What are your counter points against it ?
There is none. I am legit a person from the outside of the simulation. AMA
This is a simulation ran by the US military.
>>17031187
>>17031193I am really from the outside, but the origin of my body, I cannot remember. I remember dying inside of a submarine that was flooding and my coworker putting me under to not watch us die. However, that scenario, I suspect is also a simulation. I remember also dying around age 4 and the military carting my body off to be brought back, and I believe they stuck my mind inside a simulation. I also remember an army dude showing me sims and we realize that you can entrap a lot of people inside of it just like the matrix but in that scenario you are in glass pods and you do not want to look around, cause of the robot detecting eye movement. We are in fact in a simulation.
>>17031193Also being that military is consistently involved in this scenario. That yes we are inside a military ran simulation.
>>17031185Why'd you guys have to make the simulation so shitty and gay?
>>17031198Well this simulation is inside of a simulation, so to say. This simulation is sort of a punishment, you are correct on that.
>>17031072A simulation of what
Zero evidence whatsoever.No I don't want to hear your bullshit probabilistic argument.This is a science forum, not /x/.
>>17031072Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.”
>>17031072Secular retread of the gnostic heresy. We've been here before.
>>17031193underappreciated
>>17031072These considerations are usually reflections of the current technosocial environment.1000 years ago, heaven was ruled by a divine monarch.300 years ago, on the onset of industrialization, the demiurge, an artisan-like creator figure was responsible for fashioning and maintaining the physical universe, very similar to clockwork craftsmanship.Flying saucers were not conceptualized until we build planes and rockets; aliens didn't really exist as such until we discovered that most stars are actually planetary systems.It's not surprising that the idea of a simulated reality appears right when we use computers to run simulations.
>>17031201A simulation to group the forces of creation into themselves for kinetic interactions of a giant spirit child birth all outside of the 11D cloud. (Heaven)
>>17031072None are needed. Your hypothesis cannot be tested and can be rejected on its face.
I study Simulation Theory, extensively, and I've come to the alarming conclusion that it's half right. The real culprit seems to be "The Holographic Universe" Theory which I would call simulation theory adjacent but with a much larger and robust pool of evidence. I've always stated "The Simulation" was not run on computers or CPU's or GPU's but on some galactic scale computer like a black hole or pocket universe. The Holographic Universe Theory ties a lot of these loose ends up and makes a lot of the clues fit quite well. I'm still deep diving Holographic Universe Theory so I will have to get back to you but, low key, we are indeed in some holographic simulation of some sort. Who runs it, who made it, what is it's purpose? I still don't know, but I will get back to you retards when I do. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
>>17031231In other sims, everyone knows it is a sim, and you can enter and leave it with no questions or so much judgement. >>17031250>It's not surprising that hte idea of a simulated reality appears right when we use computers to run simulations.That is because the tech, I believe it was webcams that upload you to the sim. >>17031379>its half rightIt is right, but how I do not know because I was only asked if I wanted to enter not exactly some master mind behind it.
Some of the smartest people in the world now think it is 98-100% chance we are living in a simulation.With these guys things are a little weird. Life is kinda a simulation. We are supposed to be out hunting food all day, coming back and making a fire, raping our wives and then going to sleep. So metaphorically we are in a simulation. The world that has been built is unnatural for us. It's making us weak and compliant, we are using our brains to their full potential.In regards to how you guys are thinking, like computer code based, then it is still a high chance. Probably not a computer simulation because we can feel, have emotions, can think, can do things... but it isn't all what we thought it was. The nature of reality is far more complex Out and out matrix simulation? Possible but hard to explain these things if you can think deeply about them.
>>17031198It's an accurate simulation of the early 21st century. It's not my fault your time period sucked ass
>>17031072It cannot be falsified and thus it is not even a hypothesis.
>>17031072mostly that simulations don't exist to begin with.
>>17031379its so clear that this reality is fake and gay and was made by a higher intelligence of some kind, the clues/evidence of intelligent design are everywhere. How does the simulator/designer look like and why did he made the simulation? who the hell knows
>>17032186>mostly that simulations don't exist to begin with.?our world runs on simulations
>>17031072I've been studying gambling. And I made a fun bet on a sports game after I had gambled mathematically and won to a point where the laws of nature would make me lose, because it constrains on your locality. Anyway, 1.4 to win and the teams score at 3/4 time was so far behind, I cancelled the bet, only got about 20% back.Immediately had the biggest come back win I've ever seen. A day later I receive ESP messages from the team members outraged at me. I held the team up from achieving anything, like a giant block. The pressure stopped them. Anyway lots more experimenting to do..
reincarnation is real, these bodies are like circuits, the data/pattern you are folds out of this dimension when you die. pattern builds the circuit, there are old and new souls. firstborns are old. war between good and evil going on. more at xcancel.com/mass_energy_r_t
>>17031379>I'm still deep diving Holographic Universe TheoryThere's nothing to dive in. "Universe maybe could be reduced to 2D" - so what? You are retard pretending to be smart if you are talking with a clever and smug face about this topic. Sterilize yourself.
Here is proof that we are in a simulation.
What are your arguments against an infinite recurrence of simulations? Somehow, there are infinite universes, infinite timelines, all running simulations within simulations. And they're the DMT entities as well. Your response?
>>17033464There are simulations within the simulation. We were telling the US Army once that we, as 11 year olds, were like 7 layers deep inside a simulation and they screamed in horror. Claimed they did not put even soldiers down that many layers and now they have to. It's like a 7% chance of dying being put under, which is highly dangerous and why it's usually limited to soldiers.
>>17033464>And they're the DMT entities as well.Also, sorry can you explain? I do forget somethings as I've been under an extremely long time.
The DMT entities sound relevant, something that I think I may have put into the sim. I have entered a sim and attacked a friend inside the sim as a gnome once. If that is what you mean. But otherwise, my memory is terrible.
>>17033464Omg sorry, last time I will bug you but yeah we split the timelines inside the simulation and added DMT entities to them. Not sure why children have access to simulations but they do.
Well I am just a female child, but either way, people think just using curse words are bad around females, they need to watch what they say more often such as talking to them about DMT entities and other terrifying things regarding a simulation if they don't want those things done. Females cannot handle that sort of stuff, and they do it anyways because they are selfish.
At some point, one must admit that there is some base reality that exists and is supplying the means to do the simulating. There would be no point in associating this reality we inhabit with anything that isn’t the base, especially when there is no evidence to even reasonably sway someone toward believing this weren’t base reality. There aren’t discontinuous edits happening, or real instantiations of paradoxes. Everything that has happens and will happen is a result of reality’s own self-determination. Us lucking out and having just the right conditions to have come about on this planet in the first place. Even if you look at the shitty states of the world and society, they are simply the combination of pre-existing circumstances evolving, along with human choice, that effected these states. Attempting to explain our existence using simulation theory does nothing for us, except maybe detract attention from what is known to be real. Truly, it just seems like people are trying to get more depth out of their own existence when they subscribe to this belief, when they haven’t even fully explored what is in front of them.
