Simulation Argument

I know of the concept expanded by scientists such as Thomas W Campbell or Nick Boston but only for them to form scientific, materialistic arguments as to how things work in present day, but i can't think of any author who adapts the concept for the humanities in a philosophical manner

Is there any philosopher or author who theorizes or expands upon the idea that our reality is simulated ?

Or any author who deals extensively with the nature of, and consequences of consciousness from a philosophical point of view?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=5832f8a596b7e482e4791f53&assetKey=AS:430855903551489@1479735460927
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Whats supposed to be the 'real' reality then?

Good question. I would assume based on Campbell's work that "real" reality is nothing but ourselves interacting with other units of consciousness, eternally pondering on our level of understanding and weather or not manifesting into a simulation would help us decrease our entropy in understanding the reason for why the "real" us exist in the first place

Higher Dimensional 4D "Bulk Space" that our own 3D reality is nested or embedded within. The 4D Bulk space is more "primary" than our own 3D realm, as is 5D space to 4D space, so it would be or feel more real than reality. This is often the case reported by psychonauts who use breakthrough doses of psychedelics and find themselves "in hyperspace" or "a higher dimension", they encounter a reality that is "realer than real" or " more like home than anywhere else they have encountered before". These nested dimensions go all the way up to a realm of infinite dimensions of space, time, etc, which is the Source or Godhead Itself!

In short, our reality may not just be simulated within a computer in a more primary 3d universe, but we are more likley than not "simulated" or at least "imagined" by 4d beings in a higher dimension, and so on and so on.

If they use psychedelic drugs to reach a higher state of mind, then i wouldn't count on their experiences as being reliable

You need to decalcify your pineal gland user. Unlock your crystals to resonate with the Higher plane of spirituality and the universe.

>materialists and positivists go so far up their own ass they now advocate essentially the same thing religions have for millennia

Why? You do know that human's have been using psychedelics for our entire history right, and may have even caused language to come about (glossolalia). Even so, the psychedelics thing is just an anecdote (even though I have experienced the exact scenarios I have described) to the theory I posited, which I would rather this discussion continue on about as it is more in line with OP's thread topic.

It's a dumb paradigm since it doesn't address any fundamental questions, instead throwing them upwards into the "real" reality. Better to attack the hard problem of consciousness directly. I like to think of qualia as a fundamental field of the universe, much in the same way as energy/matter.

Yes but materialistic arguments are not the same as theistic arguments, even tho they point out to more or less the same thing.

People who advocate for a virtual reality based on a digital big-bang have a limited view on the role of the Creator, while theists just go Muh god on everything

It's why i wanted to maybe find a balance between the two using logistic propositions, arguing about the subjectivity of our senses, or something.

>Better to attack the hard problem of consciousness directly.

You better define the "hard problem of consciousness" then.

seem like a suitable thread.
What would you recommend as best book on consciousness?

I've always thought that theologies/spiritualities relate to materialistic paradigms in that theologies are descriptions of the behavior of qualia, whereas materialist/scientific paradigms are descriptions of the behavior of matter.

>Why?

Because i can smoke weed and imagine myself being a pink flying unicorn. That wouldn't make my experience any real beyond the creativeness of my brain on drugs.

For an objective, physical comparison as to what constitutes the "real" and the "virtual" you need similar rigorous physical methodology to define them and compare them. Drugs doesn't give you that.

> I like to think of qualia as a fundamental field of the universe

What's a qualia, and where can i read extensively about it?

It's the mind body problem, essentially. Why do we experience qualia (sorry for using that word so much, kek) and how do these qualia relate to the physical processes of the material world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

It's basically sensation differentiated from the material aspects. The sensation of "blue" or "happy" or "fast" etc. that make up consciousness.

>Because i can smoke weed and imagine myself being a pink flying unicorn. That wouldn't make my experience any real beyond the creativeness of my brain on drugs.

>For an objective, physical comparison as to what constitutes the "real" and the "virtual" you need similar rigorous physical methodology to define them and compare them. Drugs doesn't give you that.

I can see that you are pretty unaware of the sorts of things people have reported on high/breakthrough doses of psychedelics such as DMT, Ayahuasca, etc. But, since this isn't the thread to argue about psys, I recommend you at least educate yourself on the matter by reading trip reports of various substances over on Erowid.

