/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13449311

2MiB, 1280x720, simulation theory thumbnail.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Why the simulation hypothesis is bullshit

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 17:47:31 2021 No.13449311 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13449976 >>13450026 >>13450047 >>13451360 >>13451397 >>13451409

Hey bros. I hate to be a shill, but I made a video about why the simulation hypothesis is Joe Rogan Tier shlock.

https://youtu.be/MqM_K9vL8is

I posted my last video in /drugfeel/ on /r9k/ and the robots over there seemed to enjoy it.

Let me know what you think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 18:58:07 No.13449612 Report

Quoted By:

>>13449592
>brain doesn't house cognition
>its not spooky ghost
>its the emergence of environment/brain
Even if I buy your nonsense garbage, why can't simulation simulate environment/brain to simulate consciousness?

Nonsense on top of nonsense

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 18:59:19 No.13449619 Report

Quoted By: >>13449646

>>13449549
Qualia is just the properties of something, it shouldn't be a mystery that you could run a line of thinking, or function, in the system that is your brain and discern similar properties. I.E What tastes salty and list off things with a salty profile. If it's things that are indescribable like color therefore I cannot explain it, maybe these are the limitations to our "simulation." Lol. Further, if the spectrum of light is the only thing we cannot communicate to each other, our interpretation of it, then maybe this is a holographic simulation...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:04:28 No.13449646 Report

Quoted By: >>13449669

>>13449619
True, qualia is the properties of something, but that "something" is conscious experience, which philosophers and scientists have very little grasp on. The key point about qualia is that it's not mere "data" in an information sense. It has a particular subjective quality or "flavor" to it, which likely can't be captured by exclusively information processing systems

for instance, "green" isn't merely #008000 or rgb(0,128,0). "Green" is a particular quality of our subjective experience.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:10:35 No.13449669 Report

Quoted By: >>13449684

>>13449646
I'd challenge that subjective experience to that of your preprogramming which could have flaws. In terms of seeing a rose in your past and then seeing another one in the future, are you suggesting I know it's scent, texture without having experienced those senses on this new rose? I.E from a distance?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:14:31 No.13449684 Report

Quoted By: >>13449714

>>13449669
I'm not quite sure what point you're making here, but I'm interested

It's true that we can imagine qualia and represent it in our "mind's eye" so to speak, although I think in general the vividness of these representations is not as intense as the direct experience

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:19:20 No.13449704 Report

Quoted By: >>13449722

If consciousness is real (it is) then it exists, it's a thing, and we can make it. If we can make it we can cram it into a box and feed it simulated stimuli.
Simulation theory, brain in a vat theory can't be disproved, cope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:21:26 No.13449714 Report

Quoted By: >>13449722

>>13449684
>"Green" is a particular quality of our subjective experience.

If I see green and point to it and you point to the same thing we both agree is green, than it is green.

If we both smell a rose and agree our subjective experiences are that its aroma is "sweet," than "sweet" is just the word used to describe the aroma of said rose.

If I point to something and say it's blue, and another person concurs it's blue and then you say it's grey and then me and that person point to something that is grey and concur we can conclude your programming is flawed.

>"green" isn't merely #008000 or rgb(0,128,0)
It is because if we all concur #008000 is that shade of green than that is just another way to call that shade of green, green. It's also how the computers LEDs know how to create that frequency of light we call green.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:23:10 No.13449722 Report

Quoted By: >>13449747

>>13449704
I think you're assuming it's a "thing" in that it is an object or physical item, which is fundamentally not the case.

We can make physical things, sure. But there's no evidence we can make mental things (especially computationally)

>>13449714
You're missing the point. Sure, it's a category that we all agree maps to certain kinds of phenomena in the world, but categories are abstract ideas. We can create concrete physical objects which *induce* subjective experiences to which we map categories, but it's unclear we can create these subjective experiences themselves

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:30:19 No.13449742 Report

Quoted By: >>13449769

>>13449390
Couldn't you apply the Chinese Room to neurons firing?

