The Simulation Theory

[webwit]

There's a difference between not knowing all and giving every brain fart equal value.

Substance dualism consists of the kind of brain farts that makes people very special, just like religion, where we're the magical center of a god's creation, instead of just apes with dna gone wild and parasitic. It's such silly ego-centered shite. Obviously false bullshit, unless you give a shred of proof. Which you don't. The moon is made of cheese.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

I think a stronger case can be make for either position than consciousness being purely physical.

I don't pretend to understand a word you said — your post makes as much sense to me as I imagine most of mine do to anyone else :) (I've never studied philosophy — it seems to be as alien to me as computer workings are to everyone else!)

Seriously through this is a painful subject for my worldview/philosophy and I should stay out of such topics for everyone's good, but I get really annoyed by claims made without sufficient supporting evidence, and just by poor logic anywhere in general. And that holds true for keyboards, too.

I'm not trying to argue for or against religion as such, but rather that I want to see that people are able to provide a clear chain of premises from which to arrive at the conclusions that underpin the viewpoints they're offering, and to make sure that they're consciously aware of all the details entailed in their belief. For example, Ray's questions about Christianity — the solution here is for him to study it and draw conclusions for himself, just as with any religion. I think he'd be surprised.

It's not enough for me for someone to spout out some statement about apes or what not — I need to know that they've thought about the subject in great detail and that they're able to back up such statements with a detailed rationale, and a logical one instead of an emotional one. Evolution (post-self-hosting bootstrap, at least) survives on the basis that, while improbable, it's not impossible (and therefore a valid candidate), so therefore no other improbable answer can be ruled out until proven impossible. The idea that we're special, may seen improbable, but it's not impossible.

One comment that you made did catch my eye (that I quoted specifically), as it was something I was tempted to add — when we see with our eyes, we're seeing with our minds, too: the conscious awareness of our vision. What is that all about?

[seebart]

oops.jpg (18.21 KiB) Viewed 5234 times

[webwit]

Let's move away from the theological (boooring). I'll present two of my favourite biological/physicist philosophical theories.

The first one is the Walking Tree theory. If you would be some kind of powerful alien, god or a higher being and would observe the earth, what would you see? Well, first of all, you'd notice the replicating dna, which makes it probably pretty unique compared to most other places in the Universe. This dna takes two main forms: plant life and animal life. The plant life was first. Why did the animals evolve from the plants? Or, to use a more simple yet more interesting abstraction: why did humans evolve from the tree? According to the Selfish Gene, just because it works. So why did it work? The advantage of a human over a tree is that the human can move to the nutrition. Trees work too, and can do it as well, but not as effectively. For example, in case of a long drought coming in from the east, all trees can do is drop seeds at some distance from the base of the tree, and the seeds falling in the west have a higher chance of replicating than those to the east, and slowly the trees move.

So humans move to the nutrition more effectively. To move to the nutrition is much more complicated than being a tree, and you also have predators to compete with, so the human replicating dna needs a brain to handle these tasks. But at night, we sleep. We have taken care of nutrition, and in some periods of our lives, of replicating or nurturing. We now return to the immobile state of nothingness, equally of being a tree.

What is the purpose of a tree, what is its meaning of life? The meaning of a tree is that it is. What is the meaning of a human? All of our culture, societies, art, "souls", religious brain farts, keyboards, search for meaning, etc. it's all just a byproduct of our brains which were created to move to the nutrition and compete, which works because it worked. It's noise. There is no meaning to it, our only meaning, to the outside observer, is equal to that of the tree: we are.

---

The Bubble Universes. What was there at the beginning? Where does the Universe come from? Is there only one Universe? We don't know. Concerning the last question, the prevalent thoughts are there is only one, but the same people who theorize that also say they really don't know. At the beginning there was probably a zero or near zero entropy state. Some theories even speak of infinitely many different zero entropy states, and infinite Universes.

