User Controls
Simulation is Consciousness
-
2019-07-02 at 11:46 AM UTCNormally I would just copy and paste this here but don't have time this morning.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SimulationTheory/comments/c80aap/simulation_is_consciousness/ -
2019-07-02 at 11:52 AM UTCThis is an idiotic post written by a retard who doesn't understand the basic problem he's even thinking about, which is what would give a simulation this perspectival view that we call consciousness.
-
2019-07-02 at 12:29 PM UTCboy what you sippin on, i will make you pussies jealous
-
2019-07-02 at 1:46 PM UTCConscious mind is a creation of words. Specifically, consciousness is created through metaphorical language. Consciousness is a metaphorical "mind-space" in which we metaphorically "see" events, objects and use to create more and more complex metaphorical meanings like "getting something across" or "understanding" someone's "point of view".
Simulations are representations of their "real world" counterparts.
Your consciousness is a simulation of the external world. When you think abou "riding a bicycle" you are simulating the act of actually riding a bicycle in your "mind-space". -
2019-07-02 at 3:41 PM UTCYou can create an entire simulation without having any element of consciousness involved anywhere. The challenge is how you get a bunch of local interactions to become an integrated perspectival view.
-
2019-07-02 at 4:16 PM UTC
-
2019-07-02 at 5:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe You know this for a fact?
Of course.
A simulation only has to make any semantic sense to me. I could be "simulating" something with two pebbles if I wanted. Doesn't mean that the system of pebbles is conscious in any meaningful or non-deprecated way.
The hard part of figuring out consciousness is stuff like how we derive that semanticity from it. By itself the simulation is just shit flying around on a screen and in a box. The issue is understanding how shit flying around into space turns into a conscious creature. Absent our context, a computer isn't doing anything meaningful, it's just pushing around symbolic relations we gave it by analogizing them to information states. -
2019-07-02 at 6:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Of course.
A simulation only has to make any semantic sense to me. I could be "simulating" something with two pebbles if I wanted. Doesn't mean that the system of pebbles is conscious in any meaningful or non-deprecated way.
But how do you know for a fact the simulation has no consciousness? -
2019-07-02 at 8:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe But how do you know for a fact the simulation has no consciousness?
How do we know for a fact that a rock has no consciousness? We don't. There's just no reason to believe it and no good logic has been offered to suggest one should believe it does in any non deprecated way. So for example if you believe panpsychism then a rock is indeed conscious but that would be in a completely deprecated sense.
Undoubtedly our consciousness does engage simulation, doesn't mean that simulation is consciousness, that's just backwards. My brain can also do arithmetic but that doesn't mean arithmetic is consciousness. -
2019-07-02 at 9:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Undoubtedly our consciousness does engage simulation, doesn't mean that simulation is consciousness, that's just backwards. My brain can also do arithmetic but that doesn't mean arithmetic is consciousness.
When your brain does arithmetic you are doing it via simulation, you are simulating "units" in your metaphorically simulated "mind-space". Tell me where you draw the distinction between "consciousness" and "simulation"? What do you see as the definitive difference? It seems to me that the entire contents of consciousness are metaphors or simulations.
Earlier you stated that it was a matter of fact that a simple simulation using pebbles has no consciousness. When I asked how you knew this you eventually admitted that you cannot know whether or not the pebble simulation has consciousness. I don't believe you can actually know whether or not anything has consciousness. Maybe "consciousness" is just a word we invented to refer to the metaphorical and simulated "events" that take place in the metaphorical and simulated "mind-space". It isn't unimaginable that a simple simulation utilizing pebbles could eventually become more and more complex to the point where it starts to incorporate smaller simulations into itself, creates a metaphorical language and then uses that language to become more complex and maybe even refer to its "internal" simulations as its own consciousness. I mean, I'm not saying that's a fact or anything, just a possibility, and it's a possibility that this has actually already occurred before. Human consciousness as we know it likely started out eons ago as something much less complex than it is today, maybe it started out as metaphorically similar to two pebbles. -
2019-07-02 at 9:56 PM UTCi fucking hate this kind of threadThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-07-02 at 10:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe When your brain does arithmetic you are doing it via simulation, you are simulating "units" in your metaphorically simulated "mind-space". Tell me where you draw the distinction between "consciousness" and "simulation"? What do you see as the definitive difference?
So an abacus is also conscious? -
2019-07-02 at 10:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe When your brain does arithmetic you are doing it via simulation, you are simulating "units" in your metaphorically simulated "mind-space".
Not really. My consciousness doesn't "do" anything, as best as I can observe it, it is simply an appearance of the workspace for some unconscious processes. For example I just did 22+88=10 and as far as I'm concerned, the process just popped into my head when called upon. I'm not "simulating" symbolic logic in my head to do arithmetic. Literally nobody does that. It's probably possible (just play out and keep track of the rules) but you would be real shit and slow at mental arithmetic.Tell me where you draw the distinction between "consciousness" and "simulation"? What do you see as the definitive difference?
The point where there is "something it is like" to be a system.
What goes into that? Well that's the question we are trying to answer you munt.It seems to me that the entire contents of consciousness are metaphors or simulations.
Even if the entire contents of consciousness were simulation, you'd have to explain how they actually become a conscious experience. In itself all a simulation is, is a bunch of shit happening. How that gets turned into some sort of unified phenomenal experience is an entirely separate question.
If I show you a random simulation with dots moving around on a screen, you probably won't know wtf it is or maybe make a guess that probably turns out incorrect. It is no more or less semantically meaningful to you than looking at static on your TV screen. But if you and I weren't there to interpret it, it wouldn't mean shit at all. The same is the case with whatever is happening in your mind.Earlier you stated that it was a matter of fact that a simple simulation using pebbles has no consciousness. When I asked how you knew this you eventually admitted that you cannot know whether or not the pebble simulation has consciousness.
