The point of bringing up the Matrix and "Experience Machine" is that nobody got out of the matrix by hitting themselves on the head. Nobody makes the sense-data objection to Nozick's "Experience Machine". Hitting yourself only proves that you are experiencing something. It doesn't tell you anything about what that something is. The sensation of pain could come from a computer program, be thought up in a dream, given to you as a brain-in-a-vat, sent by nerves to a physical brain, etc.
My point was that your analogy was false, since you obviously aren't referring to the same movies I saw, or the same themes the writers themselves had intended for it. The character known as "Kid" or Michael Karl Popper, was featured in the
Animatrix short "Kid's Story" as one who liberated himself from the Matrix. In the same series, the track runner character Dan Davis in the short "World Record" temporarily freed himself from the Matrix reality by ignoring the pain in his muscles, which were not really experiencing pain. Your analogy fails even further when you consider that there were people living outside the Matrix reaching in all the time.
Why did you bring up The Matrix at all? Just to argue that a simulated reality is a possibility, while disregarding all the other factors that it was based on? I hope you know that the Wachowski brothers made their millions by marketing it as
fiction. Check out the
official website for explanations of the philosophical themes.
1) How do you know a simulation would have glitches at all? If it did, how do you know those glitches be noticeable? Maybe they would occur only at the sub-atomic level.
If we're still talking about the movies, the glitches were identified as anything that broke the normal rules. Based on that, your arguments that we can't truly "know" anything about reality fall apart when you consider that knowing the basic physical laws of the world, even the Matrix world, would be necessary to identify any potential glitches. If this is about some hypothetical perfect simulation, then my point about knowing the physical laws within that simulation still stands, as it would be necessary for one to function within it. In a hypothetical perfect simulation, the hidden, secondary, outside, or real world would actually have no influence on our lives whatsoever, therefore the argument that we can't "know" anything about said outside world is rather moot.
2) By claiming all simulations would have glitches, you're assuming you're in a "glitch-free" reality. How you prove this without resorting to circular reasoning?
Easy, just give me another reality to compare it to. I'm sure that if you're basing an argument on the possibility of an external reality, in order to draw conclusions about this reality, then you should have no problem fleshing out the details. Go ahead, I'll wait.
3) Even granting that all simulations would not be perfect, it doesn't follow that reality is materialistic. I don't see why an idealistic reality (reality as a projection of mind or God) couldn't be error-free.
This presupposes God / that reality is contingent on the mind, but that's probably beside the point. See what I said about the perfect simulation. If this were really the case, then the outside reality would have no effect on us whatsoever, therefore there's no reason not to treat the "illusion" as reality for all intents and purposes. Similarly if God existed entirely outside the universe, then he wouldn't be anything that concerns us, since he'd have no impact on our lives at all. It's not really a problem for materialism if you claim that reality is a flawless simulation, because you've provided nothing meaningful about the theoretical outside world.
This could still all be true in a simulation, dream, experience machine, etc. Replace "physical brain" with "idealistic brain" (or lines of code relating to a brain) and you would have the same effect. Again, you're assuming materiastic cause and effect relationships are true.
I'm not assuming, I'm saying they're demonstrable. You haven't provided any evidence that the reverse is true. Mistreat your body and your mind suffers. Change your mind and, well, the effects on your body are limited to the relationship between positive thinking and long term health. Mind you, the latter is a scientific finding based on studies of how brain chemistry influences the body (you know, materialism).
Not necessarily. It could be solipsisism and you have limited yourself out of fear that the truth (that only you exist) would be too much to handle. Curing yourself or performing miracles might reveal the truth of things.
Again with the mind-reading. But I digress. You're basing your hypothetical statement on speculation and a possibility that has zero evidence to back it up. If you're looking for what might be true, wild guesses aren't usually a good place to start.
Why do people drink, kill themselves, commit robberies or do all other sorts of stupid things? People are conflicted. It doesn't follow that if idealism is true the world would be a paradise. Also, if reality is theistic, God may have reasons we can't fathom for allowing the world to be the way it is.
You're analogizing making temporary mistakes / lapses in judgment to deliberately causing suffering for oneself and all others in all places at all times. That's a lot like saying that because people make mistakes sometimes, we're all evil sinners from birth who can't redeem ourselves. Also, if you're making a theistic argument for theodicy, the only way to avoid special pleading is to avoid drawing any moral conclusions about God at all, but that's a different topic.
I admit that the overall ********** of the world is a problem for the idealist or theist (who believes in an all-loving powerful God). I don't think it's an insurmountable one, or changes the odds, but it does have to be addressed (and the poor quality of the world would go well with the idea of an evil genius running things). I don't think it's a problem for solipsism because you'd have to be crazy to make all this up and then hide the fact from yourself.
I don't see how what you just said demonstrates that the problem of evil isn't a problem for solipsism. Did you mean to say one
could be crazy and then made it up and hid the fact? It sounds more like one would
need to be crazy to create all the evil and suffering in the world and then hide the fact from oneself.
On an unrelated note, solipsism seems a lot like Christianity, in that there's only one true member at any given time.
This belongs in a different thread. I think we had different definitions of anti-science. I took it to mean Raelians had a belief in witchcraft and rejected science like some weird medieval cult. In fact, their worldview is based on science (cloning, bio-engineering, genetic modification, etc.)
Probably. I consider them anti-science because the basis for their beliefs, as well as their obsession with various scientific fields, is an idea that flies in the face of established scientific facts. It would be like someone who is obsessed with the fields of immunology, hematology, and phlebotomy only because he's convinced he's really a vampire.
What about a marine biologist who believes in God? Are they anti-science?
Didn't I say that one can believe in God and accept the conclusions of science, such as evolution? Didn't you say there's no way I'd ever change your mind? To echo the sentiment of Michael Shermer, what greater tool than science could God have bestowed upon us to understand and appreciate the splendor of his creation?
Go rent The Matrix, please, or read "The Experience Machine" by Robert Nozick (no, he's not a SF writer). As you read it (and the objections to it), you will notice that no one ever objects that a person in the experience machine would somehow be able to prove they were in the machine by hitting themselves on the head
