User Controls
Simulation is Consciousness
-
2019-07-03 at 4:49 AM UTCreported for low effort post.
-
2019-07-03 at 12:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator 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.
I see what you're saying, but consciousness or subjectivity is a simulation of reality. We have no reason to believe a system of 2 pebbles has consciousness as we know it (although maybe it could be, we dont know), but consciousness as we know it is a sort of simulation. -
2019-07-03 at 12:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I see what you're saying, but consciousness or subjectivity is a simulation of reality. We have no reason to believe a system of 2 pebbles has consciousness as we know it (although maybe it could be, we dont know), but consciousness as we know it is a sort of simulation.
It certainly can involve simulation but that doesn't give us any purchase on what is actually going on to make your brain conscious. I know what you're saying, I'm saying the implication of the Reddit post doesn't follow from its conclusions, it's just a conflation. He's not saying consciousness is a simulation, he's saying simulation is consciousness. Which there's no reason to believe. It could very well be a type of simulation but that still wouldn't tell us anything about how it comes to be conscious. -
2019-07-03 at 12:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator It certainly can involve simulation but that doesn't give us any purchase on what is actually going on to make your brain conscious. I know what you're saying, I'm saying the implication of the Reddit post doesn't follow from its conclusions, it's just a conflation. He's not saying consciousness engages in simulation, he's saying simulation is consciousness. Which there's no reason to believe.
I don't think it only involves simulation, the entire contents of consciousness are simulated or metaphorical as far as I can tell. -
2019-07-03 at 12:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't think it only involves simulation, the entire contents of consciousness are simulated or metaphorical as far as I can tell.
Even if consciousness is indeed a type of simulation, the fact that it is a simulation wouldn't give us anything, we would have to see what actually makes that simulation conscious. Because there's nothing inherently conscious about a simulation, it's just a representational concept. -
2019-07-03 at 12:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Even if consciousness is indeed a type of simulation, the fact that it is a simulation wouldn't give us anything, we would have to see what actually makes that simulation conscious. Because there's nothing inherently conscious about a simulation, it's just a representational concept.
What do you mean by "conscious"? What would be the difference in your mind between a "conscious" simulation and a non-conscious simulation? -
2019-07-03 at 1:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe What do you mean by "conscious"? What would be the difference in your mind between a "conscious" simulation and a non-conscious simulation?
Having an inner subjective experience, there being something "it is like" to be the simulation.
Again, it still seems that you don't really understand what I'm saying.
A simulation is a simulation because it is a symbolic representation of the rules and relations in some other system.
By itself, whatever you are running the simulation ON, doesn't need to have any particular properties. You can run a simulation with no causal connection between ticks of the simulation, by writing it out on paper for example. We have no reason to believe such a system has any continuity of belief, experiential content etc because there's nothing in particular the graphite molecules and paper are doing when you run the simulation on them, the relevant fact is their semantic and syntactic content is in your consciousness. By itself it is just some particles in space.
The challenge of consciousness is figuring out how it is that some particles bumping around in space come to have a subjective experience.
If you write a computer simulation of water for example, the computer doesn't need to know what water is. We don't need to give it any semantic information or understanding to simulate water, the computer is just a symbol manipulator, a bean counter that runs according to the rules we set, just some dominoes falling. We are the ones that define it to be a simulation.
But undoubtedly we too are just some dominoes falling ourselves, and somehow we are conscious.
Thats the difficult part of explaining consciousness, the billion dollar question, how it is that we are distinct from all the other shit that doesn't seem to be conscious, similar to how there are causally connected parts of my body system thay I am not conscious of (for example idk what my pancreas are up to right now)? What makes me start being conscious of something and then stop? What is the distinction there in my mind, as it relates to my brain?
That's the problem. Just saying it's a simulation doesn't help at all with understanding what is actually going on. -
2019-07-03 at 1:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator A simulation is a simulation because it is a symbolic representation of the rules and relations in some other system.
Isn't that what an "inner subjective experience" is? Like when you imagine an elephant, within your consciousness or mind space you begin to simulate an elephant whatever that means to you, an inaccurate representation of a real elephant. Simulation seems to describe the "inner subjective experience" accurately enough. What exactly do you think is missing?
