Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#ActualSuperVGA

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:06 PM


Let's pick the low-hanging fruit. As mdwh rightly pointed out, you can't mistake the simulation of the thing for the thing itself. A simulated rainstorm won't get you wet, and Japan has nothing to fear from a simulated nuclear bomb. The standard counter: A simulated thought is still a thought.

A simulated rainstorm will wet things inside the rainstorm. I don't know why you'd need to point out that it won't we me. It's obvious that me and the rainstorm are in two different realities.

I personally subscribe to model-dependent reality: that there is no one true objective reality, there's only what you can measure and model. My mind creates a model of the world from the inputs it receives, and it's that model that I perceive as "the true reality". It's possible that my brainstem is connected to a computer and I'm in "the matrix" along with simulated rainstorms. In that hypothetical world, a simulated rainstorm would make me feel wet. But there's no way for me to measure such a hypothesis so it's neither true or false, it's irrelevant. Likewise my whole chemical structure could be some simulation and there'd be no way for me to measure that, so it's irrelevant. It's nonsense to talk about whether I'm truly a part of the one objective reality or not.


I agree with Hodgman. Recompile, despite repeating that this stuff is very simple, you manage to word your posts so that I cannot understand what you are saying. The above quoted post of yours I think I understand, but I disagree with it.
Are you saying that:
If a perfect simulation of the reality we have percieved and learned up until now is possible, that it won't be able to create something like consciousness eventually?
Or are you saying that a perfect simulation of the above is not possible?

What is wrong with the standard counter?

In general, I believe that even if other people have a consciousness like I know I have, I am not able to prove that they do, due to the subjective nature of a such.
What puts you in the position to determine whether Japan has anything to fear from a perfect simulation, or if my hair really gets wet? If you were already simulated, you shouldn't be able to
actually tell the difference, thus contributing to the assertion that the simulation is perfect.

EDIT: Wow, this thread is old. Didn't see the dates.

#5SuperVGA

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:03 PM


Let's pick the low-hanging fruit. As mdwh rightly pointed out, you can't mistake the simulation of the thing for the thing itself. A simulated rainstorm won't get you wet, and Japan has nothing to fear from a simulated nuclear bomb. The standard counter: A simulated thought is still a thought.

A simulated rainstorm will wet things inside the rainstorm. I don't know why you'd need to point out that it won't we me. It's obvious that me and the rainstorm are in two different realities.

I personally subscribe to model-dependent reality: that there is no one true objective reality, there's only what you can measure and model. My mind creates a model of the world from the inputs it receives, and it's that model that I perceive as "the true reality". It's possible that my brainstem is connected to a computer and I'm in "the matrix" along with simulated rainstorms. In that hypothetical world, a simulated rainstorm would make me feel wet. But there's no way for me to measure such a hypothesis so it's neither true or false, it's irrelevant. Likewise my whole chemical structure could be some simulation and there'd be no way for me to measure that, so it's irrelevant. It's nonsense to talk about whether I'm truly a part of the one objective reality or not.


I agree with Hodgman. Recompile, despite repeating that this stuff is very simple, you manage to word your posts so that I cannot understand what you are saying. The above quoted post of yours I think I understand, but I disagree with it.
Are you saying that:
If a perfect simulation of the reality we have percieved and learned up until now is possible, that it won't be able to create something like consciousness eventually?
Or are you saying that a perfect simulation of the above is not possible?

What is wrong with the standard counter?

In general, I believe that even if other people have a consciousness like I know I have, I am not able to prove that they do, due to the subjective nature of a such.
What puts you in the position to determine whether Japan has anything to fear from a perfect simulation, or if my hair really gets wet? If you were already simulated, you shouldn't be able to
actually tell the difference, thus contributing to the assergion that the simulation is perfect.

EDIT: Wow, this thread is old. Didn't see the dates.

#4SuperVGA

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:02 PM


Let's pick the low-hanging fruit. As mdwh rightly pointed out, you can't mistake the simulation of the thing for the thing itself. A simulated rainstorm won't get you wet, and Japan has nothing to fear from a simulated nuclear bomb. The standard counter: A simulated thought is still a thought.

A simulated rainstorm will wet things inside the rainstorm. I don't know why you'd need to point out that it won't we me. It's obvious that me and the rainstorm are in two different realities.

I personally subscribe to model-dependent reality: that there is no one true objective reality, there's only what you can measure and model. My mind creates a model of the world from the inputs it receives, and it's that model that I perceive as "the true reality". It's possible that my brainstem is connected to a computer and I'm in "the matrix" along with simulated rainstorms. In that hypothetical world, a simulated rainstorm would make me feel wet. But there's no way for me to measure such a hypothesis so it's neither true or false, it's irrelevant. Likewise my whole chemical structure could be some simulation and there'd be no way for me to measure that, so it's irrelevant. It's nonsense to talk about whether I'm truly a part of the one objective reality or not.


I agree with Hodgman. Recompile, despite repeating that this stuff is very simple, you manage to word your posts so that I cannot understand what you are saying. The above quoted post of yours I think I understand, but I disagree with it.
Are you saying that:
If a perfect simulation of the reality we have percieved and learned up until now is possible, that it won't be able to create something like consciousness eventually?
Or are you saying that a perfect simulation of the above is not possible?