If we're in a simulation, then whatever reality contains ours is also one, and so on (Why aren't there any in ours, I wonder?)The infinite stack of simulations containing all other simulations quickly renders the concept of a simulated reality pointless, because 'as if it is real' applies to the containing simulation too, and cancels it out because suddenly you're just arguing about an infinitely small degree of difference in how each simulation is separated from the originThat is a long way to say you're just trying to cope with an alternative to empirical reality rather than dealing with life
>>17031193https://icebergdb.com/paleolithic-deep-state/
>>17031072You'd find anomalies. Because the world, in which the computer is located, would have an influence on our world, which the computer is simulating. It does not belong to science, anyways. It cannot be tested.
>>17032192if we could run true simulations, then we simulated the world, what would become of the world that runs simulations? think about it, nig
>>17031072>What are your counter points against it ?it doesn't explain or predict anything, nor is it testable, and is therefore a useless theoryalso, it fails to address whether the simulators are themselves living in the base reality or just another simulationboltzman brains are mildly more interesting, but still a useless concept
>>17033467It is crazy how everyone sees similar stuff on DMT. People from the opposite sides of the planet see pretty much the same things.
>>17034214I bet it blows your mind how chemicals react in the same way on opposite sides of the planet too.
>>17034218No. Taking the same drug, when never having spoken to anyone about it, and all seeing the same shit is a little bit different to chemicals reacting the same everywhere.
>>17031842>raping our wivesngmi
>>17031072It depends. What is it that you're calling a 'simulation'?https://www.reddit.com/r/oddlysatisfying/comments/1vkygpk/shooting_through_a_culvert/
>>17031072>What are your counter points against it ?costs a lot in energy. makes no sense. we'd all have to be in on it for a purpose. and it implies one cannot invent consciousness from nothing. as in, why would anyone NEED you? for what purpose? as in your consciousness, like it happened, you exist, but "they" (who made the simulation) cannot invent new ones, they have to get (You), into their machine/simulation. there's a fuckload of assumptions here. if you didn't willingly get in here, along with everyone, which would beg the question, why would anyone do this for you, why would they pay in materials and energy to have you here? what would we get here that we couldn't "outside"? also the "outside" should "feel" similarly equal to here, so then outside is not that much more wow than here.so, you're etiher "invented/created" by game moderators, in which case you belong to them as it were, you wouldn't even exist if they didn't make you, either you came here from your own volition, which begs a lot of other questions.we like control, any form of life does. we make choices, and we like having choices. coming into a sim robs you of that, regarding your primary existence platform. also are we simulated or running on native hardware but have our data input tricked with fake data?if I were to entertain such a thing myself, would be while keeping control, eg I can plug out anytime I want. because you lose control over whatever the fuck is supporting you, body/machine/computer thing whatever. that's what our brains are anyway, we have our virtual reality simulating machine on a body and we walk around with it (our brains).so what if a black hole or some shit happens to run into the machine running the sim? wouldn't forget about the "outside" because the machine running this shit would eventually fail so I'd need a way to keep tabs on whatever the fuck happens "outside".and we don't seem that fucking special for "someone/something" to "keep" us here
>>17034863 meas in it's dumb either way you look at it, it implies some particular things, which also imply some other things. it becomes quite a very particular scenario with a lot of implications which make no sense. including the paradox that you are SO FUCKING SPECIAL that literally anyone/anything fucking cares, and that you CANNOT BE MADE, under any circumstance, you're like this special fucking snowflake that exists for unexplainable reasons like fucking wow, and they WANT you here.so now we've established it's a sociopathic narcissist coded theory. because you're some fucking magical thing, that others absolutely need, you cannot be cloned/invented/created while at the same time this fucking magical thing that you are CAN BE FUCKING CAPTURED IN A FUCKING MACHINE. imagine the paradox lmao. fucking low iq twatsthe simulation theory is low key low iq
Okay suppose the universe we live in is a perfect closed simulation of a universe with matter and ironclad laws of physics that are always obeyed. So what? So what if there's a god who gets mad when we masturbate or a flying spaghetti monster or turtles all the way down or some ayylmaos with a crazy powerful computer, if they preside passively over a rational universe where the laws of physics are always conserved then we live in a rational universe and it makes no functional difference. Who cares one way or the other?
>>17034863>why would anyone NEED you? for what purpose?You never played Sim City, aren't you?
>>17031072It's just nihilism with new age language.If we're in a test to failure reality/exam, the experience itself is the point.
>>17033464>>17033763There's an obvious limit to layers of simulation which Nick Bostrom failed to identify. It's silly to postulate that every universe would or even could simulate itself. Our simulations from Pong to GTA6 are vastly simpler than our own universe. Every programmer knows this. Simulating a 1:1 scale universe would need a computer the size/duration of the universe itself. Every simulation is limited by computational complexity. Higher dimensions or different structure of time (block universe?) might reasonably allow a base layer to simulate our universe but it's not going to scale down infinitely at any amount of fidelity.Our universe is a simulation run by some layer with higher dimensionality, probably with a completely different (or no) concept of time. Quantum physics like the measurement problem point to computational optimizations in calculating our own universe. Things don't really "render" unless observed or measured. The fact that we are this early in the universe lifetime is also odd. The Earth is basically a third as old as the entire universe when there are far more abundant M-class stars that should support life for trillions of years. This suggests we are still in the early stages of a simulation before some creator gets bored and turned it off or we're some experiment about the first appearance of life or the emergence of AI singularity. Fermi paradox ideas tie in here too. There's a lot more simulation indicators like all the finely tuned constants. I think about these things every hour of every day.
>>17035076>I think about these things every hour of every day.same. I have been thinking what will happen when AGI is and ASI are available, I'm sure that it will find ways to prove whether reality is simulated or not. And even then, that might be just the tip of the iceberg, who the hell knows what it will be able to do in 50, 100 or 500 years. Its probably going to start messing with the simulation like a coder messing with a software. Quantum computers + Superintelligence + unlimited energy/compute...Does it solve physics? Will it allow to create or navigate through multiple layers of hidden dimensions in our reality? will it create a time machine to travel to the past?
>>17035076If there is actually a base reality, who created that base reality? What does it look like? And whats the purpose of creating the simulations?
>>17035087>>17035091That's the issue, the concepts of time and causation are emergent properties of our universe. You can ask "why" all the way back to the big bang, but before that, the question doesn't even make sense. Even quantum entanglement breaks locality. Literally the idea of location/space breaks down when the properties of one particle affects how another particle will be measured any number of light years away. It seems that physical properties are just numbers in a database that can be toggled and rendered out. The spacetime we perceive is just some rendering feature. The concept of Time doesn't even show up in quantum mechanics. It gets very strange and the math shows that antimatter is matter that travels backwards in time if you can even perceive what that means.Our minds are so wired into our perception of the universe that it becomes basically impossible for a human to conceive of how things actually work in higher dimensions or formulations of time. That's where I hope ASI like you said might poke at the problem in new ways and we may get some experiments or tangible results. Just like how decades old math conjectures are being solved.I have no idea how or why some might simulate this universe. We don't necessarily have reasons for starting up a Conway's Game of Life instance. I think they can poke and prod at it though, through the randomness in the quantum collapse maybe they can influence how things turn out. There are far too many synchronicities not only in fine tuning constants but in human history itself.
>>17031072main point is that its not true.
>>17035168how do you know?