In attempt to answer your billion dollar question, I say we are not actually distinct from any of the seemingly non-conscious stuff around us. We are tricked into thinking we are by a system that evolved over billions of years, a system that combines environmental awareness, the ability to simulate space and time, and also the ability to use complex language and we call this system "consciousness". -
2019-07-03 at 5:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Isn't that what an "inner subjective experience" is? Like when you imagine an elephant, within your consciousness or mind space you begin to simulate an elephant whatever that means to you, an inaccurate representation of a real elephant. Simulation seems to describe the "inner subjective experience" accurately enough. What exactly do you think is missing?
Jesus fucking Christ dude. Whether I observe a simulation in my "inner headspace" or a computer in the world doesn't explain how I come to apprehend it.
You have to explain the actual mechanism of apprehension, that's the hard part. The reddit post literally sidelines the entire actual problem into:
If the simulation became aware it was a simulation
No shit, that's the hard part asshole, how does that happen?
Like I said, it is fully possible that our consciousness is a specific type of simulation. But then the challenge is unwrapping how that is is the challenge. Because a "simulation" in general only implies a symbolic manipulation rather than a semantic one.In attempt to answer your billion dollar question, I say we are not actually distinct from any of the seemingly non-conscious stuff around us. We are tricked into thinking we are by a system that evolved over billions of years, a system that combines environmental awareness, the ability to simulate space and time, and also the ability to use complex language and we call this system "consciousness".
That's a retarded opinion you formed because you don't understand anything you read properly.
You go to sleep, you lose consciousness. Someone brains you with a mallet, you lose consciousness. Someone chloroforms you, you lose consciousness. Then you wake up, recovering consciousness.
When we talk about understanding consciousness, this is generally the distinction we are looking to make, to find the underlying physical basis that can support this phenomenon that one calls a state of experience. What is the character of the colour red?
Each time I have an immediate subjective experience, it has specific characteristics that are exclusive of the characteristics of other experiences. The ones that are in my apprehension, I am conscious of and the ones that are excluded I am not.
When scientists and philosophers talk about understanding consciousness, they're talking about the specific distinction between these states, and not being able to support such a state at all (as one might find when they're billyclubbed over the head).
I can think of a couple more way to illustrate the difference between a system of 2 rocks and our brains but I'm honestly starting to doubt if there is one in your case. -
2019-07-03 at 6:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Jesus fucking Christ dude. Whether I observe a simulation in my "inner headspace" or a computer in the world doesn't explain how I come to apprehend it.
You have to explain the actual mechanism of apprehension, that's the hard part. The reddit post literally sidelines the entire actual problem into:
If the simulation became aware it was a simulation
No shit, that's the hard part asshole, how does that happen?
Like I said, it is fully possible that our consciousness is a specific type of simulation. But then the challenge is unwrapping how that is is the challenge. Because a "simulation" in general only implies a symbolic manipulation rather than a semantic one.
That's a retarded opinion you formed because you don't understand anything you read properly.
You go to sleep, you lose consciousness. Someone brains you with a mallet, you lose consciousness. Someone chloroforms you, you lose consciousness. Then you wake up, recovering consciousness.
When we talk about understanding consciousness, this is generally the distinction we are looking to make, to find the underlying physical basis that can support this phenomenon that one calls a state of experience. What is the character of the colour red?
Each time I have an immediate subjective experience, it has specific characteristics that are exclusive of the characteristics of other experiences. The ones that are in my apprehension, I am conscious of and the ones that are excluded I am not.
When scientists and philosophers talk about understanding consciousness, they're talking about the specific distinction between these states, and not being able to support such a state at all (as one might find when they're billyclubbed over the head).
I can think of a couple more way to illustrate the difference between a system of 2 rocks and our brains but I'm honestly starting to doubt if there is one in your case.
The mechanism of apprehending anything, the mechanism of subjective experience or however you want to refer to it - is simulation. That's what the mechanism is. I mean, if you have another explanation let's hear it. Explain what a "subjective experience" is.
"Subjective experience" is a simulation of reality. -
2019-07-03 at 6:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe The mechanism of apprehending anything, the mechanism of subjective experience or however you want to refer to it - is simulation. That's what the mechanism is. I mean, if you have another explanation let's hear it. Explain what a "subjective experience" is.
"Subjective experience" is a simulation of reality.
