Simulation B
In the SD
I saw a question here recently that popped up about life in a simulation, and I saw that it was a question that was imported from America. And some define it as the best and newest skeptical question.
I wanted to ask, do you think that someone who advocates materialism and that consciousness can exist in either an organic or digital brain , really doesn’t have a great deal of doubt for him?
So, if you believe that it is possible (given Moore’s Law) to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality, and that it is possible to think that we will reach a level where it will be possible to imitate the world (extrapolation), then it is reasonable to assume that we live in a simulation ourselves. Because there will be more simulated worlds than normal ones.
Because I really think that anyone who advocates materialism should try to resolve this claim. But it sounds really strange.
on.
Using the term simulation imagines God as an intelligent being who coordinates the different parts of reality. Therefore, I think that much of the evidence for God will remain valid here as well.
But I wanted to ask whether in your opinion the evidence from epistemology – which deduces from our understanding an entity that corresponds to it, is also valid towards this understanding. Because it depends on how you understand the evidence, whether it is purely “inferential” (and then it is valid for this as well), or whether it is only valid if you are acquainted with what the theological evidence is trying to identify, and then only God (following religious sentiment) explains our knowledge in the best way, (because a person does not say that he is acquainted with the simulation) while towards God this is quite acceptable.
A very strange argument.
First, I don’t think a digital system can have consciousness, so there’s no point in answering hypothetical questions.
Second, where does the assertion that there may be more simulated systems than usual come from? Anything you imagine can also exist in some world.
Third, if I were to hold a lottery, I would choose the one with the best chance. But I don’t hold lotteries. I believe in my own beliefs.
I don’t understand the connection to materialism, nor the connection to evidence from epistemology.
Quite a strange claim, why would a materialist allow consciousness only in an organic brain?
After all, many futurists talk about the transition of consciousness to the digital space, etc.
Because we have information about the feasibility of the simulation, rather than about unknown systems.
In any case, every simulation that runs on a computer creates new products.
I didn't understand, here the lottery explains reality. This is no different from an interpretation of God, let's say evidence from complexity.
That man concludes from the fact that he thinks he is correlated about the existence of a correlation. (The simulation)
Although he is not informed about it, while the classic claim to God that speaks of the “religious emotion / feeling”.
Therefore, I asked if you believe this is valid, because it constitutes justification but without the ability to claim that man can reach it directly.
When I talk about consciousness, I'm talking about the mental in general, including choice and free will of course, but also consciousness. But also regarding consciousness itself, the claim that it arises from the organic whole (emergentity) is itself very strange and improbable. Assuming that this does happen, you're right that the possibility that it can also emerge from a mechanical structure cannot be ruled out. This only further strengthens the strangeness of this claim. It's worth looking at column 35 (and also 175) about discretion.
The fact that futurists talk about something is not evidence of anything. They say so much nonsense that in my opinion the assumption is the opposite. They're not necessarily wrong, but as long as it's not proven otherwise, they're probably wrong.
I didn't understand your explanation of the question at the end.
I will ask perhaps in the course of two separate questions,
Assuming that consciousness can indeed evolve from organic complexity, it is likely that it can also evolve from mechanical/digital composition.
So, if computer simulations can create consciousness. As was recently published about the scientist from Google.
Then we have a positive doubt that we are inside a simulation. Right?
It is that materialism cuts off the simple understanding that the world outside exists.
“The Google Scientist” This is nonsense, as usual. This entire discussion is also, by the way, delusional.
Computer simulations do not create consciousness according to any opinion in the world. At most, computers create consciousness. A simulation is software, not an object. I can understand (even if I don't agree) the claim that an inorganic object can have consciousness. But I didn't understand what it means that a simulation can have consciousness.
Okay, so let's now assume for the sake of discussion an unfounded assumption that according to computer materialism, a computer can also have consciousness. You also have to assume in addition that this consciousness does not know where it was created from and the body (and the entire world) that it observes is its illusion. Now the conclusion is at most that we are consciousnesses of computers. Why does that mean there is no world outside? Of course there is. Except that it may be a mechanical world, not an organic one.
These are the kind of amusements of confused people, usually artificial intelligence people and futurists (Ray Kurzweil style) who dabble in philosophy without minimal skill.
With this you want to defeat materialism? You won't get far.
Of course, the intention in the term simulation means that there is an object that will contain it (processor and memory).
Only if the processor is large enough, we can talk about a simulation within a simulation. Like a virtualbox.
As you just said, the conclusion is at most that we are consciousnesses of computers that have a mechanical origin.
You just ignored the probabilistic considerations. I.e. Would this conclusion to interpret reality also be more reasonable than the assumption of an organic origin.
—
D.e. The scientist from Google is not nonsense, but a not-so-rare perception of the future of humanity.
For example, he was fired from Google, but in my opinion, he was the only one who drew the conclusions that many of them have a subconscious. There are quite a few claims that most people in this industry think that we may reach a situation where AI will have consciousness. (And the Google vice president himself, in connection with the case, supported the hypothesis that it will soon be possible to teach consciousness).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