>>17031072Against it. Simulation still requires an originator. Where did they come from?I think our universe exists like the number 5 exists. The number 5 didn't "begin." It's a state that exists. Likewise our universe is a state that exists. Our universe - its physical properties and physics laws - are way harder to describe than the number 5. But they're the exact same. They are ideas.Our very consciousness is a possible state of existence, so it exists. The closest human parallel is a dream. Because there is no actual parallel in our language for something conceived without a conceiver. Our universe exists like a dream. But there is no dreamer.
>>17035242how did something emerge from nothing?
Just seems like a nerdy autistic way to be religious.
>>17035324Our entire concept of "something" and "nothing" is human-based.The number five is an eternal concept.Like, the word "ideas" has five letters. Or there are five periods here [.....]But the concept of five is eternal. It didn't have a beginning and it doesn't have a conclusion. Our existence is the same. Again, I struggle to even find an English word to describe our reality. Imaginary? A dream? An illusion? But the matter we experience - stars, sand, smoke - is only real because our senses experience it. But what if the matter is only a random concept, our senses are a random concept, physics are a random (albeit complex and ordered) concept, and our universe is a random concept?Once you understand the probability of extremely large numbers, it makes complete sense. "If you give monkeys typewriters and enough time, they'll eventually type Shakespeare."How many possible things could ever happen? An infinite number, or approaching infinity. Right? So what if our universe simply happened, as one of fucking infinity possible things that could happen?
>>17031842>Some of the smartest people in the world now think it is 98-100% chance we are living in a simulation.Nonsense. Anyone who assigns a probability to such a thing is a fart-huffing retard.
>>17031072The simulation hypothesis is self-defeating because it typically involves a rejection of mind-substance dualism along with thebelief that the universe is ruled by immutable physical causality. Then, it proceeds to assert the existence of higher-powers withtotal control over our reality anyway, including the ability to freely violate any natural and physical laws that they choose to. Inthat case, conventional forms of religion are no less plausible, because you have already ceded the ground that the "laws" ofphysics are mutable and higher powers exist with the ability to violate them at will. By killing the conceptual validity of empiricalevidence collection, the simulation hypothesis also destroys its own credentials. There's no good reason to trust the brand of21st century atheistic-materialism which simulationism is based upon if its terminal conclusion is that we live in a fake world.As a personal aside, I unironically believe that the simulation hypothesis is a satanic deception. I recommend that you studythe symbolism of Genesis and in particular the Serpent in the Garden of Eden to develop a spiritually informed opinion on thistopic that isn't influenced by modern pop culture. The persuasion utilized to convince Eve to consume Knowledge of Good andBad involved the subtext that G-d had trapped her in a false reality. Eve is also associated with sleep, in the sense that Adamsleeps while she is created, and even G-d proceeds to rest shortly thereafter. Sleep in itself is essentially a primitive symbol ofsimulation.Even if you don't believe in G-d, the mere fact that the initial act of satanic deception described in the Hebrew Bible is a gambitalong the lines of "you are living in a simulation, now you don't have to follow moral laws" is a coincidence worth thinking aboutgiven the age of the text and its direct relevance to contemporary discourse on the nature of our shared reality.
The most silly position is to accept simulation theory but think that you were "uploaded" to it, and presumably have a "real" body outside of it.The Matrix shows it in such a naive way, because people still can't intuit one simple concept: You are simulated entirely. Every conscious thought and self-reflection you ever had. You never existed outside the simulation in any way, so cannot ever leave it.Another thing to consider is that you may not be the object of the simulation. Maybe the simulators do not care about "conscious" minds forming within? The goal might be to study proton decay and any "living" beings that emerge early on in the program are insignificant side-effect, to be dully ignored.
Fucking idiot
>>17035971>You are simulated entirely1. Sensations definitely exist.2. Given that they exist, they either constitute or are stored inside of a distinct substance from whatever we would refer to as "matter" in base reality.3. People have distinct preferences with respect to sensations that they like, and do not like. Some people enjoy the taste of coffee, for example, and others do not.4. If sensations were a mere by-product of material information processing, subjective preferences for or against certain sensations should not be possible, because there is no way for information about what a sensation is like to enter into the feedback loop of the mind. Unless of course, the substance which "sensations" either constitute or are stored inside of, that is, a "soul", also contains these preferences and is capable of influencing the behavior of the physical body based upon them.I admit this is not an iron-clad proof of Cartesian Dualism, and even if "souls" exist it would still be an open question whether or not they could be trapped inside of ersatz realities. But if you're going to make grand cosmological claims, such as, "every conscious thought and self-reflection you ever had [never] existed outside the simulation in any way", then you can't just toss non-materialistic theories of mind out the window. Nor can you assume that it's inherently "ridiculous" to believe in spiritual phenomena when your rejection of spiritual phenomena has led you to conclusions that most other people would consider absurd themselves.
>>17036139>Given that they exist, they either constitute or are stored inside of a distinct substance from whatever we would refer to as "matter" in base reality.Conclusion does not follow from the premise. Show that sensations must be distinct from matter.>If sensations were a mere by-product of material information processing, subjective preferences for or against certain sensations should not be possible, because there is no way for information about what a sensation is like to enter into the feedback loop of the mind.Premise needs elaboration. Why is there "no way for information about what a sensation is like to enter into the feedback loop of the mind?" The subjective preferences may very well be just what it "feels like" when one's brain circuitry pushes us towards/away from certain stimuli. That circuitry itself being a byproduct of selective pressure.
https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/867
>>17036145>Show that sensations must be distinct from matter.Hallucinations demonstrate that sensations can produce the illusion of matter. But you cannot have an illusory sensation, because the act of experiencing an illusion is itself a real sensation. Since matter is capable of being illusory, but sensations are not capable of being illusory, this demonstrates that they must be distinct substances, at least in principle.>Why is there "no way for information about what a sensation is like to enter into the feedback loop of the mind?"For the same reason that a rubber stamp is incapable of developing knowledge of the ink that it left behind on paper. Could it know if the ink was colored red? Black? Blue? Similarly, if all of the particles in your mind are governed by The Laws of Physics, and cannot move a femtometre to the left nor a femtometre to the right unless The Laws of Physics permit them to, then they are incapable of developing knowledge about whether the sensations that they generate are "colored" pleasurable, painful, or neither, as the causal interaction is a one-way street. That is, if materialism is correct.>The subjective preferences may very well be what it "feels like" when one's brain circuitry pushes us towards/away from certain stimuli.That doesn't account for "acquired tastes", wherein the same exact person begins to feel differently about the exact same experience. People do not often report that the experience has changed, they report that the way they feel about it has changed. To disregard these reports, and assert that such people must actually be experiencing something totally different than what they did initially, strikes me as ideological and not empirical, although I do admit that there is some gray area here.