No, a "simulation" isn't a thing in the universe like a photon, it's only a simulation because of my conscious apprehension of it as a simulation. 2 stones could be a simulation of an infinite number of things, and of nothing at all... It could just be 2 stones. That's only by virtue of how they are viewed.
Again, this is just a basic category error. Simulation comes after consciousness. You have to explain the preconscious structure. -
2019-07-03 at 7:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator No, a "simulation" isn't a thing in the universe like a photon, it's only a simulation because of my conscious apprehension of it as a simulation. 2 stones could be a simulation of an infinite number of things, and of nothing at all… It could just be 2 stones. That's only by virtue of how they are viewed.
Again, this is just a basic category error. Simulation comes after consciousness. You have to explain the preconscious structure.
I understand your first point. But consider that most people don't apprehend their consciousness as a simulation, even though it perfectly fits the definition. When people think about elephants they aren't thinking that their subjective thoughts about elephants are a simulation about real elephants - but they clearly are.
Simulation doesn't come after consciousness - that's like stating eggs come after chickens or chickens come after eggs. I imagine our complex form of consciousness is a complex form of simulation that began in a very simple way long ago. I don't claim to know how.
But I imagine it was something like our ancestors having an awareness of their environment but lacking the ability to simulate a mind space in which they could imagine, invent, plan ahead. But they were aware of their environment, could react to stimulus. And eventually they could remember. Remember things like what is and isn't food, or certain animals will attack you, etc. Animals that lacked this ability were more likely to not survive. And those that did survive, their memories improved. They could hear the crackle of a fire and "see" the flames in their memory. They could hear the cry of a bird and "see" the specific bird that makes that sound. Still reacting to their environment, still unable to imagine or plan ahead, but gained the ability to remember x is associated with y. Eventually they would start to associate other sounds with things. Our ancestors may have had an instinctual reaction to seeing a tiger, maybe screamed in a specific way, and they began to associate that specific scream with memories of tigers, they began to hear these sounds and relate them to tigers, or another sound with food or shelter and a language was born. And as languages got more complex and more metaphorical, so did our consciousness. And eventually we ended up here, able to form and communicate abstract ideas to each other using symbols. From simple life simply reacting to its surroundings to complex social animals that can simulate entire worlds inside their heads, write them down using symbols and share their "inner world" with others. -
2019-07-03 at 10:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Simulation doesn't come after consciousness - that's like stating eggs come after chickens or chickens come after eggs. I imagine our complex form of consciousness is a complex form of simulation that began in a very simple way long ago. I don't claim to know how.
It very much does, if you don't see that then you are making the category error I've been pointing out repeatedly so far.
If what you are conscious of is a simulation, pointing at the simulation doesn't tell you how you are conscious of it. A "simulation" is not anything in the world, it is a relational concept to our perception.
It's possible that the entire contents of our consciousness experience are what we could call a simulation, but that fact doesn't tell us how the simulation comes to perceive it. There is no reason to believe that a thing of the category "simulation" is inherently conscious. That's simply a link that hasn't been established anywhere.
The fact that a computer is running a simulation doesn't give us any reason to believe the computer is conscious: all it is doing is performing symbolic manipulations that are meaningful to us. I could do the same manipulations on on and paper given enough time, or using arrays of 8 pebbles to represent bytes. We have no reason to believe those pebbles have any connection to one another in any causal way, what makes them a simulation is the fact that you have represented it as such. How you come to represent it as anything in the first place is the issue.
I agree that consciousness probably evolves from some kind of proto state, I'm not saying ontologically, I'm saying epistemically simulation comes after perception because the entire question is how we come to perceive the simulation. -
2019-07-04 at 12:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator It very much does, if you don't see that then you are making the category error I've been pointing out repeatedly so far.
If what you are conscious of is a simulation, pointing at the simulation doesn't tell you how you are conscious of it. A "simulation" is not anything in the world, it is a relational concept to our perception.
It's possible that the entire contents of our consciousness experience are what we could call a simulation, but that fact doesn't tell us how the simulation comes to perceive it. There is no reason to believe that a thing of the category "simulation" is inherently conscious. That's simply a link that hasn't been established anywhere.