That's an interesting one, and I once found a nice abstraction. What would you see if you'd zoom out, and look down on our and other universes? Not much, some kind of space/dimensions soup we're not able or remotely equipped to observing, like a 2D being in a 3D world. The 2D being would be able to see some proof of the 3D world, by the shadows and points of contact from the 3D world, we're not even seeing any of that.

But still, one can philosophize about what you'd see. First, you need an abstraction for that space soup. Combined with an infinite different zero entropy states, it would look something like this:

Imagine you, the observer, is flying over an infinite lake. It has a black surface, proof of big depths, which you cannot see. As you're flying over it, the surface of the lake appears completely smooth, not a single ripple. It is perfect, a state of perfection. However, when you move a little closer to the surface, it appears you were wrong, you see a small imperfection: you see a small bubble coming from the depths, break the surface, grow, grow, and snap away. In fact, when you're looking around, you see these small bubbles all around you, growing, and snapping.

Each bubble represents an entire universe, and its complete lifetime. In the bigger scope of things, all these bubbles are, are imperfections on the perfect fabric of perfect (lack of) entropy. Our entire Universe is a small, temporary contamination of perfection. Like a pimple.

[seebart]

4061147.jpg (37.89 KiB) Viewed 5201 times

[Daniel Beardsmore]

OK, here's a concrete example.

Claim 1: Monterey switches are fake. (Why? Because they're unbranded.)
Claim 2: Monterey switches appear to be real. (Why? Because they're extremely similar to the branded version.)

At the point that I declared them to be genuine SMK, we had confirmation from both Chicony and Monterey that they used SMK switches. They could still be fake, but I felt that there was just enough justification to make that declaration.

I wasn't at all comfortable about it — what if Monterey and Chicony lied or were simply misremembering products from decades ago? OK, so they have PCBs marked "SMK SW", but they used PCBs marked "CHERRY SW" for the Aristotle switches!

Even though I had some evidence, I didn't stop there. The Apple M0110A with SMK switches has a very specific format of PCB codes, and the case is marked "SHOWA" (possibly for the emperor, but possibly for Showa Musen Kogyo: SMK). That same PCB code format is used in the IIGS keyboard, again with no clear origin, but that has the white Montereys. OK, but, Alps USA (e.g. Apple and Wang) and Hi-Tek appeared to share the same PCB manufacturer for a while, as they have a specific type of PCB code in common (the AWB/PWB codes).

I never stopped checking and double-checking just to be sure I wasn't drawing conclusions without sufficient evidence, and indeed there seems to be a 1:1 correspondence between those PCB codes and SMK keyboards. Remember the weird NEC-branded SMK switches? SMK PCB codes again.

The S-type Apple Keyboard II even has very clear SMK branding inside, and that's also got a single SMK "white Monterey" switch, [wiki]SMK Alps mount lock[/wiki]. I'd desolder it from its mini-PCB, but it's far, far easier to reassemble with the legs held in place :(

If white Monterey was fake, then SMK would be buying in fake switches!

It wasn't enough for me to take a hunch and run with it. I never stopped being concerned about it until I had a suitable amount of evidence and I could present suitable chains of reasoning that converged on my original theory.

[Ray]

For example, Ray's questions about Christianity — the solution here is for him to study it and draw conclusions for himself, just as with any religion. I think he'd be surprised.

I did grow up with religion, and in my teens the rational became more and more important to me compared to believes, that's probably why I ended up not religious. Later I realized that the catholic teachings not only aren't rational but they also don't add up (say at least for me, as I am again a bit tired of the discussion) in so many cases that I feel sort of embarrased sometimes when I am in church for traditional reasons.

Maybe other christian confessions are better, I haven't looked much into them.
Every change that I know of about the protestant revolution is well done in my opinion. If I grew up as a protestant, my opinion of religion might be different.
And I don't think christianity is bad or wrong. For me the teachings of Jesus tell that religion shouldn't be focused on God, but on people.
Christianity has helped way more people than it harmed (even when you count in the crusades and other wars fought in the name of religion), so I don't want to convince anyone to become a non-believer. I couldn't convince anyone anyways.

