Maybe life is a simulation.

[Jos Elkink]

Why?

I thought the Cave allegory is about how everything we see in the real world is in fact nothing more but a shadow, or a reflection or the true world in which all concepts that we can see in the world exist. So we can only observe one aspect of this reality, and everything that is real exists in this world of ideas.

The simulation story is about how we could be simulation designed by someone or played by players, how we could be an artificial creation.

How are the two related?

[Antichrist_Online]

The not knowing the whole of everything. We just know what we 'see' not everything else, just like NPC characters in a game.

[Jos Elkink]

I really think both - the allegory and the simulation idea - go a lot deeper than just that and have a lot more implications, that are quite different between the two.

If this whole thread is just about 'we don't know everything, just what our senses can observe', then it's not a very interesting discussion.

[simulism]

Plato is interesting, nevertheless; his ideas are almost exactly in line with the idea of being simulated; it just needs to be put in proper perspective, when plato wrote his cave allegory, he didn't know anything about computers.

(one farfetched idea I heard from a simulism wiki reader is the idea that even Jesus supposedly told the same story; that the afterlife is the 'real' world and this is nothing but a simulation where 'souls' are prepared/trained for the 'real thing'. This line of thought, interesting as it is, seems a little over the top to me )

[Russell of Los Angeles]

If moving electrical charges around in a certain pattern can produce subjective awareness and bring a mind into existence, so can moving around a collection of eggs in the same pattern (...) All these processes can be computationally equivalent, with algorithms that correspond in every detail; but none of them seems like a plausible way of producing a subjective awareness.

I don't like this quote at all ... That is, it is totally devoid of a logical argument. Just because this Matt can't imagine consciousness through a collection of eggs doesn't mean that it is impossible. Most things we do with computers were unimaginable just a few decades ago. Especially in the area of complex systems / non-linear / evolutionary / etc. algorithms, we can create very unexpected and impressive things using, indeed, just algorithms and bit settings. So why not consciousness? I'm not saying you can, I just mean that he gives no argument at all why not, so I don't really understand why you quote him like that ...

EDIT: Oh, simulism already said it ...

Not logical? Professional philosophers often make arguments that appeal to our intuitions by concocting hypothetical scenarios. The eggs arranged by algorithm is a thought experiment that is supposed to appeal to our intuition that eggs in a pattern couldn't possibly experience what it's like to see the color blue. That you and Simulism don't share that intuition seems weird to me.

I'll grant that eggs in egg cartons moved by specified rules might be able to produce consciousness, but only if there's something else, some as yet undiscovered force or property of nature, that supervenes upon the eggs to give them consciousness.

But even with that reservation, I think the consequence of that reasoning is that the eggs have no free will.

Especially in the area of complex systems / non-linear / evolutionary / etc. algorithms, we can create very unexpected and impressive things using, indeed, just algorithms and bit settings.

Impressive things have been done, but it should be noted that artificial intelligence is simulated intelligence, not consciousness, and not (by some definitions) actual intelligence.

Yes, but frankly, it's stupid for another reason too. With electronical signals they are moving themselves about, with eggs he specifically says that they are being moved about. If the eggs read their patterns, defined what it was thinking, and moved themselves about into another pattern that meant something else, then damned right it's conscious. However, if we are moving them about then it is just out consciousness coming out through the eggs. It is proof of consciousness, but only ours.

The 1s and 0s of a computer don't "move themselves about". They follow rules. Eggs in egg cartons could contain all the same information as 1s and 0s. And if the eggs are moved by the same rules, you could use them to compute anything computable.

Regarding Plato:
The Alegory of the Cave is related to the Matrix, but they each have something unique to offer. In the Cave, what we perceive is a shadow of the reality beyond. The shadows on the wall are cast by fire, which in turn is only a representation of the sun. The sun is the ultimate sublime reality, blinding to the senses. In the Matrix, they escape from one dark and dreary world into--lo! --another dark and dreary world. But in the first you can do wire-fu!


P.S.
Here's what I take to be the logical form of Cartmill's argument:

Premises:

If a computer can create consciousness, then eggs moved by an algorithm can create consciousness.

It is not the case that eggs moved by an algorithm can create consciousness.

Conclusion:

It is not the case that a computer can create consciousness.

[Bowser]

Let's say there is life out there smarter than us, really smarter than us... hard to believe, huh?

