


I THINK, THEREFORE I AM. - R. Descartes

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by skychief

His statement stood on face value; i.e., if i have the capacity to be capable of thought, I must exist. If i didnt really exist, no thought process would be possible.

Thankfully, even with the advent of computers, artificial intelligence, etc, this still holds water.

Sure, one can think, and therefore one can acknowledge their own existence, but it leaves to question in what paradigm one exists? A simulated person may still be able to think, and acknowledge its existence without knowing that it lives within a simulated world.

Originally Posted by bassybill

Understanding existence at a fundamental level is forever beyond our grasp, because any statement we make about it can be responded to with the question, "Why?"

Ah, the ultimate question!

[skychief]

Originally Posted by HeavyDuty

Hah hah...

good one.. i remember that movie, Dark Star (?)

weird acting but loved the plot/story

[skychief]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

A simulated person may still be able to think, and acknowledge its existence without knowing that it lives within a simulated world.

But in a true simulated world an entity within the simulation would not be permitted to change or alter (or TERMINATE ) the realities of other entities within said simulation.

So if an individual in this our world/reality has the capability of killing someone (or many people), then our world/reality cannot be a simulation.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by skychief

But in a true simulated world an entity within the simulation would not be permitted to change or alter (or TERMINATE ) the realities of other entities within said simulation.

Says who? If in reality an entity can change or alter anothers, then why in a simulated reality would an entity not be permitted to do so?

So if an individual in this our world/reality has the capability of killing someone (or many people), then our world/reality cannot be a simulation.

Yet an entity in a simulation, like say a video game, has the capability of killing someone within that reality.

[skychief]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Says who? If in reality an entity can change or alter anothers, then why in a simulated reality would an entity not be permitted to do so?



Yet an entity in a simulation, like say a video game, has the capability of killing someone within that reality.

Sorry Matt,,

The video game model doesnt apply here..

In a video game the entities within the game do not question their existence. Hence back to the argument I THINK, THEREFORE I AM.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by skychief

Sorry Matt,,

The video game model doesnt apply here..

In a video game the entities within the game do not question their existence. Hence back to the argument I THINK, THEREFORE I AM.

Not with our current level of computer prowess.

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

That really disproves nothing.
You are programmed to think that you are thinking (simulation or otherwise).

Agreed. I don't think the phrase, "I think, therefore I am" really proves or disproves anything.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

Agreed. I don't think the phrase, "I think, therefore I am" really proves or disproves anything.

All it proves is some level of self-awareness, IMO.