[webwit]

Personally I think that the belief the moon is made of cheese helped way more people than it harmed (although I won't provide proof), so I don't want to convince anyone to believe otherwise. And no bloody wars were fought by these people. Same with Santa Claus.

Shit. Back to religion again. Bah.

[Kurplop]

Obviously false bullshit, unless you give a shred of proof. Which you don't.

So what is your understanding of consciousness and what proof do you offer? Your comments only offer opinions and insults. Asking for proof is a high bar to jump over. Most of the time we base our world-views on incomplete evidence because of our limited understanding. That may not be perfect but that's what we have to work with. As for your Bubble thought experiment: I don't think it stands up to your standard of proof, since it's pure speculation. Your Walking Tree theory leaves humanity without any cause for defending any standard of morality. Like Michael Shermer's evolved morality theory, it leaves us with no reason for believing that anything is either right or wrong apart from its survivability aspect. This could be true, but the the experiences of the masses betray this reasoning.

I don't pretend to understand a word you said — your post makes as much sense to me as I imagine most of mine do to anyone else (I've never studied philosophy — it seems to be as alien to me as computer workings are to everyone else!)

Well put, although I'm sure you know more about philosophy than I do about computers!

The idea that we're special, may seen improbable, but it's not impossible.

Given that we are the highest lifeforms on Earth, I can't even say that it is improbable that we're not special. While I disagree with Descartes' opinion that other animals do not have consciousness, I think there is a vast difference between the sentient qualities most animals possess and the additional rational abilities most humans possess. As for consciousness in inanimate objects: Philosopher John Searle's famous Chinese Room Argument offers compelling support for thinking otherwise. His larger conclusion is that one cannot get semantics (meaning) from syntax (formal symbol manipulation).

One comment that you made did catch my eye (that I quoted specifically), as it was something I was tempted to add — when we see with our eyes, we're seeing with our minds, too: the conscious awareness of our vision. What is that all about?

Yes. It's the distinction between sensation and perception. The translation which takes place inside our "inner theater" is precisely what baffles the AI speculators and makes both machine self-awareness and substance monism difficult for me to find support for.

As for your Monterey switch example: You require a high degree of evidence to convince you of something's truth.. That's commendable when we have that luxury. Sometimes we don't have either the time or resources to fully research a subject and instead have to make decisions on what is available to us. Absolute assurance is rarely available but we still act based on our best understanding of our choices.

One more thought about Webwit's Bubble Universe:

The Bubble Universes. What was there at the beginning? Where does the Universe come from? Is there only one Universe? We don't know. Concerning the last question, the prevalent thoughts are there is only one, but the same people who theorize that also say they really don't know.

and many frequently add "but it can't be God". You see, there is no room in a purely physical philosophy of science to allow for the possibility of a non-physical cause. This would be fine if all things could be understood by the scientific methods. I will defer to this statement made by astronomer Robert Jastrow,

Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.
—  Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, (1981), p. 19.

and then he adds this poetic touch

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

[Kurplop]

For example, Ray's questions about Christianity — the solution here is for him to study it and draw conclusions for himself, just as with any religion. I think he'd be surprised.

I did grow up with religion, and in my teens the rational became more and more important to me compared to believes, that's probably why I ended up not religious. Later I realized that the catholic teachings not only aren't rational but they also don't add up (say at least for me, as I am again a bit tired of the discussion) in so many cases that I feel sort of embarrased sometimes when I am in church for traditional reasons.

Maybe other christian confessions are better, I haven't looked much into them.
Every change that I know of about the protestant revolution is well done in my opinion. If I grew up as a protestant, my opinion of religion might be different.
And I don't think christianity is bad or wrong. For me the teachings of Jesus tell that religion shouldn't be focused on God, but on people.
Christianity has helped way more people than it harmed (even when you count in the crusades and other wars fought in the name of religion), so I don't want to convince anyone to become a non-believer. I couldn't convince anyone anyways.

