What do we know?
It has recently been shown, rather convincingly [for me, at least,] that we cannot distinguish between living in a simulation and living in a 'real' universe.
That brings into question whether we can truly know anything at all.
Comments?
That brings into question whether we can truly know anything at all.
Comments?
Comments (49)
Cogito ergo sum.
Only if the simulation is perfect and seamless. I dont think perfect is a real thing. A single flaw would be testable, repeatable and therefore detectable.
It means that knowing is on a spectrum, with absolute certainty at one end and no certainty at all on the other. You are using to know as to be certain, which is false.
Depends. Totalising skepticism is quite popular with students and philosophy neophytes it seems. But some level of skepticism is useful and appropriate. I don't think humans ever arrive at absolute truth or 'ultimate reality' as opposed to the truth or reality about contingent matters. We can have reasonable confidence in many things, but absolute certainty is unavailable to us. What more do you need? If we are living in the Martix, or we're a brain in a vat, we may as well enjoy/participate in the illusion. What choice do we have? :wink:
Not knowing the ultimate nature of the universe is not the same as knowing nothing at all. You can only explore and learn about the reality in which you exist - and it's all you need to know about. Whether you live in a real universe or a simulated one makes no difference to the knowledge you gain. And it's not likely you'll ever step outside of either.
Hi, Vera.
A nice, pragmatic response. I can see Dewey looking over your shoulder. Pragmatism is a great way to cut Gordian knots.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Hi, 180 Proof. [Love the handle!]
The problem isn't whether it's a probable possibility but, rather, that it cannot be logically ruled out.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
The "logic" may be valid but its soundness is dubious at best. An infinity of such notions "cannot be logically ruled out", but so what? Life is short, we need to sort out which of relatively few ideas are worthy of our limited time and energy to seriously consider. By all means, as I'm not aware of any nontrivial^^ grounds, please cite some for bothering to make an effort to think through "the simulation hypothesis". :chin:
^^(a distinction that makes no ontological and/or existential and/or pragmatic difference)
:up: Yes, that's the conclusion I came to. And yes, you point out the other salient matter here - it doesn't make any difference to the experience wherein I exist and make choices in the only reality I know.
There is a serious question begged here: what is the litmus of knowing at all? the very concept of one standard generating conditions for deviation brings that standard into sharp relief.
But really, if you can't tell the difference between one and the other, then there is no difference, and whatever difference you place OUTSIDE of the pov in question, as with yours and my shared understanding that one is right the other wrong, it is to be called metaphysics.
Yes, that's pretty much how nerve impulses work.
We neither live in a simulation nor a real universe, if real here means an environment unaffected in its meaning by linguistic and material interactions among humans and between humans and that world. We co-construct the sense of the real through social interaction as well as via individual perspectival practices. The real is enacted, not passively observed.
How do nerve impulses create conscious experiences?
Quoting RogueAI
How are "conscious experiences" "created" without "nerve impulses"? :roll:
Consciousness requires nerve impulses??? No possibility of machine consciousness? No possibility that this is a simulation?
At least in h. sapiens it does.
Non sequitur.
For starters, what difference would such a "possibility" make to us ontologically, existentially or pragmatically?
Science has no idea how brains produce consciousness. You would think, after all this time, we would have some idea, but the theories are all over the place. Eventually, people are going to question basic assumptions, such as "matter is real" and "brains cause consciousness".
To tie this back to the OP, if there's no explanation for how our own brains make us conscious, why should we even consider the idea that consciousness can come from an entirely different substrate? Why is that even taken seriously? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?
"For starters, what difference would such a "possibility" make to us ontologically, existentially or pragmatically?"
If you knew for certain you were in a simulation, wouldn't you want to try and get in touch with the simulation creator?
Not quite true (e.g. vide T. Metzinger), but even if you're right, philosophy has only fantasy (i.e. folk psychology), not even an "idea how".
I don't want to derail the thread. Just pointing out some problems with Simulation Theory. Imo, they're insurmountable, but who knows.
Does the simulation hypothesis also apply to those running the simulation?
Elon Musk on the Simulation Hypothesis
Could we be living in a simulation?
As thought experiments go, I think it shares a category with other ideas, where both the idea and its negation are compatible with attainable evidence.
Dream argument
Evil demon
Brain in a vat
Last Thursdayism
intangible invisible dragons
...
On the traditional account, we can know whatever happens to be the case.
Quoting Joshs
And yet what you don't know can still kill you.
By communicating the sensation of a toe striking the foot of the bed all the way up the spinal cord to the brain, which then uses more nerve impulses to process that information and turn into an experience.