Well we couldn't understand what they were doing no matter how much you explained it to us.

Star Trek Voyager gives a nice example when Janeway explained how Leonardo Da Vinci couldn't understand her advanced technology:

Leonardo is confused about some of the technology he has observed in Tau's trading city. Janeway, in an effort to keep him ignorant of anything beyond the 16th century, explains that he is like a sparrow nesting in a Florentine tree--the bird would be unaware of Italian politics. Leonardo agrees, stating that even if Aristotle himself tried to teach the bird, the bird would be incapable of learning because of his small sparrow brain. Leonardo finds this analogy satisfying, and stops questioning Janeway.

Perhaps we are all "birds"

[Russell of Los Angeles]

Let's say there is life out there smarter than us, really smarter than us... hard to believe, huh?

Well we couldn't understand what they were doing no matter how much you explained it to us.

Star Trek Voyager gives a nice example when Janeway explained how Leonardo Da Vinci couldn't understand her advanced technology:

Leonardo is confused about some of the technology he has observed in Tau's trading city. Janeway, in an effort to keep him ignorant of anything beyond the 16th century, explains that he is like a sparrow nesting in a Florentine tree--the bird would be unaware of Italian politics. Leonardo agrees, stating that even if Aristotle himself tried to teach the bird, the bird would be incapable of learning because of his small sparrow brain. Leonardo finds this analogy satisfying, and stops questioning Janeway.

Perhaps we are all "birds"

This strikes me as a solution to the Fermi paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_Para ... ommunicate

But how are you relating it to simulism? Do you mean that we might be simulated by something beyond our capacity to comprehend? Sure, we've made some progress since Plato: we've gone from illusory shadows, to a deceiving demon(Descartes), to virtual reality, but haven't yet hit upon how we're really trapped/deceived/fooled.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

=
3.141592653589793238462643383279helpimtrappedinauniversefactory50288419716939937510...

[formerly known as hf]

I'll grant that eggs in egg cartons moved by specified rules might be able to produce consciousness, but only if there's something else, some as yet undiscovered force or property of nature, that supervenes upon the eggs to give them consciousness.

This kind of statement has always annoyed me.

When we will get over ourselves and realise that there is no 'unknown force' of some religious/mystic/hocus pocus nature.

It is this kind of thinking that makes the human race arrogant - gives us the reason to feel that for some 'divine' reason, we must be more than, above the rest of the biological world.

We are but biological entities. Our 'concioussness' is nothing but a very complex firing of neurones.

Billions upon billions, upon billions of eggs, being arranged by billions upon billions of people, performing highly complex algorithms would be able to reproduce concioussness.

The hypothesis is bunk, as the complexity of our brains could not be reproduced by a comprehensible number of eggs manipulated by a complrehensible number of people. Even the incredibly powerful algorithms wihtin computers hardly touch the required complexity for our 'concioussness'.

But our concioussness is not something mystical, something magical.

We once believed the creation of the world to be such a complex, unfathomable, mystical event that we created numerous stories about it. It turned out to be something that can be taught to children.

Concioussness is not mystcial, is not imparted by something divine, is not some 'unkown force'. It is just complex reaction by a complex brain to complex situations. What causes conciousness is not fully understood, nor can it be fully reproduced. but it will, and sooner rather than later, and with a simple explanation, not relying on some hocus pocus mystery.

[Sho]

Relevant history (quoted from Wikipedia):

In the history of chemistry, vitalism played a pivotal role, giving rise to the basic distinction between organic and inorganic subtances, following Aristotle's distinction between the mineral kingdom and the animal and vegetative kingdoms. The basic premise of these vitalist notions was that organic materials differed from inorganic materials in possessing a "vital force", accordingly, vitalist theory predicted that organic materials could not be synthesized from inorganic components. However, as chemical techniques advanced, Friedrich Wöhler synthesised urea from inorganic components in 1828.

Obviously not arguing that this necessarily implies something about consciousness. In fact, I'm not even coming back to this thread after this post - no mood to debate.