Warning to Webwit! Religious content
I think your experience is pretty common. I think that often when we reject something it's because we concentrate on the worst examples of it, whether it's political views, religion, races, dog breeds, just about anything. Those who condemn the simplicity of faith, often have juvenile memories from childhood to base their biases on or can point to the hypocrites in the Church, and from that color their opinion of the whole.

[webwit]

So what is your understanding of consciousness and what proof do you offer?

FFS, what about brain research? We don't understand all of it yet, but the notion of substance dualism originates from when we understood none of it. Nowadays we've mapped a lot of the brain, and we can see what parts are activated during different mental or physical exercises. Clearly your consciousness comes from the brain. Substance dualism is completely outdated, it's close to arguing the Earth is flat and the center of the Universe. While not providing any proof.

[webwit]

Those who condemn the simplicity of faith, often have juvenile memories from childhood to base their biases on or can point to the hypocrites in the Church, and from that color their opinion of the whole.

Surely your religion doesn't teach these ad hominem attacks. Just in the previous post it helped all those people.

Oh wait they did, and do attack people. You better not be homosexual or atheist. What a wonderful god you believe in.

If I wanted to be juvenile, or truthful, I'd mention the child fuckers.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

Well put, although I'm sure you know more about philosophy than I do about computers!

I doubt it … it's not something I've ever studied.

As for your Monterey switch example: You require a high degree of evidence to convince you of something's truth.. That's commendable when we have that luxury. Sometimes we don't have either the time or resources to fully research a subject and instead have to make decisions on what is available to us. Absolute assurance is rarely available but we still act based on our best understanding of our choices.

Indeed, and I only offer this is a suggestion for people to be less dogmatic and more open. I mean, nobody here's getting burnt at the stake, but still …

Even after I made my public declaration on the wiki, I continued to look for more evidence to make sure I'd not made a mistake. Sometimes the evidence you have is incomplete or wrong, after all, or you misunderstood it. You may take another path, or find that the more you learn, the more it affirms your original choice.

[webwit]

and many frequently add "but it can't be God". You see, there is no room in a purely physical philosophy of science to allow for the possibility of a non-physical cause. This would be fine if all things could be understood by the scientific methods. I will defer to this statement made by astronomer Robert Jastrow,

Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.
—  Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, (1981), p. 19.

and then he adds this poetic touch

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

What do I care if Robert Jastrow talked out of his ass with his ego centered views? These words are equal to a believe the moon is made of cheese, and you have not been there to proof otherwise. Clearly a man with issues with his religious upbringing. And in case you answer, "Do you know who Mr. Jastrow is?", yeah, I answer and put my chess piece forward, do you know who Richard Dawkins is? A bigger thinker than Mr. Jastrow. Are we now channeling these guys instead of our own thoughts?

[Kurplop]

So what is your understanding of consciousness and what proof do you offer?

FFS, what about brain research? We don't understand all of it yet, but the notion of substance dualism originates from when we understood none of it. Nowadays we've mapped a lot of the brain, and we can see what parts are activated during different mental or physical exercises. Clearly your consciousness comes from the brain. Substance dualism is completely outdated, it's close to arguing the Earth is flat and the center of the Universe. While not providing any proof.

Again, just as I'm not a philosopher neither am I a neurologist or scientist so I don't pretend to speak with authority. I have studied some of the different disciplines we've been discussing though and with what I've learned I'm comfortable with my position. I'm sure there are probably holes in it and I welcome for you or others to help me have a clearer understanding .