It's related to our minds having non-physical experiences. The problem lies within the question, if our consciousness is a solely a byproduct of our brain, then how do we explain non-physical things like dreaming or out-of-body experiences? It then creates the logical assumption that our consciousness is related to our brain to some degree, but ultimately is independent from it.

This is the best i know of so far. But you'll get more scientific explanations rather than philosophical ones

t. op

>what constitutes the "real" and the "virtual"
I really, really hate the concept of "real" and "fake". I think in the end people say "real" to mean "potentially at hand" which isn't a good starting point for an ontology. Seems really limiting.

The plural of qualia is quale, just so you know, and ok, I mean, your cells, organs, sensations, past (memories) and the idea of your "self" all come into play when your quale are made, I don't see what the "hard problem" is, exactly. Your body makes your experiences, and your body experiences them. Your mind is not separate from your body, it is embedded within it, whether or not your consciousness is emergent from the body or is given to it like soul through reincarnation. In reality it is probably both.

I mean is there any philosopher who created a framework for it? I read somewhere that Plato and Kant touched upon the subject but i'm not sure if it's what i'm looking for

>I don't see what the "hard problem" is
That's probably because you're a physicalist then. The question is one of primacy. Are Quale (I hate how that sounds btw) the result of processes in the brain/body or are they independent of physical processes, albeit connected to a particular physical form (by way of the brain). Or are our perceptions of the physical world merely quale themselves?

Plato's theory of forms is good reading, but the term itself wasn't really coined until recently.

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences—how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes.[1] The philosopher David Chalmers, who introduced the term "hard problem" of consciousness,[2] contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he argues that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".[3]


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

I'm not a physicalist though, I wrote . I'm just not seeing what the problem is, if our souls come from a higher realm to live in our bodies, where our bodies create the sensations and quale we experience. Why these sensations have "characteristics" seems only natural for evolution to give us, as putting icons and symbols to things in our world makes it easier to interpret and solve problems in. Seems pretty simple to me.

I never implied the reality we live in is fake. It is real by our intentionally designed limited understanding and perception of what experiences surround us ( in the larger consciousness system as Campbell calls it )

But from the perspective of what is "authentic/organic" vs "manufactured/purposely constructed", our reality points out that it is pre-made, with the purpose of our consciousness to gain as many experiences as possibly in order to grow in it's understanding of both sets of realities.

Campbell uses the term "entropy" from physics to describe a very high set of experiences happening to a consciousness unit. So if a consciousness unit's purpose is to learn, and by extension to grow, then a unit of consciousness starts from a high entropy state with the intention of reaching a lower entropy state. Basically, he sees it more profitable for CUs to constantly choose stability and predictability over chaos and randomness

Personally i think it's a good way to explain history using this framework for the human civilization. We started out from a high entropy state (primitive hunter gatherers) to lower and lower states of entropy (The creation of states, borders, nations etc) with the UCs purpose being to stabilize a more stable framework for it to grow more comfortably. But there's a huge gap between the physicalist and humanist approach.

You'll have to give more compelling descriptions as to what the terms "soul" "higher realm" mean and why exactly does "solving problems" is an issue

Hard mode: Try not to rely on explanations from physics

bump

>You'll have to give more compelling descriptions as to what the terms "soul" "higher realm" mean

I already explained what I mean by higher realms in aka higher dimensional spaces, often called the Bulk in physics. This is the same concept used in Interstellar.

Soul is harder to define, but if God truly is the Source of All Creation, then we are all Him, but fragmented and fractalized down through these higher dimensions, originating from the Source and eventually leading to the consciousness we hold in our own 3d earthly bodies. Not a complete definition of "soul" by far but it's the best I've got.

> why exactly does "solving problems" is an issue
No idea what you are trying to say here though.

BAUDRILLARD.

But he isn't talking about simulation in the hard, sci-fi, 'your brain is connected to a computer' type of simulation. His version has more to do with Image, the doubling of the world by completely describing it. I actually think it's a much more profound notion than Bostrom's or Musk's version of a holographic world. Notably, Baudrillard's sense of simulation requires no technological apparatus other than the human brain, and no external intelligence that is deceiving us.

Best place to start is Simulation & Simulacra, after that I suggest Impossible Exchange. The Perfect Crime is the magnum opus, and by far the best description of the theory.