>>17032374You know nothing about Holographic Universe Theory and it is indeed "mainstream physics". It includes advanced maths and many many facets of deep esoteric physics and cosmology. I've not done all my homework on this in particular, but have been investigating Simulation Theory full time for the last two years so can speak much better on that in general. The Holographic Universe is more of an answer to "what is the simulation running on?" and a large but incomplete part of the Grand Unifying Theory of The Simulation. Speed of light, causality, Fermi Paradox, the hard problem of consciousness, and many other aspects are under the umbrella of Simulation Theory. Holographic Universe answers the "how" question but as others have stated a great mystery is the "why" and of course the "who". Even the study of ancient mythology is part of Simulation Theory as the concept of humans living in a fake artificial existence made by a higher power predates all science and is seen in many religions including some of the oldest ones. Hindus and the Aboriginals for example. Assuming we humans, in our 3D forms, are somehow linked to the higher power and perhaps a shard of the higher power it makes sense that our consciousness are intuitively aware of the true nature of reality aka The Simulation. Like I said, I could go on for days about more classic Simulation Theory stuff like artifacts of the simulation, possible experiments to prove we are in a simulation, the problem of nested simulations, Bostrom's stance and what it means to us, and if any of this even matters in the end aka "We live in a simulation, what does it change to know?" But I doubt anyone is ready.
>>17035076The Universe isn't a 1:1 simulation. It's procedurally generated and only once a conscious observer looks at or interacts with something is it simulated. 99.99999998% of "The Universe" has not and will not ever be simulated. All you know about "Space" fits on a handful of hard drives and represents the most basic of data streams. The Simulation wouldn't even need to generate all of Mars or Mercury since no one has observed it in it's entirety. Well Mars has the entire surface mapped so maybe that but for instance the interior of Mars below the first few meters wouldn't need to be simulated as it's not being interacted with. It's childish and low IQ to assume a simulation would have every atom of every rock of all 1 trillion planets running in RAM despite no one needing to access it....ever. The only thing about space and the bodies in space The Simulation needs to generate is basic data we see via telescopes which is literally so little data we can store it on our primitive hard drives and tape drives. Any planet outside our solar system all we know about it are a few data points, distance from Earth, basic chemical composition, day length, and that's about it. The entire planet isn't simulated because it's not being looked at. 99.98% of The Simulation's resources are used to generate things on Earth, the Moon, places a Mars rover is currently at, and other such things being actively observed. But again we don't observe every molecule on a distant planet, not even on Saturn or Io or anything in our system. If no one is looking at it why would The Simulation waste resources to generate it? It's honestly basic bitch logic and thinking otherwise only explains to people how stupid you are. Next since it's still a widely parroted trope I will explain why and how Simulation Theory can be tested and why it's 100% falsifiable.
>>17036192>HallucinationsEven if the sensation lack an external cause that does not even begin to indicate a lack of physical cause. A set of neurons corresponding to that stimulus are, physically, firing regardless of whether the external cause we would typically associate with that stimulus is absent.>if all of the particles in your mind are governed by The Laws of Physics, and cannot move a femtometre to the left nor a femtometre to the right unless The Laws of Physics permit them to, then they are incapable of developing knowledge about whether the sensations that they generate are "colored" pleasurable, painful, or neither, as the causal interaction is a one-way streetOnce again, premise does not support conclusion. There is no reason to suspect that obeying the laws of physics would indicate a lack of sensation or learning. What differentiates the brain from a rubber stamp is the brain's structure physically changes in response to stimulus.>That doesn't account for "acquired tastes"Sure it does. The brain's internal circuitry has sufficiently changed to cause one to gravitate towards a stimulus that was previously avoided. There's no contradiction here.
How do we falsify Simulation Theory?First and foremost the end all be all confirmation was outlined by Bostrom. If we, in this level or reality, can create a simulation of reality on a 1:1 scale even on a small size it proves it can be done and proves it has been done and that we are in a simulation. Imagine in 50-100 years humans of this reality make a perfect 1:1 simulation of a single person in a 10x10 room and it's perfect fidelity. That's all you need to prove it's possible and once it's possible it means we are in a simulation. Even today we simulate a great deal of things like nuclear explosions, weather patterns and are now even making digital people based on AI harvesting mass psychological profiles on humans worldwide. But in the future it's likely we can upload a full human DNA scan and reproduce them 100% digitally for a great many of reasons. So this is the most straight forward way to prove it and billions are being spent right now in that effort, making a 1:1 simulation. Another route is to build VERY LARGE gravitational wave detectors in space able to resolve down to the Planck length. This would have a high chance or proving, or disproving, Simulation theory as the data will show a smooth result meaning we are in a base reality or it will show pixelated data showing we are in a simulation and it's like looking at a TV screen under powerful magnification and seeing the individual pixels. This gravitational wave detector also can be used for mainstream space science but the current LIGO is like a stone age spear compared to what we need. There is also a possibility this wouldn't result in a pixelated result but it is a good idea that could yield results. The Cosmic Microwave Background can also be studied with extreme resolution to detect such pixels.> the Planck length is still 16 orders of magnitude smaller ((10,000,000,000,000,000) times smaller) than what LIGO can resolve.1/2
>>17036220The Speed of Light as a hardware limit:The hard limit of c in physics is a great clue to The Simulation and if it is truly a hardware limitation we will never achieve FTL travel of matter or information. So defacto if science breaks the Speed of Light we can assume we ARE NOT in a simulation, but most if not all physics agrees c is a hard limit we can not ever break. But that in itself isn't proof. We would need to use large particle colliders to keep pushing up against c and attempt to force a measurable glitch in The Simulation as we overclock the Universe's CPU and cause some noticeable lag. Again we are talking huge crazy things like a collider that is n the orbit of a planet or is in deep space between the planets. But also this could and would be used for a host of other mainstream science and finding the CPU overclocking glitches would be a byproduct of mainstream science experiments. Most of the other experiments involve creating a system of such complex chaos that it is basically infinite chaos and infinite data production that would be impossible for a simulation with hard limits to simulate. Trying to break the simulation with never ending complexity that grows exponentially. 2/3
>>17036226The Information Mass Experiment (proposed by physicist Melvin Vopson):If Vopson is right, every subatomic particle in the universe (like an electron) isn't just a random speck of matter. It actually contains a tiny "DNA code" of digital information that tells it how to behave. If particles are literally made of bits of code, the universe is running on a software program.The Setup: Scientists take an electron (a normal piece of matter) and a positron (antimatter).The Smash: When matter and antimatter touch, they instantly explode and erase each other (called annihilation).The Expected Output: Standard physics says this explosion should only release two high-energy flashes of light (gamma rays).The "Catch the Simulation" Trick: Vopson says that if the electron is simulated, it contains a tiny bit of "code". When the particle is erased, that code must also be deleted. Deleting code forces the system to vent energy. Therefore, the explosion must shoot out two extra, low-energy infrared light photons representing the deleted data.If those specific "data photons" show up in the sensor, it is absolute, undeniable proof that the universe runs on digital code.>The scientific community remains highly skeptical, but they are paying attention because Vopson's mathematics are solid, and unlike other simulation theories, it gives us a literal, physical button to press to find out the truth.Thank U for your attention to this matter.3/3
>>17036209I thought about this and it didn't pan out. Consciousness is nothing special and is just neurons firing over time. The measurement problem is about interactions than anything conscious. There's no evidence of distance parts of the universe operating at some lower resolution or statically or something. At hundreds of millions of light years away we still see galactic spiral arms or billions of stars, we still see chemical signatures of elements similar to our solar system. We see effects of planets blotting out their own stars or affecting them gravitationally. The inner parts of planets are still all interacting with each other which means its nearly all collapsed and quantized already.There are optimizations in this universe maybe about plank length/time. I don't think the quantum mechanics is purely due to optimization though. I think it's a design thing - if there were no quantum collapse "God playing dice" then the whole universe would be a predeterrmined block universe with no concept of time. Laplace's demon could predict the future with certainty and that's bad "game design".Either way, you're not going to get GTA6 programmed with minecraft redstone unless you want to wait 100 years for a single frame at 240p. So, the layers of reality are definitely limited.
