Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Meed]

Water in a simulation is real water in the simulation. It isn't the same as water 'out here'. Life in a simulation is real life. It just isn't the same as life 'out here'. The reason for this is because there are different rules for what we call matter here and what counts as matter 'there'.

Hmm, I thought in our back and forth we had reached an agreement that water in a simulation is not real water. Additionally that there is not really a separate world created by the simulation. I understand why someone might talk in those terms, but it seems unnecessarily confusing to revert back to that language when its use was a significant point of contention (or did I misunderstand?).

As I recall, we agreed that a simulated orange is not really an orange, that simulated water is not really wet and there is no actual "in the simulation" outside of our terminologies of "polite fiction". That is, the simulation is actually just a rule-governed pattern of electrons moving through gates. This exists in "our world". And some subset of its pattern of outputs is isomorphic to the physical system it is simulating.

Where was disagreed was your claim that simulated actions, unlike objects are "real" (or as "equally real" as what they are simulating).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hmm, I thought in our back and forth we had reached an agreement that water in a simulation is not real water. Additionally that there is not really a separate world created by the simulation. I understand why someone might talk in those terms, but it seems unnecessarily confusing to revert back to that language when its use was a significant point of contention (or did I misunderstand?).

As I recall, we agreed that a simulated orange is not really an orange, that simulated water is not really wet and there is no actual "in the simulation" outside of our terminologies of "polite fiction". That is, the simulation is actually just a rule-governed pattern of electrons moving through gates. This exists in "our world". And some subset of its pattern of outputs is isomorphic to the physical system it is simulating.

Where was disagreed was your claim that simulated actions, unlike objects are "real" (or as "equally real" as what they are simulating).

It is not real water in the real world. You cannot splash around in it here. But the people in the simulation certainly can. If they couldn't, then it wouldn't be the simulation we are supposed to be discussing.

In the simulation it is real water for the folks experiencing it within the simulation. If water in the simulation did not act like water does here, then we are discussing something entirely different from a simulation that models things down to the atomic level. A simulated orange is not an orange in the 'real world'. But in the simulation it is a real orange to the folks in the simulation. I've never said anything different, so I apologize if you got the wrong impression.

The polite fiction concerned the way we speak about programs and programming languages. They are just easy ways of helping us to understand how we can get electrons to pass through gates to produce the changes we want.

I don't think simulated actions are 'real'; I think actions are equivalent whether they occur in a simulation or in the real world.

 

[Meed]

One might say it's monistic, but you have changed the basic stuff (from the pov of the simulating world: from physical "strings", assuming they are basic, to cyber-strings, which are data packets programmed to behave exactly the same).

Part of the argument is there is no dualism because there is no undefined interaction between two different, basic stuffs.

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).

My answer is no. Physical processes that have a one to one relationship to an imagined world do not make that world real. If a simulation is a physical system who's outputs or processes (or more specifically, a subset of them) are isomorphic to some imagined physical system, then the later is still imagined. If we remove the importance of the imagining and say it is isomorphic to an imaginable physical system, regardless of whether it has been actually imagined, then we would have to hold that there are an infinite amount of "real" simulated systems created by the infinite number of conceivable isomorphic mappings resultant from the physical systems that exist in the "real world". There is no reason (that I can see) to believe that there are actually an infinite number of "real" "worlds" created by the infinite number of conceivable isomorphic mappings. Mapping, analogy and relationship constructions are mental exercises, and would be otherwise meaningless.

 

[Meed]

It is not real water in the real world.

And do we or do we not agree that there is no actual "other world" created by a simulation? If so, we can drop the "in the real world" qualifier, since there is no other world to be real in, and simply say "it is not real water".

I may have overestimated the extent to which we agree, based on my interpretation of posts such as this one (from earlier in the thread):

I think he meant it as a "world" -- meaning scare quotes and all. There is no physical reality to a simulation. The simulation is the process of electrons moving around through gates, but we can talk about that process as "another world" just as we can talk about a simulated orange as an orange. It isn't really an orange; it is really a process, an action. I think that's all he meant; at least that's how I understood it.