In general, I believe that even if other people have a consciousness like I know I have, I am not able to prove that they do, due to the subjective nature of a such.
What puts you in the position to determine whether Japan has anything to fear from a perfect simulation, or if my hair really gets wet? If you were already simulated, you shouldn't be able to
actually tell the difference, thus contributing to the assergion that the simulation is perfect.

EDIT: Wow, this thread is old. Didn't see the dates.

#3SuperVGA

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:00 PM


Let's pick the low-hanging fruit. As mdwh rightly pointed out, you can't mistake the simulation of the thing for the thing itself. A simulated rainstorm won't get you wet, and Japan has nothing to fear from a simulated nuclear bomb. The standard counter: A simulated thought is still a thought.

A simulated rainstorm will wet things inside the rainstorm. I don't know why you'd need to point out that it won't we me. It's obvious that me and the rainstorm are in two different realities.

I personally subscribe to model-dependent reality: that there is no one true objective reality, there's only what you can measure and model. My mind creates a model of the world from the inputs it receives, and it's that model that I perceive as "the true reality". It's possible that my brainstem is connected to a computer and I'm in "the matrix" along with simulated rainstorms. In that hypothetical world, a simulated rainstorm would make me feel wet. But there's no way for me to measure such a hypothesis so it's neither true or false, it's irrelevant. Likewise my whole chemical structure could be some simulation and there'd be no way for me to measure that, so it's irrelevant. It's nonsense to talk about whether I'm truly a part of the one objective reality or not.


I agree with Hodgman. Recompile, despite repeating that this stuff is very simple, you manage to word your posts so that I cannot understand what you are saying. The above quoted post of yours I think I understand, but I disagree with it.
Are you saying that:
If a perfect simulation of the reality we have percieved and learned up until now is possible, that it won't be able to create something like consciousness eventually?
Or are you saying that a perfect simulation of the above is not possible?

In general, I believe that even if other people have a consciousness like I know I have, I am not able to prove that they do, due to the subjective nature of a such.
What puts you in the position to determine whether Japan has anything to fear from a perfect simulation, or if my har really gets wet? If you were already simulated, you shouldn't be able to
actually tell the difference, thus contributing to the assergion that the simulation is perfect.

EDIT: Wow, this thread is old. Didn't see the dates.

#2SuperVGA

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:55 PM


Let's pick the low-hanging fruit. As mdwh rightly pointed out, you can't mistake the simulation of the thing for the thing itself. A simulated rainstorm won't get you wet, and Japan has nothing to fear from a simulated nuclear bomb. The standard counter: A simulated thought is still a thought.

A simulated rainstorm will wet things inside the rainstorm. I don't know why you'd need to point out that it won't we me. It's obvious that me and the rainstorm are in two different realities.

I personally subscribe to model-dependent reality: that there is no one true objective reality, there's only what you can measure and model. My mind creates a model of the world from the inputs it receives, and it's that model that I perceive as "the true reality". It's possible that my brainstem is connected to a computer and I'm in "the matrix" along with simulated rainstorms. In that hypothetical world, a simulated rainstorm would make me feel wet. But there's no way for me to measure such a hypothesis so it's neither true or false, it's irrelevant. Likewise my whole chemical structure could be some simulation and there'd be no way for me to measure that, so it's irrelevant. It's nonsense to talk about whether I'm truly a part of the one objective reality or not.


I agree with Hodgman. Recompile, despite repeating that this stuff is very simple, you manage to word your posts so that I cannot understand what you are saying. The above quoted post of yours I think I understand, but I disagree with it.
Are you saying that:
If a perfect simulation of the reality we have percieved and learned up until now is possible, that it won't be able to create something like consciousness eventually?
Or are you saying that a perfect simulation of the above is not possible?

In general, I believe that even if other people have a consciousness like I know I have,
I am not able to prove that they do, due to the subjective nature of a such.

#1SuperVGA

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:53 PM


Let's pick the low-hanging fruit. As mdwh rightly pointed out, you can't mistake the simulation of the thing for the thing itself. A simulated rainstorm won't get you wet, and Japan has nothing to fear from a simulated nuclear bomb. The standard counter: A simulated thought is still a thought.

A simulated rainstorm will wet things inside the rainstorm. I don't know why you'd need to point out that it won't we me. It's obvious that me and the rainstorm are in two different realities.

I personally subscribe to model-dependent reality: that there is no one true objective reality, there's only what you can measure and model. My mind creates a model of the world from the inputs it receives, and it's that model that I perceive as "the true reality". It's possible that my brainstem is connected to a computer and I'm in "the matrix" along with simulated rainstorms. In that hypothetical world, a simulated rainstorm would make me feel wet. But there's no way for me to measure such a hypothesis so it's neither true or false, it's irrelevant. Likewise my whole chemical structure could be some simulation and there'd be no way for me to measure that, so it's irrelevant. It's nonsense to talk about whether I'm truly a part of the one objective reality or not.


I agree with Hodgman. Recompile, despite repeating that this stuff is very simple, you manage to word your posts so that I cannot understand what you are saying. The above quoted post of yours I think I understand, but I disagree with it.
Are you saying that:
If a perfect simulation of the reality we have percieved and learned up until now is possible, that it won't be able to create something like consciousness?
Or are you saying that a perfect simulation of the above is not possible?

In general, I believe that even if other people have a consciousness like I know I have,
I'll not be able to prove that they do, due to the subjective nature of a such.

PARTNERS