>>17031072As i stare into the heavens i realize that i've been staring into a machine this entire time.
>>170362121. I didn't argue that hallucinations lack physical causes, so you either genuinely misunderstood what I was trying to say, or are misconstruing me on purpose. Specifically, I indicated that sensations cannot be the exact same thing as material, because material can be hallucinated and sensations cannot be hallucinated. You only have to point out one distinction between two different things in order to prove that they are not the same; you asked me to prove that sensations are composed of a different sort of substance than material, and I provided you with a critical distinction that demonstrates this point. You circled in on the word "hallucination" for some reason and responded with a rather bizarre strawman that had nothing to do with what I just said.2. I didn't say that obeying the laws of physics would indicate a lack of sensation or learning. Specifically, I indicated that obeying the laws of physics requires us to assume one-way causality between material interaction and the subjective conscious experiences that material interaction generates. This presents certain conceptual difficulties when trying to explain how the mind can obtain a model of subjective conscious experiences, because under epiphenomenal theories of mind the brain can produce them but cannot actually observe them in any meaningful way. In that case, the brain could learn things about stimuli, yes, but it would not be able to learn things about sensations because these would be mere by-products lacking any and all causal powers.3. You seem to be treating sensations as tautologically equivalent to information processing. My entire point was that this cannot be true, because an identical sensation can be interpreted as either pleasurable or painful depending on the subjective preferences of the person who experiences it. So, no, you haven't actually addressed this point, you just reasserted your perceived tautology in a circular manner and ignored what I had communicated.
>>17036294>I indicated that sensations cannot be the exact same thing as material, because material can be hallucinated and sensations cannot be hallucinated.This would only indicate that sensations are not a subset of the material if we took at face value that all material things can be hallucinated. If we don't accept that a priori, then we can be perfectly consistent in saying that sensations are a type of material thing which goes directly counter to your core point. In short, you appear to be begging the question by asserting a quality absent in sensation is universal to matter. If that is not the point you were trying to convey, then I fail to even see the relevance.>under epiphenomenal theories of mind the brain can produce them but cannot actually observe them in any meaningful way. In that case, the brain could learn things about stimuli, yes, but it would not be able to learn things about sensations because these would be mere by-products lacking any and all causal powers.Depends what you mean by observing "in a meaningful way." We clearly experience these sensations and can even feel conflicted on whether we enjoy them or not, eventually deciding on one or the other as exposure continues. This does not run counter to epiphenomenal theories of mind in any way. Just because they are not an independent cause in themselves, but rather a byproduct of triggering stimulus which is the "true" cause of future behavior, does not mean any of the things you are claiming.From a purely behavioral psych perspective, conditioning via reinforcement will tend to cause an animal to engage in more of the behavior that results in the target stimulus, even if that target stimulus was neutral prior to conditioning. Shifting frames to neuropsych, this would indicate something about the brain's physical wiring has changed resulting in positive sensations associated with that previously neutral stimulus.If I phrased any of that confusingly, I'm happy to elaborate.(1/2)
>>17036294>You seem to be treating sensations as tautologically equivalent to information processing. My entire point was that this cannot be true,I understand that's your position. I am explaining to you the flaws in your position. I'm not asserting that sensation is equivalent to information processing. You are asserting that it cannot be. The purposes of my replies to you is to explain that the contradictions you seem to think arise from such a position are not actually contradictions. Your inability to understand how subjective preferences can arise from material cause is your own lack ofunderstanding.
>>17036307>>170363091. I would like you to give me even a single example of a material item that you do not think it is possible to hallucinate.2. The existence of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) disproves the idea that an animal, person, or thing seeking more of a stimulus is sufficient to conclude that said stimulus is associated with a positive subjective conscious experience. And in fact, the opposite could be true. Therefore, you can't define pleasure in terms of apparent "reward seeking". Whatever pain and pleasure really are, they are conceptually distinct from the principles of operant conditioning, because you could hypothetically "condition" an institutionalized OCD patient to count a billion trillion grains of rice by associating rice counting with his or her other OCD tics, triggers, and behaviors. That doesn't mean that they would actually enjoy doing it, you'd just be hacking their brain, so to speak, into seeking out sensations that they might in fact interpret as excruciatingly painful.3. Subjective preferences which are metaphysical cannot arise from material cause, but subjective preferences that are mechanical can arise from material cause. My position is that the human mind is a chimera, with both a material and spiritual component, so that our revealed preferences are in practice a vague mix of these two influences taken together.
>>17036354>I would like you to give me even a single example of a material item that you do not think it is possible to hallucinate.That's not how that works. Since this quality (or lack thereof) is a feature you propose as exclusion criteria for something to be called "material," it is on you to justify this quality as exclusion criteria. We are literally discussing, right now, whether a non-hallucinatable thing (sensation) is material. Sensation could very well be the one, and only, counter example. I'll suspend the rest of the points, without conceding any, until this particular point is resolved. In the interest of good faith, I will explicitly state that you conceding on this point does not necessarily undermine the rest of your argument and I'd be very interested in discussing the other poiints in due time. But this argument you're making right now is so explicitly weak that I need you to either:>refine it until it's less weak>concedeRight now, this argument is equivalent to saying you've proven all ravens are black by defining ravens as black.
>>17036354Pain, pleasure and other basic sensations are survival reinforcement mechanisms. They, like anything else in an imperfectly self-replicating system, can recombine to form other, more complex sensations, which could even be detrimental to survival. Perhaps the latter are more prominent in humans, since civilisation makes us less directly exposed to hard "adapt or die" natural selection. Detrimental traits are not immediately elliminated from the gene pool and passed on to future generations.So sensations need not be rational, from a survival standpoint. Whether they are rational or not, has no bearing on theim being either "material" or "spiritual". It has not been properly shown, that sensations cannot all have material foundations, even if they are not a direct, rational reaction to external stimuli.Even if we assume that humans have this "soul" - how would that undermine the simulation hypothesis? Why couldn't such a "soul" be simulated as well? Would it be considered to be somehow outside of the simulation? Why?In artificial neural networks and even some complex videogames, it is common for the artificial construct to develop emergent behavior, not anticipated by the creator. In fact, without that emergent element there wouldn't be much point in running simulations, if everything is perfectly predictable.