Moving on.

You cannot splash around in it here. But the people in the simulation certainly can. In the simulation it is real water for the folks experiencing it within the simulation.

But they are also not real.

If water in the simulation did not act like water does here, then we are discussing something entirely different from a simulation that models things down to the atomic level. A simulated orange is not an orange in the 'real world'. But in the simulation it is a real orange to the folks in the simulation.

But there is not actually any "in the simulation". That's just a way of talking about it. In reality the simulation is electronics moving through gates and creating some sort of pattern isomorphic to what it is simulating. That pattern exists in the "real world" and the "real world" alone. We can imagine it as a simulated world if we choose to.

The polite fiction concerned the way we speak about programs and programming languages. They are just easy ways of helping us to understand how we can get electrons to pass through gates to produce the changes we want.

I don't think simulated actions are 'real'; I think actions are equivalent whether they occur in a simulation or in the real world.

Gotcha.

 

[westprog]

No. Simulated water is real within the simulation, and real in the 'real world.'

Simulated water is water within the simulation.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I find the concept of multiple worlds unsupported. All I'm prepared to accept is that certain mathematical relationships can exist in multiple contexts. A simulated lemon isn't "a lemon within the simulation". It's just an illustration of some aspect of some qualities of a lemon.

 

[Clive]

As to monkeys placing rocks, it would be in the action that a simulation takes place; and, yes, it would have to follow a very specific sequence to create meaning. Not any sequence of actions can create a particular type of meaning.

The surprising answer, is that yes, a universe is being simulated. It doesn't matter who understands what, or if there is any consciousness behind the activity, but as long as there is activity that accurately simulates what happens in the (speculatively simulated) universe, that universe is being simulated, and that means that the simulated universe is functional.

Okay, so now let's extend the story further. After stick figure fella has corrected the monkey errors (simulating the entire history of the universe while doing so, because even though he only moved a few rocks here and there he also applied rule 110 accurately across the full pattern (and let's assume also in the appropriate row order to get the required "meaning" as per Ichneumonwasp's comment) some other "intelligent observer" merely examines the completed pattern of rocks (in the appropriate row order if that matters to you) and confirms absolutely that rule 110 has been applied consistently in order to generate it. Does that constitute another "simulation"? What activity has to take place for a simulation to occur?

 

[Dancing David]

A nice big piece of cake with your tea

"Cake or death?"
Eddie Izard

 

[westprog]

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

No. Einstein explained time, and how it works. He didn't deny that there was such a thing. Within a given frame of reference, time operates just like Newton thought.

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



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

Thought experiments can also be used to reason about things we don't know if we can even do in theory.


Even if this world is a simulation (and we don't have any reason to suppose that it is) it does not imply that we can create simulations ourselves which are "real". The laws of nature which we have to work with may not have any relationship to the laws of nature used to create the simulation we are in. Indeed, there's no way we could speculate as to what they might be.

 

[westprog]

In the simulation it is real water for the folks experiencing it within the simulation.

This is begging the question on a massive scale. The possibility that there are folks in the simulation is precisely what the debate is about. If there are folks in the simulation, then presumably they are conscious. Otherwise, they don't experience water (or "water") at all.

 

[Dancing David]

The TT is not just about whether a machine is intelligent, its about whether the human judge, judges it so.

And that, as they say, is all we have got. There is no consciousness, there are only events we label as consciousness.

 

[Dancing David]

One interesting aspect to simulations of our own universe or own brain (plus sufficient environmental context) is that there always appears to be at least one "god" from the perspective of the entities within the simulation, even if they cannot detect it. On the other hand many claim that the "real universe" definitely has no god. Does this not imply that those same people are 100% sure our universe is not a simulation?

Show the defintion of gad and teh evidence.