Something happening is just something happening. By itself two pebbles are just two pebbles. The fact that they are a "simulation" is happening in my perception and I see no reason why something happening in my perception would make any difference as to what is going on in the system of pebbles itself.
Now the separate question is whether I can rule out of that the pebble system has consciousness. This is a red herring. I'm saying it being a simulation of something has literally nothing to do with whether the pebbles are experiencing anything.
The fact that it's a simulation that has some meaningful informational content is a product of my perception.
Similarly, there is no reason to believe there is "calculation" "in" an abacus: it's just some balls sliding around in shafts. If a martian saw it without knowing the rules of an abacus and how they relate to our mathematics, it would just be some balls on sticks.I don't believe you can actually know whether or not anything has consciousness. Maybe "consciousness" is just a word we invented to refer to the metaphorical and simulated "events" that take place in the metaphorical and simulated "mind-space". It isn't unimaginable that a simple simulation utilizing pebbles could eventually become more and more complex to the point where it starts to incorporate smaller simulations into itself, creates a metaphorical language and then uses that language to become more complex and maybe even refer to its "internal" simulations as its own consciousness. I mean, I'm not saying that's a fact or anything, just a possibility, and it's a possibility that this has actually already occurred before. Human consciousness as we know it likely started out eons ago as something much less complex than it is today, maybe it started out as metaphorically similar to two pebbles.
You are brain dead retarded and fail at athletic abilities.
I'm not making any claim as to knowing what isn't conscious, I'm pointing out that something being a simulation is a fact of our own conscious apprehension, it doesn't change anything about the thing being used. -
2019-07-02 at 10:32 PM UTCTldr: what makes something a simulation?
-
2019-07-03 at 2:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Not really. My consciousness doesn't "do" anything, as best as I can observe it, it is simply an appearance of the workspace for some unconscious processes. For example I just did 22+88=10 and as far as I'm concerned, the process just popped into my head when called upon. I'm not "simulating" symbolic logic in my head to do arithmetic. Literally nobody does that. It's probably possible (just play out and keep track of the rules) but you would be real shit and slow at mental arithmetic.
The point where there is "something it is like" to be a system.
What goes into that? Well that's the question we are trying to answer you munt.
Even if the entire contents of consciousness were simulation, you'd have to explain how they actually become a conscious experience. In itself all a simulation is, is a bunch of shit happening. How that gets turned into some sort of unified phenomenal experience is an entirely separate question.
If I show you a random simulation with dots moving around on a screen, you probably won't know wtf it is or maybe make a guess that probably turns out incorrect. It is no more or less semantically meaningful to you than looking at static on your TV screen. But if you and I weren't there to interpret it, it wouldn't mean shit at all. The same is the case with whatever is happening in your mind.
Something happening is just something happening. By itself two pebbles are just two pebbles. The fact that they are a "simulation" is happening in my perception and I see no reason why something happening in my perception would make any difference as to what is going on in the system of pebbles itself.
Now the separate question is whether I can rule out of that the pebble system has consciousness. This is a red herring. I'm saying it being a simulation of something has literally nothing to do with whether the pebbles are experiencing anything.
The fact that it's a simulation that has some meaningful informational content is a product of my perception.
Similarly, there is no reason to believe there is "calculation" "in" an abacus: it's just some balls sliding around in shafts. If a martian saw it without knowing the rules of an abacus and how they relate to our mathematics, it would just be some balls on sticks.
You are brain dead retarded and fail at athletic abilities.
I'm not making any claim as to knowing what isn't conscious, I'm pointing out that something being a simulation is a fact of our own conscious apprehension, it doesn't change anything about the thing being used.
You're missing the point - it isn't that a simulation somehow "changes" the properties of the things used in the simulation. The point is that consciousness isn't really what you seem to think it is. Everything you see around you is a sort of hallucination made by your brain. You don't see reality - your brain interprets a sliver of the information available out there and literally simulates a "world" which you experience as sights and sounds and feels and all that. But that's not all. Even your sense as an individual observer of all this is a concept being simulated in your mind space. Reality is just a bunch of stuff happening, your "conscious experience" of it is a simulation of the real thing, and not even a very accurate one. -
2019-07-03 at 3 AM UTC
-
2019-07-03 at 3:05 AM UTCI just skimmed over OP and it's bizarre to me that someone thought that made senseThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-07-03 at 3:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe You're missing the point - it isn't that a simulation somehow "changes" the properties of the things used in the simulation. The point is that consciousness isn't really what you seem to think it is. Everything you see around you is a sort of hallucination made by your brain. You don't see reality - your brain interprets a sliver of the information available out there and literally simulates a "world" which you experience as sights and sounds and feels and all that. But that's not all. Even your sense as an individual observer of all this is a concept being simulated in your mind space. Reality is just a bunch of stuff happening, your "conscious experience" of it is a simulation of the real thing, and not even a very accurate one.
No, you're missing the point. I'm not saying that you are saying that simulation changes the properties of the substrate. I'm explaining that saying "simulation is consciousness" is simply a category error.
Whether it is a simulation happening for my immediate apprehension or in two pebbles, what makes it a simulation is my subjectivity. I have no reason to believe a system of 2 pebbles has any more consciousness than anything else from which we distinguish non-consciousness. If you want to say dirt and sand and shit are conscious then you can posit that but I don't see any reason to believe it. I believe they could be conscious if they're bumping together the right way but the act of simulation in no way requires consciousness to be involved. -
2019-07-03 at 3:51 AM UTCthe whole premise has little to do with either really, just semantics and cherrypicking definitions
"I can turn a puppy into a kitten, and by kitten I mean adult dog" -
2019-07-03 at 3:56 AM UTC
