Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Using the definition of evolve as explicit in Theory of Evolution.

There is no physical evidence that a simulated organism can evolve nor that a simulated organism simulates evolution. The Theory of Evolution is based on and developed using physical evidence not mathematics. Darwin was not a mathematician.

So apart from being different arrangements of words there is no difference between the two ideas as they are both nonsense.

Physical evidence includes the evidence of your eyes. You see the simulated organism change over time. Does the organism evolve or is this just simulation of evolution?

If you want to be a wimp and worm out of this, just say so. This is a very straight forward question and your evasions are silly.

 

[dlorde]

You are saying that all simulations pass the Turing test because anything physical can be simulated using a Turing machine.

I say circular reasoning.

The Turing Test requires at least one non-simulated human to judge the simulation.

It's a question of levels of abstraction. if, for the sake of argument, we ourselves were part of a simulation, then the Turing Test would require us (simulated) humans to judge the simulations we had created within our own simulation. Further, as has already been pointed out, with a sufficiently extensive simulated environment, the human simulations we created could, in principle, create their own simulations and run their own Turing tests on them.

What I haven't heard explicitly stated is that (assuming an ideal simulation), it doesn't matter which level of simulation you look at, the results will look the same, i.e. human. The results, the behaviours, are independent of the level of abstraction at which they occur.

This is fun!

 

[AlBell]

Do you guys really not understand any of this? Is this the real problem -- that you just don't understand the argument at all?

Does anyone? blobru post 2238 lays it out nicely.

 

[Beth]

Their water is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen.

No, it's not. Their water is composed of electrical impulses on a computer. Those electrical impulses are programed to simulate water. They might have even been programmed to simulate the behavior of hydrogen and oxygen atoms of our reality, but that isn't the same as water in our reality.

In their world what they define as hydrogen acts in their world exactly as hydrogen does in ours. What the heck is hydrogen anyway? Can you give me a definition down the level of ultimate reality?

No. But I can define the difference between a hydrogen atom and electrical impulses in a computer programmed to simulate a hydrogen atom.

We can be in the god position and say -- hey that's not really hydrogen -- and we can complain that they do not understand the nature of reality. But we may be in the same situation.

Yes, we might.

In that world, what they see as hydrogen is hydrogen. It is real hydrogen to them. Simulated hydrogen would be someone creating a program to show a stick and ball figure that we could call hydrogen. But that is not what we are discussing here.

I don't understand why you said this last sentence. Yes, that's one simulation of hydrogen and yes, that's not what we are discussing here. What point were you trying to make?

There are not two different meanings of 'real' at play.

Yes, there are. There is 'real' in the sense that you can drink water to satisfy thirst. And there is 'real' in the sense of simulated water satisfies the thirst of simulated creatures, but can never satisfy our thirst. That is two different meanings of 'real'.

There is no dualism in this. If you guys are seeing dualism, then you have misunderstood the whole point.

As you point out above, we might be in the same situation. Don't you term that conception of reality dualist when someone on this forum suggests it might be true for us? If not, could you explain what the difference you perceive is between the two situations aside from the role reversal? Or does the role reversal affect the definition of dualist?

How can I help because I think we are all lost in equivocation fallacies and misunderstandings here.

That's possible. It's easy to get confused in all the levels of abstraction.

 

[dlorde]

The resistance to the simulation argument seems to be there needs to be an underlying physics -- that of the computer switch sequences which are the uninterpreted data packets (plus the rules for interpretation, which are... interesting, ontologically; hard to categorize, especially from the pov of the simulated world: metaphysical? irrelevant?) -- beneath the simulated world which isn't necessarily there in the simulating world. Physical changes in the simulating world are logically interpreted (in the simulating world) as a simulation: as physical changes in the simulated world.

So there is a one-to-one correspondence between logical changes in the interpreted switch sequences and 'physical' changes in the basic stuff in the simulated world.

The question is: is that one-to-one correspondence sufficient for a "real" world, as we experience reality? If not, why not?

It's a headscratcher, alright (or a simulation of one).