Consciousness is mysterious bro, we don't really know how it works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:30:42 No.13449747 Report

Quoted By: >>13449769

>>13449722
Can you elaborate a little further? mainly on

>We can create concrete physical objects which *induce* subjective experiences to which we map categories, but it's unclear we can create these subjective experiences themselves

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:35:43 No.13449769 Report

Quoted By: >>13449898 >>13449907

>>13449742
True. There are better ways to argue against consciousness emerging from mere neural activity, but the chinese room can definitely be co-opted for that

>>13449747
i.e. we can create images on a computer screen that look like a beautiful forest to us, and effectively induce the experience of looking at a beautiful forest

however, it's unclear if we can create a conscious agent which can experience seeing a beautiful forest, including all the qualia of color, texture, edges, the shifting of attention to different aspects of the image, and the subjective "perspectivalness" which would emerge when a conscious being looks at a beautiful forest

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:49:10 No.13449828 Report

Quoted By: >>13449835

>>13449543
>mabye it will go away if I call it spooky ghost because science man says spooky ghost not real
And then everybody clapped.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:50:36 No.13449835 Report

Quoted By:

>>13449828
this is what happens when autistic stem kids try to give their take on philosophy

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:57:53 No.13449862 Report

Quoted By: >>13449867

>>13449390
>Minor points: there may not be many civilizations in the universe, these civilizations might not be interested in generating simulations
That's covered by the simulation argument. You would have to argue that not even one of the civilizations in the universe, including our own, would bother to run simulations. If there is even one civilization at any point in time that runs an ancestor simulation, your point falls flat. We don't know how life arrises or exactly how rare it is, but saying that for the entire span of the universe there will never be a civilization that runs a simulation... that's a big thing to claim without evidence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 19:59:35 No.13449867 Report

Quoted By:

>>13449862
Good point, Bostram's trilemma does address that aspect pretty well

I think the biggest issue still pertains to the assumption of substrate independence. If simulating consciousness is impossible (which is probably true), the whole argument falls apart because it assumes a falsehood

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:05:44 No.13449898 Report

Quoted By: >>13449931

>>13449769
>however, it's unclear if we can create a conscious agent which can experience seeing a beautiful forest, including all the qualia of color, texture, edges, the shifting of attention to different aspects of the image, and the subjective "perspectivalness" which would emerge when a conscious being looks at a beautiful forest
It's exactly that: unclear. You should be agonstic on the issue. It's too early to be making claims that a simulated brain will not be conscious.
I think the secret of consciousness could potentially be explained by figuring out the behavioral mechanisms that lead us to believe in and talk about qualia. If p-zombies are exactly the same as us except they lack subjective experience, then they should still be talking about qualia even if they are not actually conscious of it. That means there is something in the brain that will explain why we believe there is a hard problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:08:26 No.13449907 Report

Quoted By: >>13449931

>>13449769
Ahhh, I.E like if I created a Sims character, can they have qualia, as well? Not sure. Dogs have some level of consciousness, or at the very least appear to have some level of understanding for their reality, as we do as well. Maybe consciousness emerges when a system becomes complex enough to ask the question of what am I?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:13:10 No.13449931 Report

Quoted By: >>13449956 >>13450017

>>13449898
Being agnostic towards this issue implies emergentism w.r.t conscious experience (i.e. consciousness emerges exclusively from the brain). This take is becoming decreasingly popular in philosophy of mind because there are few compelling arguments for it. I really doubt that there is something "in the brain" that could explain the intuition of the hard problem

>>13449907
I'm personally not a hard emergentist, but I definitely think complexity plays a role. In particular, I think the engagement of a physical agent within an environment is the crucial aspect.

>complex enough to ask the question of what am I?
I'm not sure self awareness is a necessary condition for consciousness. For instance, I think organisms like rats or mice possess rudimentary levels of consciousness, but I'm not sure they're sufficiently sophisticated to have a self-concept

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:18:05 No.13449956 Report

Quoted By: >>13449966

>>13449931
>For instance, I think organisms like rats or mice possess rudimentary levels of consciousness, but I'm not sure they're sufficiently sophisticated to have a self-concept

Then those are just systems going on their course, like how lobsters are just ants of the sea, living, following their programming, but aware of nothing. You essentially prove you believe in emergent consciousness by noting they aren't sophisticated enough to have a self-concept which implies if they were sophisticated enough then they have a sense of self. I do not see other species of biological life asking this question of consciousness, but ourselves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:21:50 No.13449966 Report

Quoted By: >>13450015

>>13449956
>following their programming, but aware of nothing
I never said this. Self-concept is not a necessary condition for experience/consciousness

>I do not see other species of biological life asking this question of consciousness, but ourselves.
uh, because humans have the unique capacity for language?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:24:42 No.13449976 Report

Quoted By:

>>13449311
>Let me know what you think.
I think if you're hurting for views, you shouldn't be pushing your shit on /sci/.
I think if you had a point to make you should have posted them instead of linking a a 10 minute video.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:33:38 No.13450015 Report

Quoted By: >>13450037

>>13449966
If you are not self aware than are you really conscious or just a robot?