What the fred are you talking about, there are NO simulations of our universe or brain that have a concept of god.Where are these simulations you are referencing?

 

[dlorde]

Okay, so now let's extend the story further. After stick figure fella has corrected the monkey errors (simulating the entire history of the universe while doing so, because even though he only moved a few rocks here and there he also applied rule 110 accurately across the full pattern (and let's assume also in the appropriate row order to get the required "meaning" as per Ichneumonwasp's comment)

What stick figure fella effectively did was to take a simulation of the universe at a simulated moment in time, which had errors (e.g. corrupted in a backup operation), correct the errors between simulated time ticks, and start it going again. When the simulation time tick of the simulated universe is the movement of a rock, it's not easy to say when the simulation is running and when it isn't. By correcting the errors, the entire history hasn't been simulated from scratch, it has 'simply' been changed enough to make it coherent again. To a simulated inhabitant, no difference will be apparent, because any memories of weirdness encoded in his brain will have been corrected along with the errors that led to them.

some other "intelligent observer" merely examines the completed pattern of rocks (in the appropriate row order if that matters to you) and confirms absolutely that rule 110 has been applied consistently in order to generate it. Does that constitute another "simulation"? What activity has to take place for a simulation to occur?

Just keep moving the rocks.

 

[dlorde]

"Cake or death?"
Eddie Izard

I'll have the Penne a la Arrabiata...

 

[dlorde]

No. Einstein explained time, and how it works. He didn't deny that there was such a thing. Within a given frame of reference, time operates just like Newton thought.

This is accurately modelled in the simulation. To the simulated people it's totally 'real'

Thought experiments can also be used to reason about things we don't know if we can even do in theory.

Yup, even things we know we can't do even in theory. Imagine driving a car at the speed of light - what happens when you turn on the headlights?

Even if this world is a simulation (and we don't have any reason to suppose that it is) it does not imply that we can create simulations ourselves which are "real". The laws of nature which we have to work with may not have any relationship to the laws of nature used to create the simulation we are in. Indeed, there's no way we could speculate as to what they might be.

Yup, that's why it's a thought experiment... but if you can conceive of it as a simulation, with all that's required to generate our consciousness as part of the simulation, then we can discuss why consciousness might or might not actually be computable in practice. OTOH, if you can't conceive of it, i.e. that no matter how detailed we might make the simulation, you don't see how consciousness could be included, then we can discuss the reasons for that...

 

[AlBell]

And that, as they say, is all we have got.

From my viewpoint, concerning my consciousness, no, that isn't all I got.

And I strongly suspect that's the same for you from your viewpoint.

There is no consciousness, there are only events we label as consciousness.

I'd say you have it exactly backwards; from our respective viewpoints we have nothing but our, respective, individual consciousness and how that perceives reaction to photons and gravitons. As yet we don't have evidence that the other bosons are invoved in effecting consciousness.

 

[Clive]

What stick figure fella effectively did was to take a simulation of the universe at a simulated moment in time, which had errors (e.g. corrupted in a backup operation), correct the errors between simulated time ticks, and start it going again. When the simulation time tick of the simulated universe is the movement of a rock, it's not easy to say when the simulation is running and when it isn't. By correcting the errors, the entire history hasn't been simulated from scratch, it has 'simply' been changed enough to make it coherent again. To a simulated inhabitant, no difference will be apparent, because any memories of weirdness encoded in his brain will have been corrected along with the errors that led to them.

I disagree when you say that the simulation hasn't been run from scratch. Stick figure fella scanned the entire pattern as left behind by the careless monkeys (and I allowed that he did that in whatever order was required to keep "meaning" intact if anybody considers that to be an important requirement) in order to ensure the entire pattern conformed to a series of rule 110 productions when he was done. In other words he applied rule 110 at each point in the grid, but only changed things when required. I can't see why you would say this wasn't running a full simulation. Similarly, if someone (or a machine) effectively does the same thing, then I claim that is also equivalent to running the full simulation. Why would you have to move anything around if it was all already as you needed it to be?

