Has consciousness been fully explained?

[AlBell]

Um, we do believe simulated life is alive. In the space of the simulation.

And you'd be wrong. The only life involved is the human(s) who prepared the simulation.

Just as life in our space is only alive within that same space.

EDIT -- An interesting tidbit is that westprog has outright stated that if we are in fact in a simulation right now then we are neither real nor conscious. Do you share that sentiment?

Yes. We'd have just pushed the consciousness (and life) problem to the maker(s) of the simulation that is "us".

If that scenario is The Answer, one may conclude God exists (for us simulations).

 

[rocketdodger]

And you'd be wrong. The only life involved is the human(s) who prepared the simulation.

Unless we are in a simulation.

Yes. We'd have just pushed the consciousness (and life) problem to the maker(s) of the simulation that is "us".

Naw. More like "shared" it. Because we can simulate too. And the maker(s) of the simulation that is "us" might be in a simulation themselves.

If that scenario is The Answer, one may conclude God exists (for us simulations).

Correct.

But nobody said it was the "Answer."

It is just something you have to account for -- if we are in a simulation ourselves, what does it imply for the simulations we create?

Since we can never prove that we are not in a simulation ourselves, it seems like one might want a universal view that is consistent with the possibility. Or you could just say "poppycock, we are real, end of story," and end the conversation right there.

 

[rocketdodger]

if computation were as well-defined a concept as force, then it could rightfully take its place in the physics textbooks and we could clearly see when computation is taking place and when it is not.

orly?

if running were as well-defined a concept as force, then it could rightfully take its place in the physics textbooks and we could clearly see when running is taking place and when it is not.

if metabolism were as well-defined a concept as force, then it could rightfully take its place in the physics textbooks and we could clearly see when metabolism is taking place and when it is not.

if oxidation were as well-defined a concept as force, then it could rightfully take its place in the physics textbooks and we could clearly see when oxidation is taking place and when it is not.

if precipitation were as well-defined a concept as force, then it could rightfully take its place in the physics textbooks and we could clearly see when precipitation is taking place and when it is not.

Should I continue?

 

[Third Eye Open]

Or you could just say "poppycock, we are real, end of story," and end the conversation right there.

I tend to take this point of view. If we don't define ourselves as 'real' then what is there that could possibly be 'real'? Can some objects be 'more real' than other objects? What would that mean?

Musings on whether we are in a simulation or not seem pointless IMO, because what would change about the universe if we found that it is simulated?

 

[AlBell]

Since we can never prove that we are not in a simulation ourselves, it seems like one might want a universal view that is consistent with the possibility. Or you could just say "poppycock, we are real, end of story," and end the conversation right there.

I go with that one, and no, life in your simulation is not alive.

Also, can we prove The Solipsist is not The Answer?

 

[my_wan]

Um, we do believe simulated life is alive. In the space of the simulation.

And you'd be wrong. The only life involved is the human(s) who prepared the simulation.

I would be more apt to say life is possible in a simulation. Life as we define it has many properties other than intelligence. Evolution, reproduction with mutation, etc. A simulation is nothing more than an environment, which is physically real even for a simulation. You can't after all make a simulation without physically real equipment using real physical laws. Unless your Harry Potter you can't use made up laws to do anything.

Yes. We'd have just pushed the consciousness (and life) problem to the maker(s) of the simulation that is "us".

If that scenario is The Answer, one may conclude God exists (for us simulations).

It only explicitly involves humans if humans are the physically machines dictating the actions that provide the continuity to the simulated events, like the pen and paper sophia. Once the simulation runs autonomously it can't be said we are what provides the sophia, intelligence, etc., to the simulation. The laws of physics is what is required to build it and for it to run autonomously. Just like the laws of physics is what provides our abilities and properties.

To presume you provide the intelligence of an autonomous simulation, just because you built it, is tantamount to saying your children can't have a separate life independent from what you provided, because you in effect built them and placed them in an environment to grow. Though with decidedly unskilled labor .

 

[AlBell]

That being my point. We do know how to make 'autonomous agents' using the appropriate hardware (well, actually wetware) substrate.

When we humans manage an 'autonomous agent' built on a different hardware model we (well, our descendents in the far far future) can discuss if it's alive and conscious.

Computer simulations are never going to be either alive or conscious, other than demonstrating the aliveness and consciousness of the programmer.

Yeah, I know: SRIP blah blah blah.

 

[my_wan]

For some of us the idea behind actually thinking through and debating these issues is to push our ideas of what's needed to push the technology we have now to the next level, so our descendants will have something to debate. Technology doesn't just happen on its own, yet.

 

[Dancing David]

What is this "highest expression of life" thingy you talk about?

Anthrocentrism.

"Life, don't talk to me about life."
Marvin

 

[my_wan]

All life is autocentric. We accept it as a natural function in ecology, such as with predators in the wild. Yet, as far as we know, we are the only ones that take issue with it in ourselves.

I have no issue with anthropocentrism. It's a necessary function for us as well, and is the reason we should exercise care with the ecology and all life. I do rebut when people fail to recognize anthropocentrism and its effects on their perspectives. Another one of those qualia issues that must be viewed with skepticism.

 

[rocketdodger]

Musings on whether we are in a simulation or not seem pointless IMO, because what would change about the universe if we found that it is simulated?

Well, there would be a very big change on these forums -- certain people would have to finally face facts.

If you claim that the only "real" X can be here in our space, and that anything resembling X in a simulation space with respect to our space isn't "real" I.E. is it not another X, just a "simulated X," then the knowledge that we were in a simulation to begin with sort of blows your claim out of the water.

So such knowledge would just sort of forcibly expose the undercurrent of illogical viewpoints that seems to flow in threads on this issue.