>His work is frequently associated with postmodernism and specifically post-structuralism.

doubt.png

What, you want an analytic's take on simulation? You'll have to wait a couple centuries.

I was thinking about something constructed on logical axioms based on the subjectivity of the senses

I'm not sure why subjectivity is relevant to finding out if our reality is being simulated. Perhaps you can explain?

>Simulation Argument
>Argument
What fucking argument? What's the point of this whole fucking hypothesis?
It can not be proven or disproven, it doesn't add anything to philosophy, if anything it's a rehash of Descartes' meditations. It doesn't matter if it's an evil demon or a supercomputer that deceives us, from a logical or scientific point of view one theory is not more likely than the other, and none of them aid in solving the real, hard problems of philosophy or science.

Simulation theory (whether the hard Matrix version, or JB's simulacrum), is radical uncertainty. I just really doubt you'll find anything other than pop-sci 'What If?' scenarios or deconstruction. Maybe someone out there is working on the Fermi Paradox of Simulation Theory, but even then we're only talking probabilities. That's hardly philosophy.

Baudrillard's notion of Simulation has less to do with proving an intervention, and more to do with disproving the notion of Reality. In the same way that ages past just assumed the existence of god, our culture assumes the existence of a real, and assumes that we have access too it. That's what Baudrillard is challenging. (see pic, a nice interview in which Baudrillard compares atheism to simulation as radical heresy.)

Give Simulation & Simulacra, the first essay is the important bit. It's 30 pages.

researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=5832f8a596b7e482e4791f53&assetKey=AS:430855903551489@1479735460927

>Are Quale (I hate how that sounds btw) the result of processes in the brain/body or are they independent of physical processes, albeit connected to a particular physical form (by way of the brain). Or are our perceptions of the physical world merely quale themselves?
The real hard problem is "how" they are connected.

If the senses are meant to provide us with experiences which are subjective in their nature, it would mean they are necessary for us to understand the reality we live in. If getting burned by fire is what gives us pain, then the sense of pain is an experience we would wish to avoid. If eating something that we like is what gives us pleasure, then it's something we would want to pursue, or at least constantly have around us
Experiences would therefor have to be negative or positive to our physical integrity. This leads to the next assumption as to why we would want to keep our physical integrity in the first place, to continue our existence for a particular reason.

So if negative experiences that compromise our physical existence are avoided, but positive ones are embraced, it means the intrinsic reason for why we would wish to continue to exist is to keep experiencing new things that make us more knowledgeable in what compromises our physical or non-physical integrity, that is to say, embracing the process of learning.

Choosing to increase our understanding of the things that surrounds us (Be it physical or non-physical things) by constantly learning, is what makes me assume that the reason for existence is nothing but to learn.

I haven't thought about this all throughout, but the reason why we would want that has something to do with our real selves, i.e our souls/consciousness, which somehow would have to be related to some degree to our physical bodies as a means for learning things, because learning as a process wouldn't make much sense if everything we learn in our lives is forgotten the moment we die. I was hoping there was at least some philosopher our there who pondered on such questions

>plural of qualia is quale
no, the singular of qualia is quale

Whoops

>The 4D Bulk space is more "primary" than our own 3D realm, as is 5D space to 4D space, so it would be or feel more real than reality
I've felt the phenomenon of some spaces feeling more 'real' than reality in my own life. My thoughts, for example, feels more real to me than anything. The internet also has a very 'real' feeling for me. After that, my basement feels more real than outside. When I go outside, nothing feels very real at all. Like it's missing something. Like it's all just carboard cutouts. I must be operating on some higher level of existence. Could I be the chosen one?

I came back to this thread just to say fuck you for tricking me into saying "quale"

>it doesn't add anything to philosophy

It implies that if this is simulated, then our reality was created with a bigger purpose than we initially assumed through all of history

kek

I recently studied Gordon Calleja's player involvement model. This is a games theory thing but he dips his toes into some simulation theory towards the end of his 2014 talk at GDC. Interesting stuff

No, it doesn't. Even if it did, that's not a novel idea at all. The idea that our reality was created for a purpose is older than simulation theory and works fine without it.
Simulation theory is useless. The only purpose it could fulfill is get illiterate video game nerds into surface level skepticism.

>No, it doesn't.