The fact that a computer is running a simulation doesn't give us any reason to believe the computer is conscious: all it is doing is performing symbolic manipulations that are meaningful to us. I could do the same manipulations on on and paper given enough time, or using arrays of 8 pebbles to represent bytes. We have no reason to believe those pebbles have any connection to one another in any causal way, what makes them a simulation is the fact that you have represented it as such. How you come to represent it as anything in the first place is the issue.
I agree that consciousness probably evolves from some kind of proto state, I'm not saying ontologically, I'm saying epistemically simulation comes after perception because the entire question is how we come to perceive the simulation.
I believe you are confusing consciousness with conscious states. It is possible to be conscious without consciousness. For example, a dog is conscious when it is awake, unconscious when it asleep or anesthetized, but we have no reason to believe dogs are capable of consciousness. Consciousness is the mind-space. Consciousness is the metaphorical space we use to create new ideas, solve problems, plan for the future, fantasize, think about out "self". Consciousness is made of language. I believe animals that are capable of learning languages may be capable of achieving some sort of consciousness, but we have no reason to believe regular animals do this. It seems to be unique to humans.
When you are conscious and aware of your surroundings, well, that's it. You aren't thinking about anything, you are not imagining anything. But when a person starts to think, imagine, or even when they are reading or listening to someone else speak - that's consciousness. That's when you start to "see" things but not with your eyes. Someone might be describing an animal to you, talking about the animals fur or scales, its fangs and claws or maybe its flippers, and these words are actually stimulating parts of your brain that are associated with "seeing" and this actually simulates this animal in your metaphorical mind space. You can "picture" what the person is talking about, without even needing to try, without even being aware that there is any simulation happening.
Being conscious is simply being aware, being capable of reacting to your environment. Consciousness is more complex, requires metaphorical language to stimulate specific areas of the brain required to simulate events that are not actually happening. -
2019-07-04 at 11:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Consciousness is the mind-space. Consciousness is the metaphorical space we use to create new ideas, solve problems, plan for the future, fantasize, think about out "self". Consciousness is made of language. I believe animals that are capable of learning languages may be capable of achieving some sort of consciousness, but we have no reason to believe regular animals do this. It seems to be unique to humans.
When you are conscious and aware of your surroundings, well, that's it. You aren't thinking about anything, you are not imagining anything. But when a person starts to think, imagine, or even when they are reading or listening to someone else speak - that's consciousness. That's when you start to "see" things but not with your eyes. Someone might be describing an animal to you, talking about the animals fur or scales, its fangs and claws or maybe its flippers, and these words are actually stimulating parts of your brain that are associated with "seeing" and this actually simulates this animal in your metaphorical mind space. You can "picture" what the person is talking about, without even needing to try, without even being aware that there is any simulation happening.
Being conscious is simply being aware, being capable of reacting to your environment. Consciousness is more complex, requires metaphorical language to stimulate specific areas of the brain required to simulate events that are not actually happening.
Then that idea of consciousness comes after the basic hard problem of consciousness, which is how to derive a phenomenal experience intrinsically within inert stuff bumping around.
Your view seems to be highly I fluenced by the widely discredited work of Jayden Jaymes. -
2019-07-04 at 12:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Then that idea of consciousness comes after the basic hard problem of consciousness, which is how to derive a phenomenal experience intrinsically within inert stuff bumping around.
Your view seems to be highly I fluenced by the widely discredited work of Jayden Jaymes.
Who's Jayden Jaymes and what work was discredited? -
2019-07-04 at 12:47 PM UTCJayden Jaymes and her theory of the bicameral mind involving the development of an inner mental space by way of metaphors, which we discussed in a previous thread. I also posted multiple links to scientists saying she don't know shit.
-
2019-07-04 at 1:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Jayden Jaymes and her theory of the bicameral mind involving the development of an inner mental space by way of metaphors, which we discussed in a previous thread. I also posted multiple links to scientists saying she don't know shit.
I've never heard of Jayden Jaymes and I know that book pretty well. I'm sure parts of the theory have been discredited, it is like 50 old. I don't know if that is relevant to this particular discussion though, consciousness is clearly metaphorical in nature, how would a scientist discredit that? -
2019-07-04 at 3:45 PM UTCIn what way do you believe it is "clearly metaphorical in nature"? Clearly explain this idea.
-
2019-07-04 at 4:55 PM UTC