I claim that scanning the full pattern and verifying it is correct is a "computation" just as much as creating the pattern from scratch by moving rocks around.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And do we or do we not agree that there is no actual "other world" created by a simulation? If so, we can drop the "in the real world" qualifier, since there is no other world to be real in, and simply say "it is not real water".

I may have overestimated the extent to which we agree, based on my interpretation of posts such as this one (from earlier in the thread):

It depends entirely on perspective. For people in the simulation their world is their world. Whether we want to call it that is an entirely different matter. What we agree on is that their world is not made of the stuff of our world. Nothing in that area directly affects anything 'here'. I don't know what you thought we agreed to or not. There is no physical reality to a simulation; that is correct (and by that I mean that oranges in the simulation are not made of the stuff that we call atoms; they are made of what people in the simulation would call atoms). The reality that anyone reports from such a world is not based on them experiencing our physics.

But they are also not real.

To anyone in the simulation, any person that is part of the simulation, the orange and the water are as real as anything that we experience. If they are not, then that is not the simulation that was proposed.

But there is not actually any "in the simulation". That's just a way of talking about it. In reality the simulation is electronics moving through gates and creating some sort of pattern isomorphic to what it is simulating. That pattern exists in the "real world" and the "real world" alone. We can imagine it as a simulated world if we choose to.

There is no "in the simulation", even if we can see it occurring on a screen? What does that mean?

That the simulation is created by the rules governing electrons moving through gates is correct. That does not mean that we imagine it as a simulated world. The simulation is a world that, by definition, matches this world in terms of particles and physical rules and the unfolding of the universe to a T. In this world everything that happens here, happens there. That means that any people who are here are recreated there. The people who are recreated there experience water just as we experience water here. If they did not, then we are talking about something other than the simulation that has been proposed.

I still think you guys are not understanding what is being proposed as the thought experiment here.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is begging the question on a massive scale. The possibility that there are folks in the simulation is precisely what the debate is about. If there are folks in the simulation, then presumably they are conscious. Otherwise, they don't experience water (or "water") at all.

Please tell me that you are joking. The simulation is a recreation of the world to the Planck scale; it is not a proof. If you do not think that there are people who interact in the simulation, then that is fine, but you have demonstrated that you think there is something more to consciousness than interacting particles. Which means dualism -- which is what the exercise is meant to uncover.

So, if you agree to a dualist position, then there is nothing more to discuss with this sort of thought experiment.

Once again, the thought experiment accounts for all particles in the universe and their interactions. If particles in the universe and their interactions do not provide what is necessary for consciousness, then you believe there is something more to consciousness. It is that simple.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Okay, so now let's extend the story further. After stick figure fella has corrected the monkey errors (simulating the entire history of the universe while doing so, because even though he only moved a few rocks here and there he also applied rule 110 accurately across the full pattern (and let's assume also in the appropriate row order to get the required "meaning" as per Ichneumonwasp's comment) some other "intelligent observer" merely examines the completed pattern of rocks (in the appropriate row order if that matters to you) and confirms absolutely that rule 110 has been applied consistently in order to generate it. Does that constitute another "simulation"? What activity has to take place for a simulation to occur?

I would say no. Observation of where rocks are placed would constitute observation of how a universe could be simulated but would not be a simulation.

The simulation is an action.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I find the concept of multiple worlds unsupported. All I'm prepared to accept is that certain mathematical relationships can exist in multiple contexts. A simulated lemon isn't "a lemon within the simulation". It's just an illustration of some aspect of some qualities of a lemon.

Every time you say that you demonstrate that you are not following the logic of the simulation but are talking about how we simulate lemons in computers now. That is not the situation that Pixy outlined and is not what I am talking about. That is not what it means to simulate a world to an atomic scale.

I just don't understand how you (and several others in this thread) can be corrected repeatedly and keep saying the same wrong thing.