Of course, I could be wrong, since it is obvious to anyone who actually ponders the issue that since it is impossible to determine whether we are in a simulation to begin with then it is clearly possible for life and consciousness to exist within a simulation, and there are still a whole bunch of people that can't seem to understand that mathematical fact. So if such people are already oblivious to fact why would a "stronger" fact change their minds?

 

[rocketdodger]

Also, can we prove The Solipsist is not The Answer?

You don't need to.

As long as your internal model of the universe is consistent, multiple "answers" can coexist.

Solipsism is a moot issue because even if it were true the universe would still appear as if it were not true, by definition.

People understand this and nobody goes around claiming "I am 100% certain that solipsism is not true." They just ignore the possibility because it has no impact on anything at all -- other than philosophical arguments.

Likewise with simulations. If we are in a simulation then by definition the universe will appear to us as if we were not in a simulation -- that is the whole point of a simulation.

But if there is something you believe that is only true if we are not in a simulation, you put yourself in a pickle by introducing a big inconsistency in your own logic. Look:

1) It impossible to determine if one is in a simulation.
2) Life and consciousness only exist outside of simulations.
3) Life and consciousness exist in our universe.

By 2) and 3) we can conclude we are not in a simulation. But 1) states that it is impossible to make that determination. INCONSISTENCY ALERT

So what are you going to change to not be logically inconsistent? Are you going to stick your head in the sand like so many other people here? Or are you going to rethink premise 1) and 2)?

If you want to rethink the premises, then you should note that premise 1) is a mathematical fact and premise 2) is ARBITRARY. Hmmm .... which one is a good candidate for re-thinking?

 

[AlBell]

Anthrocentrism.

"Life, don't talk to me about life."
Marvin

And don't pretend science fiction is science.

 

[westprog]

Well, there would be a very big change on these forums -- certain people would have to finally face facts.

If you claim that the only "real" X can be here in our space, and that anything resembling X in a simulation space with respect to our space isn't "real" I.E. is it not another X, just a "simulated X," then the knowledge that we were in a simulation to begin with sort of blows your claim out of the water.

So such knowledge would just sort of forcibly expose the undercurrent of illogical viewpoints that seems to flow in threads on this issue.

Of course, I could be wrong, since it is obvious to anyone who actually ponders the issue that since it is impossible to determine whether we are in a simulation to begin with then it is clearly possible for life and consciousness to exist within a simulation, and there are still a whole bunch of people that can't seem to understand that mathematical fact. So if such people are already oblivious to fact why would a "stronger" fact change their minds?

Blurred important distinction #142 - a simulation need not be a computation. We could well be in a simulation that is not a computation. That would have no implications that a computation could be conscious.

 

[rocketdodger]

Blurred important distinction #142 - a simulation need not be a computation. We could well be in a simulation that is not a computation. That would have no implications that a computation could be conscious.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

[bluskool]

Of course, I could be wrong, since it is obvious to anyone who actually ponders the issue that since it is impossible to determine whether we are in a simulation to begin with then it is clearly possible for life and consciousness to exist within a simulation...

If you really mean that life and consciousness exist within a simulation, then you must mean they are extra properties (dualism or some sort of "emergent property" idea). Perhaps you meant to say that a simulation of life and a simulation of consciousness could exist within a simulation of the universe. Do you think that the simulation of consciousness would need to be put into the system or would it just sort of happen?

 

[my_wan]

If you really mean that life and consciousness exist within a simulation, then you must mean they are extra properties (dualism or some sort of "emergent property" idea). Perhaps you meant to say that a simulation of life and a simulation of consciousness could exist within a simulation of the universe. Do you think that the simulation of consciousness would need to be put into the system or would it just sort of happen?

No. Why do you equate extra properties or dualism with "emergent property"? There is no dualism. We have a mind body connection, placebos have real biochemistry effects, etc., exactly because the mind is not a dualism or extra property. "Emergent properties" are well understood in many phenomena, and in many cases are a predictable aspects of many mechanistic system ensembles. Thus they are part and parcel to the mechanics of physical systems, such as gas laws and thermodynamics for instance. Not some extra dualistic properties to the system. Same thing for insect hive intelligence that exceeds the intelligence of individual insects, which we well understand the mechanics of in some insect hives. It's neither dualistic nor extra independent properties. Emergent properties are not 'some sort of idea', it is well definable and predictable consequences of the underlying mechanics.

 

[westprog]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

It means that it is possible to simulate something in a non-computational way.

 

[bluskool]

No. Why do you equate extra properties or dualism with "emergent property"?

The word "or" means the opposite of equate.

ETA: An emergent property is an extra property. But an emergent property is not the same as dualism since the emergent property is still physical in nature.

 

[rocketdodger]

Perhaps you meant to say that a simulation of life and a simulation of consciousness could exist within a simulation of the universe.

If you want to say it like that, fine. As long as you understand that we might be simulated life talking about simulated consciousness in our simulated universe.

I don't see the need to make such a distinction, though. We are alive, we are conscious, relative to the space we inhabit. If we create a simulation, and there is simulated life in that simulation, then that life is alive relative to the space it inhabits.

It is always relative to the same space.

The strawman people are up in arms about is the claim that a simulated cell would be alive relative to our space. But that is absurd, and nobody has made such a claim. Quite obviously such a cell would not be alive relative to our space because it is nothing more than bits of data in a computer in our space.

That is such a stupid claim, in fact, that I didn't think it was necessary to clarify that I was not making it. I didn't think I needed to say "when I claim that a cell in a simulation is alive, I mean it is alive relative to the simulation space it inhabits, not that it is alive relative to our space." Apparently I did need to say that, though.