[deadboy]

Look, there is a massive problem with your theoretics, you assume that so long as eggs follow the same algorithms as a highly conmplex computer it could be conscious. Incorrect, the problem with eggs, is that -we- are following the algorithm, not the eggs. -We- are creating the algorithm for it to follow, for something to be conscious, it has to react, and it is not, it is merely having us react by moving things around for it. However, with a computer we give it the -ability- to react, with sensors, that work like ours, but we do not do the reacting for it. Therefore, it is possible for it to be conscious, therefore, consciousness can be created

[sanchez]

I'll agree consciousness is likely purely physical, and unlikely (though possible) to be duplicated. Can't that be a thing deserving of enough wonder to be called mystical or divine?

I've a friend studied the evolution of consciousness whose claim is that it exists only in vertebrates, and developed as neurons clustered to control movement from a distance. Basically, the farther away from your mouth your shitter is, the more likely you are to gain consciousness. Doesn't seem too farfetched to simulate the primitive development in e.g. a lamprey.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

I'll grant that eggs in egg cartons moved by specified rules might be able to produce consciousness, but only if there's something else, some as yet undiscovered force or property of nature, that supervenes upon the eggs to give them consciousness.

This kind of statement has always annoyed me.

When we will get over ourselves and realise that there is no 'unknown force' of some religious/mystic/hocus pocus nature.

I think it's likely that there are unknown forces of some nature. Your 'religious/mystic/hocus pocus' label seems to be a rhetorical tactic to discredit by the association fallacy.

It is this kind of thinking that makes the human race arrogant - gives us the reason to feel that for some 'divine' reason, we must be more than, above the rest of the biological world.

We are but biological entities. Our 'concioussness' is nothing but a very complex firing of neurones.

I think that thinking we understand how consciousness comes about is arrogant and presumptuous. Neurologists, philosophers, cognitive scientists are not in agreement about it. I remain skeptical that consciousness can be created by a computer.

Billions upon billions, upon billions of eggs, being arranged by billions upon billions of people, performing highly complex algorithms would be able to reproduce concioussness.

The hypothesis is bunk, as the complexity of our brains could not be reproduced by a comprehensible number of eggs manipulated by a complrehensible number of people. Even the incredibly powerful algorithms wihtin computers hardly touch the required complexity for our 'concioussness'.

But our concioussness is not something mystical, something magical.

We once believed the creation of the world to be such a complex, unfathomable, mystical event that we created numerous stories about it. It turned out to be something that can be taught to children.

Concioussness is not mystcial, is not imparted by something divine, is not some 'unkown force'. It is just complex reaction by a complex brain to complex situations. What causes conciousness is not fully understood, nor can it be fully reproduced. but it will, and sooner rather than later, and with a simple explanation, not relying on some hocus pocus mystery.

You admit that what causes consciousness is not fully understood, but yet you claim it is nothing but a very complex firing of neurons. I don't know how you can make that claim given that we don't know how the firing of neurons possibly does it.

Although I'm skeptical that eggs can be arranged and moved to produce consciousness, I think we can agree on this statement:

If a computer can create consciousness, then eggs moved by algorithm can produce consciousness.

Perhaps you can help me convince deadboy of it.

[formerly known as hf]

A better analogy would be thousands of hourglasses, wherby each individual grain of sand is moved by a machine running an algorithm.

That's a sense of scale more easily wielded than eggs. The egg analogy doesn't help, as it is somewhat surreal (which is by no means all that bad of a thing) to consider billions upon billions of eggs.


Either case is not a particularly good analogy, as it assumes that computers must be binary in their nature.
I find it unlikely that a binary algorithm could ever produce the complexity required for conscioussness, our brains are not binary. I'm not going to predict the future of computers, but future computer technology may well not be binary


The belief in a 'unknown force of concioussness' does, by its nature, associate itself with the divine/mystic nature of other 'forces'.

It's one thing to say we do not fully understand how the functioning of our brain produces concioussness.
Its another to say that concioussness requires some force or phantom existence of a possibly inorganic kind.

[deadboy]

A better analogy would be thousands of hourglasses, wherby each individual grain of sand is moved by a machine running an algorithm.

Heh, you're really not understanding my point here are you . This is a bunk analogy, just like the eggs, because there is still merely a consciosness behind it, not a consciousness in the hourglasses themselves. The machine, presumuably run by a computer, is sensing things and then reacting to them by moving the eggs to an algorithm. Therefore, the hourglasses are like a monitor, not proof that they have consciousness, but very definitely proof that the machine moving them has consciousness, as there has to be a consciousness behind the movements, as we would be by moving billions of eggs