Yes it does. Prior to secularism the world though we were just small pieces created in god's vision where he tests us if we are worthy to join him or go in hell.

While reality being simulated on the same premises, it avoids the theistic god and instead raises other questions as to what we're suppose to do, if seemingly this reality was created in a virtual Big Bang, what we're here for, what we're meant to do, etc

wow, that book is a crock of shit. From the beginning it started to smell fishy, got all sorts of pseudoscientific vibes. After about 50 pages I just gave up. Went on to read some reviews on the internet and what you know - this is just another pseudoscientific shitbomb. Anyways, I blame myself too, for not researching more.
So, can anyone recommend a book about consciousness - just please, no pseudoscientific crap.

What part of pseudoscience are you talking about? The author is a nasa scientist himself

Also, the facts about his research are detailed much later in the book, if that's what you're looking for

Can I get a quick rundown on bulk space? I want to take the bulkpill.

What is the point of the argument, if we only exist in a wholly realistic simulated reality? If there is no means of telling it apart from some "real reality" that we may not even exist in, how does that reorder the way I live? What question does it seek to answer?

Not him, but do you know about the God helmet?(en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet)

Whatever people experience on drugs, doesn't make those things real. How would you, as a threedimensional being even know or recognize a fifth dimension? Much more likely they experienced what they think was another dimension.
I'm a big proponent of drugs btw.

not my reviews, but here are some more devoted people
>Out of body experiences, clairvoyance, fortune telling, intelligent beings from another dimension, etc, etc. After 200 pages I had to put down this book.
>I wouldn't be that offended by the author's accounts if this was a work of subjective selfreflection, but he repeatedly claims that "THIS STUFF IS REAL!" (emphasis his) . I don't doubt the author believes what he writes, but his loose logic and bad science crossed the line for me.
>How did I end up reading this book? Oh, well.

Anyways, my background is engineering, so maybe it is easier for me to see when someone starts to spout sciency sounding bullshit. What is worse, people tend to absorb murky definitions creating their own meanings, which gives them the feeling of understanding. But if you ask them to define what is, let's say good energy or soul they get stuck and become irritated. They get angry, because they adhere their feeling to some cloudy sciency definition. That's just how pseudoscience works.

Why don't you go read the original argument you fucking retard redditor.

The major conclusion by Bostrom isn't even about a simulation. It's about the philosopher John Leslie's Doomsday argument. It's not meant to be a scientific explanation either, so stop framing the entire concept as a hypothesis. The argument is saying that if we aren't in a simulation, then it is highly likely humanity is doomed. He's set up the argument in classic "horns of the dilemma" style, by a series of probabilistic assessments, that either we are in a simulation, or humanity is likely to die.

At least one of the major philosophical consequences here is of practical import: existential threats to humanity. Of which, Bostrom is a major researcher in. That's what is going on here. Fucking pea-brained fuckwit.

>tips fedora

so, like, only quack gather in Veeky Forums or what?
Okay whatever, to hell with consciousness. Any good books on society, social psychology, social philosophy, engineering philosophy? Something like: The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood - very interesting and easily accessible.

Except he never defines it as "energy" or soul or whatever, he calls it simply "consciousness"

And that review is horrible. Yea the first book may sound like unfactual bs, but most of his facts and scientific findings are detalied in the 2nd and 3rd book of the trilogy. It's just that you can't really understand what he's trying to say with his facts unless the reader puts himself in his shoes and experiences to understand the concept he's trying to expand upon. Maybe the 1st book isn't as scientifically sound, but i defininitally recommend picking up the 2nd and 3rd book if you have a similar background in the sciencies

>Except he never defines it as "energy" or soul or whatever, he calls it simply "consciousness"
I am talking here generally, giving examples that I encountered in everyday life. When murky definitions get mixed up with core beliefs and feeling there is no end game. Most people are vapid, so they feel personally attacked when you deconstruct their view of the world.
>just gonna leave the pic here.

That's funny, because Campbell is completely on your side when he talks about how our expectation-fueled belief systems are the ones that that block our connection to the Non Physical Matter Reality. And the pic that you attached is just him talking about said beliefs when it comes to the process of experiencing an out of body state. As someone that has experienced that multiple times without the use of drugs, you cannot engage into the NPMR with the belief that you're going to see god or whatever, or the expectation that you'll succeed.