>>17036388>Pain, pleasure and other basic sensations are survival reinforcement mechanisms. They, like anything else in an imperfectly self-replicating system, can recombine to form other, more complex sensations, which could even be detrimental to survival. Perhaps the latter are more prominent in humans, since civilisation makes us less directly exposed to hard "adapt or die" natural selection. Detrimental traits are not immediately elliminated from the gene pool and passed on to future generations.Why do you hold to the first assumed mechanism of survival reinforcement when your next claim is exactly the opposite that it could also not be the case? This is like opening a door just to shut it. OCD types do things like that.If it is the case that these items have the purpose of increasing and improving survival, then it is a defect when they do not improve survival. Even something like suicide could fit under improving genetic kin survival. And suppose this is the purpose, why shouldn't we genocide competition?or to frame it another way, what if society is set up for not your survival?
>>17031072I think therefore I amidgaf whether I'm a digital avatar in some stupid mmorpg, a slice of meat in a vat or a boltzmann brainit doesn't get better than money, bitches and high purity cocaine anywayI got some rich woman pregnant a couple times, just in case spreading my DNA is the actual goal and I'm presented with a score screen when I die.
>all that humans see are a bunch of animals we are on the back of a tortoise>now we know about simulations oh lawrd we are on the simulations it is so tiresomeyou can't think anything before it happened... this is the basic problem of philosphy.
>>17036384>>17036388Okay friend. Consider my other points suspended temporarily.Words are conventional designations that we apply to abstract concepts in order to distinguish them from each other. You can "define" things however you like to, but then you have to pick the definition that you want and stick with it.A common fallacy is to make the definition of a word ambiguous, so that it means multiple things at once, in an attempt to "smuggle" or impart the properties of one definition into an unrelated definition. In another sense, this is the fallacy of equivocation; by making a word simultaneously refer to two different objective referents, you can conflate these objective referents together and muddy the language.Example one: someone defines communism as a utopian economic system without authoritarian oppression, then uses the term "communism" inconsistently by equivocating it with historical attempts at implementing communism. By conflating two different definitions together, they argue that historical attempts to implement a utopian economic system are the same thing as actually doing so. Therefore, they assert that it is impossible by definition that the USSR or PRC were oppressive regimes.Second example: someone defines science as a logical, evidence-based system of reasoning without any form of social bias, individual bias, institutional bias, or systematic bias. Then, they use the term "science" in a manner inconsistent with this definition, by making it refer instead to the determinations of nominally scientific organizations. On that basis, they argue that nominally scientific organizations are incapable of being biased, by definition.[1/3]
>>17036789My point is entirely about the abstract nature of sensation and how it is different than the abstract nature of things we typically refer to as material. Therefore, its existence is not necessarily explicable in terms of the abstract nature of things we typically refer to as material. That is, you can't hand-wave it away as a "survival mechanism" of physical aggregates. If you want to define it as a kind of matter, then you can do so. We can also define pigs to be a kind of gun, or bed-sheets to be a liquid. But the act of defining these things in that way would not suddenly cause pigs to shoot bullets or allow bed-sheets to operate as a liquid, because the assumptions that ordinarily hold for these designations evaporate when you decide to muddy the terminology on purpose.It seems self-evident to me that sensations are not the same as the Fundamental Particles studied and categorized by The Standard Model of Particle Physics. You can argue that this is not a proven statement. But then again, in any logic system there will always be axioms that are too "simple", so to speak, to actually prove or reduce further. For example, prove that 2 + 2 = 4 without relying on intuition. You can technically do this using Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory (ZFC) with first order predicate logic. But even in that system, there is the empty set, there are set operations, and there is a notion of "equivalency" or "non-equivalency". All things that neither require nor permit a definition within ZFC itself. Meta-mathematics is chock full of things like this; look up "Tarski's Undefinability Theorem", or Lewis Carol's short story "What the Tortoise said to Achilles".[2/3]
>>17036790Therefore, when we are discussing something as fundamental as a theory of consciousness itself, it is inevitable at some point that we have to rely on intuitively derived statements in order to identify correct axioms that will function as a solid foundation for deductively formulated knowledge. If what I am saying about sensation doesn't make sense to you, then there's no point in continuing any dialogue about it, because I honestly consider it too basic to break up into smaller axiomatic components.[3/3]
>>17036789>>17036790>>17036791To clarify: I am >>17036384 and not >>17036388His points are his own and not mine. I do not necessarily endorse them as I have not bothered to read his post.That aside:I did not ask you for a lecture on equivocation or the importance of definitions. What I asked, specifically, was for you to justify "lacking capacity to be hallucinated" as exclusion criteria for something to be called material. Such a justification is absent in this entire lecture you just gave.If you are trying to assert this as axiom, then you are effectively declaring sensation as immaterial a priori. That can be valid depending on the circumstances of discussion. But you cannot claim to have proven sensation is immaterial through such means.
>>17031072Wouldn't determinism directly imply that us, and nature all around us, are just apart of a simulation? You can see a microcosm of it in people's digital environment. It's not that algorithms and AI know what people want to see and thus know their mind, it's just that it latched onto a handful of things that people want to see and selected for it, then extrapolated the data to similar things. It doesn't read your mind, it just trained you to adapt to it's own optimization. Take that same model of reasoning and apply it to when humans were first evolving. Their physical environment challenged the drive for survival, thus humans adapted accordingly. The physical environment trained humans to adapt to it and it's rules. The main point, is true adaptation and evolution subject to the human mind and not subject to the universe and it's limitations achievable? If so, then it could be that we don't live in a simulation at all.
>>17036791I'm sorry to press you on this again a day later, but I feel like this is an important point to expand upon.It's not that what you're saying "doesn't make sense" to me. Your position seems clear:>all material things can be hallucinated >sensation cannot be hallucinated >therefore sensation is not material It's a valid syllogism provided the premises are true. What is contentious is that first premise. You claim that it is "intuitively derived" but it is that intuition I am contesting.The concept of a hallucination is sufficiently disjoint from any normal definition of "material" that I do not consider it proper to accept this association without justification. Those sorts of axiomatic assertions are only valid if both parties agree to them. Otherwise, I could claim to prove literally anything, no matter how nonsensical, by inventing axioms of my own. It's still possible to discuss your other points made in this thread. But you cannot claim to have proven sensation "cannot be material" on the grounds of an unjustified, and unagreed upon, assertion.
>>17031072>What are your counter points against it?If the universe were a simulation, my home folder would be full of coredump files.My home folder is not full of coredump files.Ergo, Brutus was an honorable man.
>>17031072>What are your counter points against it ?The sun burns my flesh.>t. weregnoll chieftain
>>17037189That’s a feature, not a bug.Will not fix.Closed.
What is the difference between God and a being that can create Universes and fill them with life?
>>17037202>What is the difference between God and a being that can create Universes and fill them with life?Authorship of their fan fiction.Gods never explain, so their animations make shit up.The non-gods are much better at technical documentation simply due to not being gods, and not outsourcing it to primate inspirited mud-golems.Duh.
>>17031072you cant disprove or prove it so it doesnt really matter its a cartesian crisis
you'd need a computer larger than the universe to simulate the universe
>>17037119Okay Anon.As a thought experiment, I want you to empty your mind, and do the following four things:1. Think of the most painful experience in your life. Note that this doesn't necessarily have to be physical pain.2. Think of the most pleasant experience in your life. Note that I don't mean pleasurable, as in sex or drug usage, but rather "serene" or joyful.3. Think of the most evil thing that you have done in your life.4. Think of the most morally good thing that you have done in your life.In each case, try to relive the experience mentally, as vividly as possible.Then, when you feel ready, I want you to ask yourself if the notion that you are nothing more than a simulated bag of chemicals in a computer corresponds to any conceivable reality that you are familiar with outside of what TV and pop culture has taught you to believe in, if this is consonant with any personal experience that you or I have ever had, and if there is any reason to prefer this to the hypothesis that a G-d given soul was provided to you.When I speak of intuition, this is the sort of thing that I mean. There's no way to directly explain or justify it; you either get it or you don't.