The underlying physics supporting the simulation isn't visible or relevant within the simulation. All that is required is that the simulation covers every aspect of the simulated environment.

 

[Clive]

Simulated water is real within the simulation, and real in the 'real world.'

Just to be clear, does this mean you are saying that the simulated water is also real water in the 'real world'? Or is there a "not" missing before the second "real"?

 

[AlBell]

The underlying physics supporting the simulation isn't visible or relevant within the simulation. All that is required is that the simulation covers every aspect of the simulated environment.

Where does 'real time' enter the simulation? As we currently understand physics the level of detail we're suddenly pretending our simulation requires ( a simulated person will be 'seeing' things) requires more computing power than could ever be provided in this universe. I'd think this would be true even if the simulation were running many many magnitudes more slowly, and in that case we'd never be able to relate to the simulation in any meaningful to us way.

What am I missing?

 

[!Kaggen]

And there are 354.65 angels dancing on the point of a pin...

This was a joke..

I just think that we need to regain perspective every now and then by reminding ourselves that humans are capable of getting a bit lost in their thoughts.

You agreed with this argument.

I think it is the case.

I made my case after this sentence

This is what is implied by those that make the bare assertion that a human cannot tell the difference between a simulation and reality.

I can see that you do not understand what he said, then. What he said, if you read him in the context as it was meant, is that if you were in the simulation that would be your reality. What occurs in the simulation, because of the way the simulation is set up -- the rules of the game -- is real to anyone that is in the simulation (to any 'simulated people'). What they see is their real world.

Do you guys really not understand any of this? Is this the real problem -- that you just don't understand the argument at all?

You keep demonstrating to me that you haven't the foggiest notion what is being discussed while proclaiming that you understand it all.

Can you explain the argument to me so that I have some sense that you even know what is being discussed?

We could start easily by one of you simply answering the question about the evolution of the simulated DNA (or organism) and not playing word games with it.

The idea of a Turing test is to test whether a simulation is equivalent to reality. If the claim is that reality is a simulation, well then the Turing test is useless. If the claim is we will never know whether reality is a simulation, then its religion.

Evolve has a very specific meaning in the Theory of Evolution. Using the same concept out of context to get your idea across is word games.

 

[!Kaggen]

Physical evidence includes the evidence of your eyes. You see the simulated organism change over time. Does the organism evolve or is this just simulation of evolution?

If you want to be a wimp and worm out of this, just say so. This is a very straight forward question and your evasions are silly.

Getting personal sure helps your case

 

[!Kaggen]

It's a question of levels of abstraction. if, for the sake of argument, we ourselves were part of a simulation, then the Turing Test would require us (simulated) humans to judge the simulations we had created within our own simulation. Further, as has already been pointed out, with a sufficiently extensive simulated environment, the human simulations we created could, in principle, create their own simulations and run their own Turing tests on them.

What I haven't heard explicitly stated is that (assuming an ideal simulation), it doesn't matter which level of simulation you look at, the results will look the same, i.e. human. The results, the behaviours, are independent of the level of abstraction at which they occur.

This is fun!

Unfortunately the only evidence we have for this is more abstractions.
So enjoy the fun, just don't expect us to believe in this new religion.

 

[PixyMisa]

Just to be clear, does this mean you are saying that the simulated water is also real water in the 'real world'? Or is there a "not" missing before the second "real"?

No, he means that it exists as something in our world.

 

[!Kaggen]

Where does 'real time' enter the simulation? As we currently understand physics the level of detail we're suddenly pretending our simulation requires ( a simulated person will be 'seeing' things) requires more computing power than could ever be provided in this universe. I'd think this would be true even if the simulation were running many many magnitudes more slowly, and in that case we'd never be able to relate to the simulation in any meaningful to us way.

What am I missing?

A nice big piece of cake with your tea

 

[dlorde]

Where does 'real time' enter the simulation?

What is 'real time' ? Didn't Einstein put that one to bed?