Language is seen in animals albeit does not carry the same bitrate as a human language.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:34:05 No.13450017 Report

Quoted By:

>>13449931
>Being agnostic towards this issue implies emergentism w.r.t conscious experience (i.e. consciousness emerges exclusively from the brain). This take is becoming decreasingly popular in philosophy of mind because there are few compelling arguments for it. I really doubt that there is something "in the brain" that could explain the intuition of the hard problem
There has to be something in the brain that explains the intuitions. Intuitions come under behavior, which is an Easy Problem. If not, then that implies p-zombies would behave differently to us which means consciousness is not epiphenomenal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:35:48 No.13450026 Report

Quoted By: >>13450041 >>13450047 >>13450048 >>13450112

>>13449311
Can we simulate our own universe or can we only create a lesser version of it? If we can that the universe is the thing that contains itself that contains itself that... If not then this whole thing breaks down in complexity relatively fast and thus no life-like existence is possible further down the chain which also means no more simulations.
Assuming there's a root universe to this simulation stack, what's stopping other root universes from existing completely independently? There might be infinitely many of them and they all might have their own civilizations that do simulations but when it comes to me being placed in one of them as an observer the probability of getting a root universe instead of a simulated universe is inf / inf.
What fucking difference does it even make if this universe is simulated? It might not be but instead, it might be condensed and what we perceive is just a projection into a higher space which gives us an illusion of locality. Sounds very much like a simulation to me. In the end, it would just be a model anyway but what is this question really about? Is there someone or something out there who has complete control over our existence? Is that what this is about?
Maybe I should phrase my opening question a bit differently then. Can god create a perfect copy of himself that is equally powerful?
It's all a meme if you ask me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:38:54 No.13450037 Report

Quoted By: >>13450112

>>13450015
>If you are not self aware than are you really conscious or just a robot?
yeah, if you're experiencing things you're conscious. You don't need the meta-awareness of you experiencing in the first place
>Language is seen in animals albeit does not carry the same bitrate as a human language.
every attempt to teach language to apes (our closest genetic counterparts), have been complete failures. It's not even like they got close, the apes were literally just repeating sequences of gestures in order to get food rewards, in the same way you teach your dog to rollover

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:40:14 No.13450041 Report

Quoted By: >>13450048 >>13450065

>>13450026
Let's take the view that we can only create a lesser version of a universe. Who is to say the world outside the simulation is not faster and more complex than the reality we are in? Maybe we are a dummed down version of the real universe. Creating a simulation doesn't require that the simulation be as complex as our own universe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:41:48 No.13450047 Report

Quoted By:

>>13449311
>>13450026
Who is to say the world outside the simulation is not faster and more complex than the reality we are in? Maybe we are a dumbed down version of the real universe. Creating a simulation doesn't require that the simulation be as complex as our own universe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:41:54 No.13450048 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450026
>>13450041
I'm assuming you're the same guy

>Creating a simulation doesn't require that the simulation be as complex as our own universe.
true, but for those simulations to be authentic, they must involve beings which possess conscious experience

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:45:04 No.13450065 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450041
>Maybe we are a dummed down version of the real universe
It might be entirely possible but the ratio of real universes vs simulated universes can never be 0(or probably even close to it).
>I'm assuming you're the same guy
I'm the OG of the reply chain and this is my second post. I didn't touch the consciousness topic because I simply don't know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:57:45 No.13450112 Report

Quoted By: >>13450122

>>13450026
>Can god create a perfect copy of himself that is equally powerful?
This reminds me of the paradox stone or the greatest island.

>>13450037
>yeah, if you're experiencing things you're conscious. You don't need the meta-awareness of you experiencing in the first place.

Okay, well a computer experiences things, has peripheral outputs and inputs so it must be conscious, but not self aware, same with current AI like gpt-3.