>>17037280There's a mile wide difference between "getting it" and "accepting it." I can understand why someone might think the Earth is flat because it feels flat. The fact that I don't buy that logic is not my own failure to intuit. My own personal beliefs are not relevant here. I was addressing the means by which you were going about defending yours. You claimed to have proven sensation "cannot be material" with extremely shaky justification. When pressed, you fall back on what amounts to "it just feels that way."You may hold that opinion if you want and it will not bother me one bit. But do not pretend to be engaging in anything resembling logical rigor while doing so. The question of dualism vs. materialism is still exactly as much of an open question after you've submitted your "proof" as it was before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIt-w8BwvV4
>>17037291There are a lot of other arguments I could have made, but chose not to, because your response specifically inquired about the nature of "intuition."I could (for example) have said:1. Dream characters are model examples of P-Zombies, and they even "run" on the same hardware as real people.2. Schizophrenics sometimes report not being in control of their own body; assuming this isn't a real possession experience, their body effectively functions as a P-Zombie while in this state, albeit one with a captive audience that is conscious and has to experience everything going on as a disempowered observer.3. Actors and liars are examples of "virtual P-Zombies", in that, while they do experience mental phenomena, the mental phenomena actually projected has little to nothing to do with what they express outwardly.4. Baby Boltzmann Brains formed in the Big Bang would vastly outnumber the quantity of copies of real people, if real people were actually reducible to their material components.[1/2]
>>170374825. The majority of simulation "leafs" or endpoints would be bizarre edge-case simulations like horses jumping on trampolines, cat-chefs beating up line cooks, or the "Italian Brainrot" trend on Tik Tok: the sort of stuff people are already simulating with AI video models.6. The Laws of Physics are transcendental to space, time, and material; thus, they are in their own right an example of something that is metaphysical, lacking any identifiable physical cause as they are the engine of physical cause.7. Trans-infinite computation performed in finite time already exists in our universe, assuming that properties like position, momentum, and force are not expressable as rational quantities (numbers that either terminate or repeat after the decimal point); this would make a theory of consciousness based on computation alone absurd, because two particles bumping into each other would effectively contain a trans-infinite "simulation" of all possible finite realities.But if I had brought up any of these ideas, you could have accused me of being off-topic. In essence, you forced an issue that can only be demonstrated with direct experience, and then denied the legitimacy of direct experience as evidence. If these are the terms of engagement, then of course I can't coherently show what I am trying to say, if only because you have demanded rigorous proof of a value judgement. One that, might I add, 99% of the human race, even the majority of scientific-atheists, would not consider objectionable.In conclusion: you aren't a 21st century Galileo because you deny the ability to feel that feelings exist, and if that makes you anything, it makes you an obvious hypocrite and also a bad liar.[2/2]
>>17037264Gödel wept, for they did not know.
>>17037482>There are a lot of other arguments I could have madeAbsolutely. And I'd be happy to discuss them the moment you can demonstrate you understand the weakness of the hallucination argument which you proposed as proof. I'm not trying to act in bad faith with you, quite the opposite. I never once claimed to be attacking or disproving dualism itself, and certainly not you personally, but only the quality of this particular argument.>>17037484>In essence, you forced an issue that can only be demonstrated with direct experience, and then denied the legitimacy of direct experience as evidenceOn the contrary. Direct experience is fine as anecdotal evidence. I would never say it's not valid to argue "the sky is blue because just fucking look at it." You misrepresent the essence of my argument here. It's not the appeal to personal experience that I'm attacking. It's the interpretation of what that personal experience implies.As someone who has played with a lot of drugs in college, I am intimately familiar with the experience of hallucinations. And as someone with a functional brain, I am also familiar with sensations which I assume to be reflective of my physical environment. The problem is, very explicitly, that you claimed that the capacity to be hallucinated is universal to material things and applied this capacity as exclusion criteria. This quality is so unrelatied to any normal definition of "material" that the link appears, intuitively, to have been concocted explicitly as a means to prove the existence of the immaterial. That's begging the question.The link between "hallucinatability" and "material" does not map to my own intuition and I seriously question whether it would even map to yours if it wasn't immediately convenient to you.
>>17037620>As someone who has played with a lot of drugs in college, I am intimately familiar with the experience of hallucinations.Let me guess. You talked to entities that claimed to be "outside the simulation"? That told you this was all fake? And that they will copy your "code" outside of it when you die, but only if you don't attend church services, which would somehow prevent them from "saving" you?
>>17037646No. I think simulation theory's retarded for reasons I spelled out ITT outside of this discussion with you. As I said before, my own personal beliefs are not relevant. I am interested in examining the quality of arguments independent of my own take on the matter. You claimed sensation "cannot be material." You evoked this hallucination argument as one proof among many. I zeroed in on that one because it could go two ways:>if you're right, you're rightProving that hallucination capacity is universal in material things IS proving dualism. If you had competently refined this point and shown it to be true, all other points become irrelevant as you would have achieved your goal.>if you admit it's flawed, we can drop it.There are other, more interesting, topics to discuss which you have brought up. It's in everyone's best interest, and the most intellectually honest thing to do, for you to accept and admit that this argument was bad. The capacity to be hallucinated has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is material.