As we currently understand physics the level of detail we're suddenly pretending our simulation requires ( a simulated person will be 'seeing' things) requires more computing power than could ever be provided in this universe. I'd think this would be true even if the simulation were running many many magnitudes more slowly, and in that case we'd never be able to relate to the simulation in any meaningful to us way.

That's why it has to be a thought experiment - it seems unlikely that even quantum computing could do the job.

What am I missing?

Abstraction. Thought experiments allow us to reason about things we can never do in practice. Ask Einstein about Special Relativity

 

[PixyMisa]

The idea of a Turing test is to test whether a simulation is equivalent to reality. If the claim is that reality is a simulation, well then the Turing test is useless.

No, because even if what we consider reality is a simulation, applying the Turing test to a simulated mind would be a comparison of two different simulations.

If the claim is we will never know whether reality is a simulation, then its religion.

Well, no.

 

[PixyMisa]

Unfortunately the only evidence we have for this is more abstractions.
So enjoy the fun, just don't expect us to believe in this new religion.

So, another one in the believes-in-magic column.

 

[PixyMisa]

Where does 'real time' enter the simulation? As we currently understand physics the level of detail we're suddenly pretending our simulation requires ( a simulated person will be 'seeing' things) requires more computing power than could ever be provided in this universe. I'd think this would be true even if the simulation were running many many magnitudes more slowly, and in that case we'd never be able to relate to the simulation in any meaningful to us way.

Why not? We do this all the time.

What am I missing?

Anything resembling an argument.

 

[!Kaggen]

Abstraction. Thought experiments allow us to reason about things we can never do in practice. Ask Einstein about Special Relativity

I practice consciousness all the time that I am awake, no need for thought experiments with this one.

 

[Clive]

No, he means that it exists as something in our world.

Okay - for some reason that interpretation wasn't apparent to me.

Changing tack slightly, do you think the exact value of pi is "real in the 'real world'"?

 

[dlorde]

Unfortunately the only evidence we have for this is more abstractions.

That's how thought experiments work.

So enjoy the fun, just don't expect us to believe in this new religion.

It's nothing to do with religion. It's rational speculation that might give us a different perspective on things.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, it's not. Their water is composed of electrical impulses on a computer. Those electrical impulses are programed to simulate water. They might have even been programmed to simulate the behavior of hydrogen and oxygen atoms of our reality, but that isn't the same as water in our reality.

You are simply confusing the levels of discussion. In their world, water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. If you do not understand that this is the case, then you do not understand the simulation as reductio or as thought experiment. It really is that plain and simple.

That we, using our god's eye level, can see that they have the wrong idea about reality from our perspective is entirely beside the point as far as they are concerned.

No. But I can define the difference between a hydrogen atom and electrical impulses in a computer programmed to simulate a hydrogen atom.

I don't understand why you said this last sentence. Yes, that's one simulation of hydrogen and yes, that's not what we are discussing here. What point were you trying to make?

OK, you are now demonstrating to me that you don't understand the simulation at all.

Yes, there are. There is 'real' in the sense that you can drink water to satisfy thirst. And there is 'real' in the sense of simulated water satisfies the thirst of simulated creatures, but can never satisfy our thirst. That is two different meanings of 'real'.

All I see is one meaning of the world real and two entirely different frames of reference. From one frame of reference only one of the two meanings of 'real' is correct.

As you point out above, we might be in the same situation. Don't you term that conception of reality dualist when someone on this forum suggests it might be true for us? If not, could you explain what the difference you perceive is between the two situations aside from the role reversal? Or does the role reversal affect the definition of dualist?

For us to be actual creatures based in matter and for there to be an entirely different type of creature 'above' us made of an entirely different type of substance is dualism

That we are just the actions in a computer and not made of matter from a different frame -- say there really is some other type creature made of matter and we are simply actions and not 'things' -- is not dualism. That still fits within the realm of monism.

That's possible. It's easy to get confused in all the levels of abstraction.

I'm sorry, and I don't intend to be mean, but I don't know how else to say this: I'm really getting the sense that you guys actually don't understand the basic argument.