It's undeniable that the brain is used for the processing of sensory data the body receives through the various body parts. Also, research shows that portions of the brain are used for different functions. Damage to these different zones can result in failures in cognitive abilities, controls of bodily functions and can even affect moral decision making. By electrically stimulating different regions you can trigger moods, memories and thoughts. Not many people will dispute these statements. None of that proves a soul is unnecessary, just that, if there is a soul, it interacts with and uses the brain. Much like when you ride your motorcycle, you depend on the wheels, gas, pistons, and other components for it to run, but it would be hard for you to take a ride on it without adding that one essential element—you. I'm sure that my language is not precise but let me say it anyways with the caveat that I may edit it. I believe that the soul is real and separate from the body but that each has an interdependence on the other as long as the body is alive. I say that so you know the general position I'm coming from.

[webwit]

I believe that the soul is real and separate from the body but that each has an interdependence on the other as long as the body is alive. I say that so you know the general position I'm coming from.

Well, now nice for you and your belief in a cheese moon, out of the proverbial ass. Thank you also for the service disclaimer, I'll now disengage.

[Kurplop]

Those who condemn the simplicity of faith, often have juvenile memories from childhood to base their biases on or can point to the hypocrites in the Church, and from that color their opinion of the whole.

Surely your religion doesn't teach these ad hominem attacks. Just in the previous post it helped all those people.

Oh wait they did, and do attack people. You better not be homosexual or atheist. What a wonderful god you believe in.

If I wanted to be juvenile, or truthful, I'd mention the child fuckers.

I don't believe I made any ad hominem attacks but rather just explained an observation I've experienced. The subject was the individual who lost his faith, not the person in the church giving simple explanations to a young person. That person teaching isn't to be blamed; you must teach at an age appropriate level. As our cognition grows, we're able to process things on a deeper level, as such, it is our duty to reevaluate and adjust our thinking as our capacity to understand grows.

Maybe I wasn't clear in the way I presented it.

[Kurplop]

What do I care if Robert Jastrow talked out of his ass with his ego centered views? These words are equal to a believe the moon is made of cheese, and you have not been there to proof otherwise. Clearly a man with issues with his religious upbringing. And in case you answer, "Do you know who Mr. Jastrow is?", yeah, I answer and put my chess piece forward, do you know who Richard Dawkins is? A bigger thinker than Mr. Jastrow. Are we now channeling these guys instead of our own thoughts?

Because of my lack of scientific credentials I merely used the words of a man who was respected in the scientific community and an agnostic to boot. The primary point was to simply reinforce the notion that science limits its study to physical phenomena and therefore is ill-equipped to answer scientifically, to things outside that realm.

I know Richard Dawkins' work well. He was well respected in his field and probably should have stayed in it.

[Kurplop]

I believe that the soul is real and separate from the body but that each has an interdependence on the other as long as the body is alive. I say that so you know the general position I'm coming from.

Well, now nice for you and your belief in a cheese moon, out of the proverbial ass. Thank you also for the service disclaimer, I'll now disengage.

I'll miss you.

[fohat]

I do not have a problem with dualism, and, in fact, it appeals to me both intellectually and emotionally.

While there is no "proof" (at least not that has been widely accepted) for the existence of "X" (minds, dimensions, souls, universes, gods, call those elusive forces or substances what you will) it/they do seem to be implied by various manifestations in the physical world. Science has been pursuing this subject in earnest, especially since quantum physics made its debut a century ago. Mathematics and equations point them in certain directions but unambiguous verification has proven elusive.

My objection is to the absurd emphasis on the Hebrew God in the Western religions. A great paternalistic deity with infinite magical powers was obviously a compelling figure in Bronze Age mythologies, but seems foolish and ridiculous in the modern world.

I don't care about what happened then, or now, and I don't care what persons choose to believe - until it begins to impact other people. But when a person in 2017 claims justification for doing something - anything - based on what he believes that an invisible sky fairy ordered the human race to do, back in the Bronze Age, that is where I have to draw the line.

"Personal Freedom" causes me to accept everyone's right to think as they wish, but when those thoughts begin to be translated into actions, then those freedoms must take a back seat and the needs of society as a whole take precedence.