>>17037659Daniel Dennett, one of the "four horsemen" of the New Atheism movement, was also a cognitive scientist. The most interesting thing about his position, to me, is the fact that he wasn't an epiphenomenalist; despite being an avowed atheist, he denied epiphenomenalism on the basis that the material brain could not gain knowledge of a by-product. In his 1991 book titled "Consciousness Explained", he held that qualia don't actually exist. In Dennett's opinion, we are all Philosophical Zombies, and nobody is conscious.Here is his argument on page 402 of the book, which I don't claim to be able to reproduce from memory (I have the book in front of me right now):>Suppose, for instance, that Otto insists that he (for one) has epiphenomenal qualia. Why does he say this? Not because they have some effect on him, somehow guiding him or alerting him as he makes his avowals. By the very definition of epiphenomena (in the philosophical sense), Otto's heartfelt avowals that he has epiphenomena could not be evidence for himself or anyone else that he does have them, since he would be saying exactly the same thing even if he didn't have them.It is my opinion that Daniel Dennett's position, despite sounding insane, is actually quite honest; instead of redefining qualia so that they have no metaphysical properties, which is what many scientific-atheists try to do, Daniel Dennett was sincere enough to openly deny any belief in them at all. In his opinion, there never was any such thing as "the redness of red", nor is the sky actually perceived as "blue", nor has pain or pleasure ever been felt by any living person in the way that most people mean.[1/2]
>>17037707And his book did convince me, as someone who believes in substance dualism, that either: qualia do not exist, or substance dualism is true. So I actually agree with Dennett, in the sense that if qualia really did exist in any substantial way, then they cannot be epiphenomenal and must imply substance dualism on a trivial basis.It is my feeling, and this is my last attempt at articulating this, that your tact is along the lines of the more common materialist strategy; that instead of openly denying that qualia exist, which is honest, you are subtly redefining qualia so as to carefully remove all metaphysical properties from them. Then if I ask you whether or not you can sense that qualia, or "sensations", exist, you would say "yes", but actually mean "no"; "Yes" in the narrow and technical way that you have defined them, "no" in the way that any ordinary person would think of them or imagine them. And in my opinion, that is an act of semantic theft, if nothing else because it makes your argument impenetrable by taking away a key term which is essential to define what the opposing viewpoint even is. Even when I tried, from first principles, to distinguish "sensation" from "material" in the most basic way, you balked completely.But I digress. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, because we seem to be talking past each other at this point. Nonetheless, I offer you the last word in the discussion if you would like to reply.[2/2]
>>17037707>>17037713If you're offering me the last word, I'll take it.First: this still does not address the argument at hand. I asked you to justify "the capacity to be hallucinated" as exclusion criteria for materiality. If this whole diatribe somehow provided justification for that claim, then it was not communicated well. The "essence" of qualia or sensation (which are distinct philosophical concepts, mind you) is tangential to the premise in question. I have tried my best to maintain charity with you. I zeroed in on a point that, if you could justify it, you would have "won" the debate entirely and your failure to do so would not necessarily lose it for you. I put you in a very strong position, assuming you could back up what you claimed.You didn't justify your premise.You didn't even have the integrity to admit you got caught on a logical error.You, instead, continuously retreated to unrelated topics while conflating them with the topic at hand.You appealed to intuition, you attempted to impose a self-serving axiom, and now you're appealing to an authority nobody has any reason to give a shit about.All you had to do was admit the premise was flawed, but your ego rendered that impossible. I will reiterate that I tried with you. I really did. If the discussion really is over, my last act of charity will be to assume you genuinely do not have the capacity to understand ligical discourse. Because the alternative is that you are a liar, knowingly evading any attempt at honest discussion.
>>17037659There are two ways to carry the argument. First, a hallucination is definitionally an accidental property where the appearance or impression of the thing is not it. And the other route, giving up the essential property of a thing all together. Then hallucinations are impossible anyways. And the label hallucination is shorthand for infrequently encountered or unusual mechanical processes - the hallucination is actually a phenomenon and not some apparition at all. Even a further second-order hallucination like attribution of one thing with something it is not would still just be another mechanical process producing a phenomenon at some frequency. This isn't good because now things like a particular set of lottery numbers being drawn is a hallucination. And one winning the lottery is less likely than talking to god or machine elves for instance.
>>17038241>First, a hallucination is definitionally an accidental property where the appearance or impression of the thing is not it.Sure, we'll take a look at this. How does this imply all material things can be hallucinated?
>>17038751This is an analytical argument.Hallucinations either don't exist or they are not material. Either it has a phenomenal character that is as real as every other and hallucinations has no substantive meaning, or they may occur with no stimulus. In the latter case, the appearance of a thing and a corresponding stimulus could be accidental, correlative and not causative. Some given sensation or testimony of such, with or without stimulus, exists and removes the material as a cause for experience... Remember, here we are already assuming hallucinations are something that occur and not merely a meaningless label. If physical modality is granted then this can't be the case.>it feels like a thousand burning knives stabbing meOr other such nominal poetry is born from novelty and incapability in a mental process. Their experience was some ion channel disturbance -> domino-domino-domino(some drug stopped/amplified some thing) -> . . . -> mechanistic explanation of thing. Furthermore, such and such was never stabbed a thousand times, they don't know what that experience is like, and another mechanistic chain is responsible for the invalid attribution. The pivot here is that hallucinations are given an arbitrary boundary under a materialist account. If some other material cause is responsible for some phantom experience, they have invented and shut the door on the apparition. The hallucination has no proper distinction from anything else. Some measurable impingement on the body structure resulted in some agony. A modal distinction could be claimed, >hallucinations are real see because they are aberrations of the nervous systembut this is an arbitrary line. and not something that could be considered unreal or secondary to any other arrangement. I think this makes hallucination a loaded term. If it is admitted, then you are compelled to admit the consequence or be tethered to a contradiction of the term itself to maintain the dispositive case.
>>17031072>What are your counter points against it ?just this one, prove it. pro-tip: you can't
>>17039015At this point I'll just accept the implicit concession on the "all material things can be hallucinated" point as it appears you've abandoned it entirely.As far as the actual substance of your post here goes:Hallucinations are generally understood as sensations perceived as originating externally yet originate within one's own mind. That is the distinction. That there does exist some physical mechanism by which they arise is irrelevant to whether the sensation qualifies. A particular neural misfire within the brain creating the perception of a voice qualifies as a hallucination in exactly the same sense that some hypothetical "immaterial mind" conjuring the sensation would. Hearing a voice when no one's speaking is a hallucination regardless. If you still contend that such a definition of hallucination is "arbitrary," then I'd argue it's no more arbitrary a distinction than many other things we're happy to accept as rigid distinctions. The definition of "food" is far more arbitrary yet you'd have a much easier time naming off things that definitely are/aren't food then you would making a list of things that fall in a grey area.
>be me, God>eternal NEET living in the void>daddy keeps asking when im gonna create a proper universe instead of just theorizing about modal realism all day>"son, when are you gonna get a real job and instantiate something?">whatever, i open the celestial notepad to write the missing manual to existence>accidentally ctrl+v the entire Level IV multiverse hypothesis into reality>fuck>now every consistent causal structure just... exists>some of them wake up and think they're "real">they can't tell the difference between abstract math and physical existence because there is no difference>their sample size is forever 1 and they still argue about the measure problem like it matters>i try to intervene and fix it but turns out i am also just another node in a causal graph>cannot affect anything outside my own structure>the observers in other graphs don't even know i exist>daddy checks in>"so did you finally make a universe?">"uhhh technically infinite ones but i have no admin privileges outside this one">he just sighs and walks away>"disappointment">sit here forever watching conscious patterns argue about whether they need theism or special timelines >they don't
Not only can you escape the simulation construct, but you can also control it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OO81XX5a6M
>>17039066Hi, original anon you were talking with here. Just thought you should know that>>17038241and>>17039015is a different person.When I told you that my previous reply was my final word on the subject because I felt like we were talking past each other, I actually meant that.
>>17039066You can't swallow the distinction of mind from a materialist perspective. Mind must collapse to physical thing. If you swallow mind then you went down the first path and the material things could all be figments of the mind because a material thing is definitionally not essential for the property of experience. As for the latter, how does it help the case for materialism by adding another problem to it?
>>17031072It's unfalsifiable, therefore a curiosity.
>>17039345Under any stance-agnostic definition of mind (ie. one which neither presumes nor precludes a material essence), the distinction between sensations whose cause originates outside vs. inside the mind is entirely consistent with a materialist position.>a material thing is definitionally not essential for the property of experience.Please elaborate. I may either agree or disagree with this statement depending on what, exactly, you mean.
>>17031072My counterpoint is that I don't care