What if gpt-3 got complex enough to say "You know what, I am aware," with no preprogramming. Would you believe it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:58:08 No.13450114 Report

Quoted By: >>13450122 >>13451481

>>13449429
>to prime your intuitions towards underlying truths (i.e. consciousness is not a computation).
Either I’m retarded or you are
You don’t know and can’t prove that consciousness can’t be simulated
Fucking moron

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 20:59:59 No.13450122 Report

Quoted By: >>13450125 >>13450828

>>13450112
>Okay, well a computer experiences things, has peripheral outputs and inputs so it must be conscious
Inputs =/= experience. I can punch a wall (input/stimulus), but the wall doesn't experience me punching it
>What if gpt-3 got complex enough to say "You know what, I am aware," with no preprogramming. Would you believe it?
No

>>13450114
Don't worry, we're probably both retarded.
>You don’t know and can’t prove that consciousness can’t be simulated
I can't prove anything, but I can make an argument for why consciousness is not a computation, and it follows from that that computer systems cannot simulate consciousness

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 21:02:48 No.13450125 Report

Quoted By: >>13450134

>>13450122
Your arm doesn't experience the pain when it is stabbed, your brain does. Sure, if you break it down to a wall which is limited in complexity, it doesn't experience that either, but neither does a lobster, or many other creatures for that matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 21:05:11 No.13450134 Report

Quoted By: >>13450178

>>13450125
>but neither does a lobster, or many other creatures for that matter.
My take is that all organisms possess at least some rudimentary level of awareness, because it's impossible to "draw the line" so to speak, where once an organism reaches some level of complexity, it just "becomes" conscious. You can't arrive at a criterion from which you can say "these organisms over here are conscious, but those ones over there aren't".

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 21:21:51 No.13450178 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450134
So, any organism, like a simple eukaryote possess consciousness, or must I have x number of organisms in a system to qualify? When I took microbiology, and looked at some of these organisms, they were 100% reactionary at that level, basically playing out their luck the cilia grabbed onto the appropriate cell wall of which some interaction would play out.

>"these organisms over here are conscious, but those ones over there aren't".
It's the system of something of which I argue that consciousness emerges, which requires a sense of self, in my opinion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 21:58:19 No.13450276 Report

Quoted By: >>13450289

>>13449362
Nah they wee fine and not too try-hardy unlike many other channels. The format is almost perfect for my taste. The only two things is I wish you delved even deeper into stuff as this vid is a bit shallow and you should also speak up a bit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 22:01:52 No.13450289 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450276
Thanks man, I appreciate it

>I wish you delved even deeper into stuff as this vid is a bit shallow
yeah I've heard this feedback a few times. Admittedly this video was somewhat rushed and with a longer runtime I definitely could have gone deeper and improved my argument for why consciousness =/= computation

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 01:16:08 No.13450828 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450122
You haven’t really disproved anything. Consciousness is undefined.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 02:56:32 No.13451078 Report

Quoted By:

This whole debate has always boiled down to wether you believe human behavior has metaphysical elements or not

If there is no metaphysical component, then human sapience is simply a rather complex physics problem

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 05:03:18 No.13451360 Report

Quoted By:

>>13449311
brain dead video, perfectly illustrated by the pathetic attempt to discredit dennet and the physicalist approach in general.
the mention of marys room is especially jarring, consindering that not even jackson himself thinks that that is a good argument anymore.
somewhat unrelated, here is a good video of david tong talking about the Nielsen-Ninomiya Theorem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPMn7SuiHP8

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 05:11:59 No.13451389 Report

Quoted By: >>13451503

The reason I find the idea that we live in a simulation is that to accurately simulate all matter you need likely as much matter right? If you wanted to simulate every interaction in the universe to such detail that we can see in physics, simulation seems impossible. The world is really quite complicated too and not just 3 dimensional but many different dimensions are interacting with each other at very low level detail, that is why the simulation argument is hard to believe.
Many things at the quantum level are affected by are consciousness and spiritual explanations make more sense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 05:18:54 No.13451397 Report

Quoted By:

>>13449311
What you want to say: "it is not as probable."
What you did say "Its not as rational"
You augments are invalid concerning rationality.
You augments are also invalid cornering probability, cause you gave us the short version of the augment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 05:22:03 No.13451401 Report