[Halvar]

I'm not sure about the existence of a soul, but to use the phrase "taken out of the proverbial ass" for one of the major ideas that has been predominant in all Western societies for a few thousand years and is only suspected but in no way scientifically proven to be wrong is pretty ridiculous, too.

Come back when you have built a working brain from neurons.

[webwit]

The length of time that people have made up things out of their asses, does not add value to the idea by that merit. Nor does attacking me do.

[seebart]

86aa83147629e02d27314c2dfc1252de664eb2069d56ea6630c0b73d558acf08.jpg (104.04 KiB) Viewed 5007 times

[Halvar]

The length of time that people have made up things out of their asses, does not add value to the idea by that merit. Nor does attacking me do.

Your definition of "attacking me" is getting a bit broad lately I have to say, now obviously to "refering to something I said".

[webwit]

I can't believe all you have contributed to this entire thread is your opinion about the ass pulling expression, to which your conclusion is someone doesn't have working brain from neurons. You're not quite intellectually lifting this topic yourself.

[seebart]

No, I believe I contributed less. Possibly my contributed content was more fun.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

If I wanted to be juvenile, or truthful, I'd mention the child fuckers.

I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that this is the kind of love intended in @love one another@ …

(Wretched Windows … maybe I need to switch over to my AutoHotkey dead key system on this PC too, as Windows 8 and 10 don't take kindly to the old United Kingdom International third-party layout and keep reverting back to United States randomly. From what I read, there are just fundamental flaws in Windows with it belligerently refusing to accept non-US layouts. I mean, I even have the entire OS in UK English. I refactored the dead-key code in my AHK script earlier in the week to make it easier to maintain, as well as allowing backspace to cancel, and "?" to be printed if you request an unrecognised combination.)

[Mr.Nobody]

No need to argue on religious God, it's a hoax, but it's necessary at the time,and religion played an important and functional role in human history. Let's focus on scientific God...or gods, just like there are many players and every one of them has a computer on which a game is running, we are in this game, at least this scenario is possible to an open mind, this God seems immeasurably powerful and unimaginable to us, but he might be just an ordinary guy to his peers. We as sims in a computer game are unable to find any solid proof of the existence of an entity outside the computer, but it doesn't mean the entity doesn't exist.

Back to the days when people had no knowledge of electromegnatic field, it must be difficult to make people believe such thing does exist back then, but nowadays,since everybody has a phone it's easier to make people accept that there is an invisible intangible form of power makes your phone work...

Maybe soul is some sort of engergy field which has not been understood let alone harnessed by human yet, maybe we are just souless complex robots made of blood, flesh and neurons... We don't know how exactly brain works yet...

[Menuhin]

Mr.Nobody, you are actually a genius in starting popular thread...

If I ask you to replace the term 'scientific God' with some other term, what term(s) will you use?


Beings? Oneness?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

[Mr.Nobody]

@Menuhin
I truly have difficulty answering your question, it seems all these concepts are under the premises that we are entities and living in a real world, but are we? What if the player(god) turns off his computer now...however I do agree that life is meaningless and seeking for meaning will end up in vain, I am not saying life is not worth living, it's like writing poems on a beach, yes whatever you have written down good or bad will be wiped out by tides and will be forgotten completely, forever lost in oblivion, still it's worth doing for you, just keep writing your peoms or building your castle with sand or whatever makes you feel the authentic peace deepdown within and enjoy the process while doing so.

EDIT:
Dualism causes a hell lot of problems, although it's the fundamental approach of logic, here is a vid from youtube by Noah Elkrief, I highly recommend watching videos of this guy. It seems he is talking psychological mechanisms and the content is irrelavant to the OP but if you think deeply and closely enough you will find there is something relavant, a new way of thinking, and buddism(no matter you regard buddism as a religion or philosophy or science or all three rolled together) has been preaching the same way of thinking since centuries ago.