The "creation" of an experience is a team effort among many neurons networking.
Quoting RogueAI
Only a very remote one. AI has not - AFAIK - exhibited toe pain.
Quoting RogueAI
If it's a simulation, there is no physical consciousness and no physical toe of which to be conscious, so no physical nerves and no electrical impulses.
So then , whether it emerged
Quoting RogueAI
depends on whether it's a computer simulation (yes, it's off/on switches)
or some other kind of simulation (which we don't know how it works)
Quoting RogueAI
For my part, no. But if you did, try prayer.
How does the information get "turned into an experience"?
Do you really think the lesson on neurological function belongs here? I'm not really qualified to teach it.
They are: https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/4-1-we-experience-our-world-through-sensation/
"Decades-long bet on consciousness ends and its philosopher 1, neuroscientist 0"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02120-8
If science can't explain something as fundamental as our own experience, why should we think it can explain whether consciousness can arise from computers? Why should we even entertain the notion that we're living in a simulation?
*sigh!* OK goddoneit
Pointing out materialism/physicalism's failure to explain consciousness doesn't entail "goddoneit". Mysterianism has been gaining in popularity lately.
Yet everyone does rule it out, in spite of my announcement above. Fools!
But the idea that reality is a simulation implies that there is a "higher reality" in which this simulation takes place. It is the scientific version of religious speculations about heaven and hell and eternity, etc. And has almost as much basis. The superstitions of those who think themselves immune from superstition are a wonder to behold.
Hi again, 180 Proof.
The sole non-trivial reason for taking time to think about such things is little more than the pleasure of pursuing knowledge.
Regards, best wishes to you and yours.
Hi, Rogue AI
For what it's worth, I assure you that I'll continue to live my life as if I'm in a real world, not a simulation.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Hi, Astrophel.
As the quote from Anna and the King of Siam goes, "Is a puzzlement."
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Science starts with assumptions rooted in worldview, so any scientific assertion is conditional. Same for most statements that are held to be known.
Hi, I like suchi. [Sorry to say, I don't.]
You've touched on another interesting line of thought -- degrees of 'knowing'. We know some things in the absolute sense -- the whole is greater than a part of it, for instance -- but those things we know with absolute certainty don't, as far as I know, lead to any great revelations.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Hi, frank.
Yup. As a retired scientist, I know that at bottom science rests on an axiom: the outside world is knowable.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Yes, a metaphysical position, really - ontological realism. But I suspect it is two presuppositions 1) that there is an outside or 'real' world and 2) that humans can come to understand it.
Hi, Tom.
Yup! That sums it up. On the subject of outside world, I like to think of science as describing our outer reality while art writ large describes our inner reality.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Quoting jorndoe
If you absolutely dont know it, it cant do anything to you because it has no existence from your perspective. How you know something determines the way you construe what it does to you.
Suppose there is a scientist alive today who fully understands how consciousness emerges in the brain.
Do you think that you would be able to understand that scientist's explanation without having studied the relevant science yourself?
A more accurate and nuanced statement than yours above is that scientists have developed and are continuing to develop more accurate understanding of aspects of how consciousness emerges from brains. Criticisms arising out of anti-scientific ignorance don't even reach the threshold of mildly interesting after awhile.
I posted just this sort of thing the other day: suppose aliens or an advanced machine intelligence figured out consciousness. Would we be able to understand the explanation, or at least be able to ask a bunch of questions that would give us the gist of the answer? For example, we could ask the aliens/machine intelligence "Does consciousness come from matter? Does the type of matter make any difference? Is consciousness related to information processing?" Etc.
In short, yes, I think we could understand a great deal about the explanation. If that's the case, there's nothing stopping us from figuring out those answers ourselves, so I think mysterianism is a copout.
Can you address the point I made about consciousness emerging from switching actions? Do you think that's possible?
I came to the conclusion that what is observed is necessarily apparent because it can be brought into question NOT because we know it with absolute certainty.
Cheerio, old chap!
Science "pursues knowledge" and AFAIK philosophy does not (but rather makes explicit and interprets (for flourishing) what we do not perhaps, cannot know). In either regard, "The Simulation Hypothesis" seems to me an idle thought-experiment.
That's a good way to put it. :up:
Hi, Rogue AI.
I'm sorry, but I don't have enough knowledge on this to form a defensible position.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
I guess the empirical cases would be:
1. Someone somewhere knows something or
2. Nobody anywhere knows anything.
It seems pretty self-evident to me that 2 is false. By whatever criterion or standard of knowledge you might pick, it must be the case that somebody knows something. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that everybody knows something.