Quoted By: >>13451454

bumstrom's arguments are unfalsifiable and therefore dismissable
it's as simple as that

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 05:29:45 No.13451409 Report

Quoted By:

>>13449311
>I posted my last video in /drugfeel/ on /r9k/ and the robots over there seemed to enjoy it.
Don't fucking care. Making a video on why simulation hypothesis is bullshit is such smoothbrain material. Obviously it's bullshit.. It's such common sense at this point that it's pointless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 05:48:40 No.13451454 Report

Quoted By:

>>13451401
>if x is unfalsifiable it is dismissible
>the principle of falsifiability is unfalsifiable
>therefore the principle of falsifiability is dismissible
anon...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 06:00:32 No.13451481 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450114
>If we can simulate worlds in video games, what's not to say we can't be simulated as well. We create AI that can construct sentences it wasn't preprogrammed to make through training and can train them to recognize objects based on that training and ask them about "themselves," or how they "feel." It seems that you are not a pragmatist and only believe things that are "proven" when even algebra is just a theory. You then shill for other civilizations, yet you have no proof.
huhuhhu you cant prove nuthin
okay but we can give philosophical arguments to characterize and survey the plausability that something is true

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 06:06:23 No.13451503 Report

Quoted By: >>13451654

>>13451389
>The reason I find the idea that we live in a simulation is that to accurately simulate all matter you need likely as much matter right?
Incorrect, we have accurate real-time simulations of environments already, and we don't have as much matter creating the simulation as we do inside of it. That's not how computing works, nor is it how it ever worked. A simulation of the entire universe also doesn't really need to be of the entire universe, just the parts currently in use. We unload unused parts of video games to increase memory performance, why would an ancestor simulation be any different? All you would really have to simulate is our local group and maybe a few planets whenever we try and look at them through radio telescopes or whatever.
>Many things at the quantum level are affected by are consciousness
That's also a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. It's not our perceiving the state of a particle that cements the spin, but instead the fact that we just shot an electron beam at the thing to measure it's state. That electron beam was entangled with the greater wave function of the universe and thus when it interacted with the particle in superposition it brought that particle into it's own wave function, which we've already established is the greater wave function of the universe.
You have a "I heard about Schrodinger's Cat and now I think I understand quantum mechanics" level of knowledge here. Stop watching Marvel movies and pick up a textbook.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 06:25:44 No.13451568 Report

Quoted By:

You're presupposing that the meat inside your head does something different than a computer executing code. Individual neurons do not posses consciousness in the same way a CPU or a CPU simulating a neuron does not have consciousness. I don't see how the Chinese room has anything to do with the substrate, just that the system need not understand something to appear to understand something (which has its own can of worms in that you have to define understand, which is not obvious). Also, I tend to think of qualia as a labeling system, the difference between experience and description of experience is that you can't trigger your consciousness's labeling system without giving it the correct input (eg the color red), if you could craft a description of something that would trigger that system it would be equivalent to experiencing the phenomena, but this is likely impossible for most people, though may be possible for someone with synesthesia where these experiential boundaries cross. For example, you may be able to stimulate the experience of red by playing a certain tone. The tone would be the description, but which is capable of exercising the internal labelling system indirectly where words (for normal people) do not hit this system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 07:04:46 No.13451654 Report

Quoted By: >>13451773

>>13451503
Video games don't do things at the level of precision matter actually works at. To get the level of precision of reality you have to be able to model all the intricacies of reality at least at the level that we can verify them consciously to have followed those rules. For example, consider the ocean, and how intricate that is. Much more than a video game, because reality is much more complicated. Not easy to simulate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 07:59:24 No.13451773 Report

Quoted By:

>>13451654
When did I ever once say the words "video game"? When I say simulations I very much so mean simulations. Physics simulations, fluid dynamics simulations, light transport simulations, meteorological simulations, etc etc. We have models that run in real-time and near-real-time that accurately can simulate these phenomena and even predict them given the current state of things. Scale this up to the level where the CPU isn't the size of your thumbnail and instead is the size of... idk... a dinner plate, and you can run all of these things in parallel on a MUCH wider scale. Maybe a few miles by a few miles worth of area. Put a few of these chips in series and you can simulate an entire planet, at least technically.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches