Maybe life is a simulation.

[deadboy]

Well, "What is, is", is a first principle of ontology. How can I tell that I am? I am self-conscious, I have afective memory (not only intelectual), I have freedom to choose, I have deep feelings such as love or regret, I have hunger for the Infinite. You wouldn't be able to simulate all that, the complexity of the human being, for sure.

Actually..... so long as you wern't trying to actually predict anything, because chaos theory would make that impossible..... you actually... probably... could.

I mean, humans are simply baskets of controlled chemical reactions, you have enough processing power and enough detail on how the human mind works, which we may do in the future, I can't see why we couldn't.

And then, who is to say that if we were a simulation that the makers arn't even more complex than us, and therefore like us studying, say, frogs, they find our brain patterns primitive and therefore simulatable.

However, yes, the only downfall of the argument is perspective. If it were a simulation, there would only be the percieved effects of the brain outputted, whereas as we each see the world through a different perspective, and each can go through brain processes, this doesn't happen

[Valsum]

I mean, humans are simply baskets of controlled chemical reactions, you have enough processing power and enough detail on how the human mind works, which we may do in the future, I can't see why we couldn't.

You say things that sound quite well, despite that. No, no, and no. You can't reduce humans to chemical reactions and brain processes. If you do that, you kill humanity, it's that simple.

[Antichrist_Online]

Plato's Cave. [/Comment]

[deadboy]

I mean, humans are simply baskets of controlled chemical reactions, you have enough processing power and enough detail on how the human mind works, which we may do in the future, I can't see why we couldn't.

You say things that sound quite well, despite that. No, no, and no. You can't reduce humans to chemical reactions and brain processes. If you do that, you kill humanity, it's that simple.

What you just said came off as sounding really arrogant. It's like those people who used to say that there couldn't be such a thing as evolution because then we wouldn't have anything making us more special than the apes. But, well, evolution did happen, and we -are- just chemical reactions and brain processes, matter of fact

[Nalaris]

There must be something else, because those chemical reactions continue to fail to accurately predict human behavior in all but the most general terms. Of coures, we don't know every nuance of the human brain yet, that could be the explanation, but I don't think so. Until we unlock all those secrets, however, it is moot.

[UloDeTero]

This is interesting. I've been formulating a similar theory myself, that I've called Cantrianism. The main differences being that, whereas in Simulism everything is a result of the simulation (including mind) and the 'gods' are completely separate, in Cantrianism only the physics of reality are simulated and the 'gods' are the players of our reality in the same way that we are the players of Cantr. But there is much more to consider. I'm part-way through an article about this that may end up in the webzine.

[Note: This is only semi-serious and more of a thinking-exercise than an attempt to establish a new religion.]

[Russell of Los Angeles]

The article that lays out the complete argument for the possibility that our lives are part of a simulation is here: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

If you were to read it, you'd very soon come to where the author makes the assumption that the mind is caused by the brain, and that the same process can be recreated in other ways besides biological neural networks.

It's the common view among philosophers and scientists these days that the mind is caused by the brain. Personally, I don't think it is, so I don't think that consciousness can be recreated computationally, with a computer. Therefore, I don't believe that we are the simulated product of a computer. However, I don't see why whatever process does cause the mind cannot be recreated, duplicated, or otherwise simulated.

So, while I don't believe that we are the simulation of a computer because I don't agree with one of the major assumptions, I do think that the idea is extremely interesting, and I'll continue to argue for the sake of discussion.

Heh

Go study some metaphysics.

I have studied some metaphysics. Perhaps you could be more specific?

Ontology.

That's still quite broad. What would really help is if you made an argument.

Physical existence.

Well my simulated self needs to get some sleep. Hmmm, do zeros and ones need to sleep?

That might just be the effects of your sleep-meter getting low.

[N-Aldwitch]

Plato's Cave. [/Comment]

Which the Matrix revolves around (at least, the first one moreso)



What this guy has done is used an Impossible Argument, basically it's an argument that you can't prove wrong, but, you can't prove it right. It's an idiot's statement.


Think of it this way, here's my theory: in the middle of the sun there is an alien base that is resistant to the heat of the sun. They are looking at us right now but we can't see them for obvious reasons.


Can you prove this wrong? No. Because we can't enter the sun. And can't view inside the sun. (perhaps we can but just focus on the analogy here).

Can you prove this right? No. For the same reasons as above.


I really, really despise lazy fake-philosophers like this. Gets on my nerves. They think they have a valid idea/philosophy but it's just another Impossible Argument.



Yes, I study philosophy.

[Jos Elkink]

My goodness, I'm amazed how people answer questions philosophers are trying to answers for millenniums with just a simple sentence as if it's all obvious. It's an interesting thought experiment that you could go into as far as possible just to see where that leads in terms of a vision on human life. It's fun, thought provoking, etc. What's the point of just stating that it's nonsense or how it is obvious that the human brain cannot be replicated, etc. Nobody knows! The only thing we have is believes in this matter, which will differ by person, and won't really enlighten the thought experiment in any way.

[Valsum]

True. My arrogant response, for which I apologise, was because simply I deny to be reduced to chemical and electrical processes. I am more than that, I am ME. That theory, quite popular today and that says that well, someday... when we know everything about the brain we'll be able to predict anyone's life, sounds absurd to me. Because I won't accept that "someday", I'm interested in now.

OMG this sounded arrogant again, sorry. This just affects me so much because it kind of offends me. The complexity, the wonder of human life is nothing to be played with in my opinion.

[the_antisocial_hermit]

I'll just stick with existentialism.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

Plato's Cave. [/Comment]

What this guy has done is used an Impossible Argument, basically it's an argument that you can't prove wrong, but, you can't prove it right. It's an idiot's statement.

Which guy do you mean? Plato? Me? Nick Bostrom?

Plato presented the Cave as a myth, not to be taken as an assertion of fact.

I have said that maybe, tongue in cheek, we are the charries of Cantr IX.

Nick Bostrom is the author of the article, Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? He asks the question and presents arguments for the possibility of it.

Nobody is making an assertion of fact that we are living in a computer simulation.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

True. My arrogant response, for which I apologise, was because simply I deny to be reduced to chemical and electrical processes. I am more than that, I am ME. That theory, quite popular today and that says that well, someday... when we know everything about the brain we'll be able to predict anyone's life, sounds absurd to me. Because I won't accept that "someday", I'm interested in now.

OMG this sounded arrogant again, sorry. This just affects me so much because it kind of offends me. The complexity, the wonder of human life is nothing to be played with in my opinion.

Well, I'm with you. I think we're much more than neurons and chemicals. This is why I prefer Plato's Cave to the Matrix. The Cave has redemptive qualities for humanity, not the debasement of a computer simulation. Rather than saying we are less than we appear, it says we are more than we appear.

Here's one translation:
http://www.vrc.iastate.edu/why.html

[Russell of Los Angeles]

This is interesting. I've been formulating a similar theory myself, that I've called Cantrianism. The main differences being that, whereas in Simulism everything is a result of the simulation (including mind) and the 'gods' are completely separate, in Cantrianism only the physics of reality are simulated and the 'gods' are the players of our reality in the same way that we are the players of Cantr. But there is much more to consider. I'm part-way through an article about this that may end up in the webzine.

I've thought along similar lines myself, and I've even had some of my characters secretly suspect something like that.

I'm looking forward to reading your article!

[Jos Elkink]

reduced to chemical and electrical processes. (...) The complexity, the wonder of human life is nothing to be played with in my opinion.

I don't want to state that humans can be reduced to chemical and electrical processes. I think they might well be, but it would assume that we know all types of elements and forces that exist in the universe, and I'm certainly not convinced that is the case. It might be more or different that chemistry and electricity. But I do think that science can discover how humans are built up, eventually, to a fairly substantial extent. Generally, that's based on belief, though, I think, not really on logic.

What I have difficulty accepting, though, is that this interpretation would be denying the complexity or wonder of human life. Evolution theory is no less impressive than creationism. To me, it's actually more impressive, but that is surely just a matter of taste. And the same with the functioning of the brain. How you can go from chemical reactions to a society where people love and hate and build and ... that is so totally amazing. Whether you think it's created or evolved, physical or metaphysical, it doesn't really change the wonder of it.