The Simulation Argument

[Skepdick]

The simulation nonsense (and the religion of information in general) has been forced on us so much these past few years, that I suspect it's actually yet another mass brainwashing technique. You can make people more submissive if you can convince them that they don't really exist.

That's a weird comment for a non-dualist - the 2nd most submissive philosophy to jainism.

If you convince people that they live in a digital prison, you can actually make them revolt. The irony is that in a simulated universe God-the-evil-opressor is far more tangible than in the Christian conception.

You can philosophize it whichever way you want, but the "religion of information" actually offers you a choice.

1. You can argue that your brain is a computer, and information is just a useful concept.
2. You can argue that the universe is a computer.

You could also, trivially argue that the simulation hypothesis is just a mind-projection fallacy, but if you make that argument it might turn you into a dualist, and I think your ego can't stand that idea.

[Skepdick]

The simulation nonsense (and the religion of information in general) has been forced on us so much these past few years, that I suspect it's actually yet another mass brainwashing technique. You can make people more submissive if you can convince them that they don't really exist.

The alternative (and far more deserving response, I think).

The Philosophy nonsense (and the religion of Truth in general) has been forced on us so much the past few millennia, that I suspect it's actually yet another mass brainwashing technique. You can make people more submissive if you can convince them that Truth exists.

The search for Truth doesn't halt. Now that's a neat trick to make people submissive!

Which is why I am here - burning down the Church of Truth.

[attofishpi]

There is an AI running the simulation - cold logic - not conscious

The AI/consciousness distinction is epistemically unnecessary. If we are in a simulation right now you and I - we are AI. Are we conscious, do we have feelings, emotions and experiences? It's a question that doesn't buy you anything if answered. If we are AI then we are "cold logic". If we are conscious, have feelings emotions and experiences then "cold logic" is conscious, has feelings emotions and experiences.

Not that it matters for your point, but you do underestimate what is required to acheive qualia\consciousness - and we have had this discussion in Robots - PHN articles thread. I don't know what is required - nobody does.
I don't have any qualm if you want to consider the AI running the simulation capable of actual consciousness and qualia - perhaps that would permit it a more empathetic attribute, for example where it comes to a subjects pain.
However, I disagree that we would be AI within the simulation, but it comes down to definitions. I was human, conscious prior to going in to the simulation. Once in the simulation, whatever permitted me to be conscious has to remain and since I consider that consiousness\qualia was originally obtained ONLY because of something far more profound - indeed divine, that key quality - connection has to remain. Like a pointer within the brain matter (or whatever it now is) back to the divine reality. The consciousness and our intelligence therefore is NOT Artificial, it remains 'human'.

Obviously, since it - the simulation - was created by humans, there are certain humans that were privy to the existence that reality is a simulation.

Only humans outside of the simulation are privy to this though. Humans in the simulation are only speculating.
And we would have to speculate as to what would construe actual evidence that we are, in fact in a simulation. How do we test for the "outside"?
What experimental result would convince us that we are inside? Jailbreaking! Obviously.

I have been building up a case of evidence - but it is not irrefutable.

Would the AI - and indeed the humans privy to the knowledge of such a system make it aware to all within the simulation, that they are in fact within a simulation? Would it (the fact that reality is a simulation) be a secret from the masses and why?

This line of reasoning is basically appeal to revelation. It has been "revealed" to you that you are in the simulation. You were chosen, so that this knowledge was imparted to you.

I pushed the right buttons - not quite jailbreaking.
You haven't answered my question, and the answer I think is obvious - consider the entropy aspect.

BUT. You and I have both arrived at the exact same conclusion (we live in a simulation), only I am not claiming that this is "revealed knowledge" to me.

No, I am not claiming we are living in a simulation - it's my secondary belief. My primary is that we are living in a divine reality, the primary reality, but that entropy is still paramount to how we conduct ourselves (that's a clue to the above answer still required.)

I am claiming that my understanding of computer science, formal logic and physics has lead me to this conclusion by induction.

I used all those subjects to a certain degree of understanding when the 'thing' started fucking with me and my reality (it tested me) way back in 1997...it helped A LOT.

You are claiming that it has been revealed to you. I mean - the voice in my head (reason) revealed it to me too. But the voice in my head is my voice. And the conclusion of my voice is a hypothesis. Purely on aesthetics and on the fact that it agrees with my pre-disposition (computer science) - it's a fun hypothesis.
But the scientist in me is still trying to figure out how to write the proof-of-concept exploit for the jailbreak.

Haha! Yes, and this is a fundamental part of my current cyberpunk novel that I am writing - they 'hack' the God system.

[Skepdick]

Not that it matters for your point, but you do underestimate what is required to acheive qualiaconsciousness - and we have had this discussion in Robots - PHN articles thread. I don't know what is required - nobody does.

This is moot. IF we live in a simulation, somebody does know what is required. We don't know what is required, but somebody does.

The entity that built the technology to upload you into; or program you within the simulation knows.

However, I disagree that we would be AI within the simulation, but it comes down to definitions. I was human, conscious prior to going in to the simulation.

Q.E.D IF human consciousness can be uploaded into a simulation, SOMEBODY does know what is required to digitise it. You are AI by virtue of your form, not your function.

The consciousness and our intelligence therefore is NOT Artificial, it remains 'human'.

The adjectives matter not. Whatever consciousness is and however it works - it's transferrable/communicable, therefore it can be replicated (copied).

I have been building up a case of evidence - but it is not irrefutable.

For a scientist - irrefutability is a bad thing! Irrefutability is precisely the option in your back pocket: maybe we live in a sumulation, or maybe we made some error in judgment. Evidence will sway it either way.

And so if a successful jailbreak/exploit is evidence FOR living in a simulation, what would be evidence against? I can't think of anything actually.

I pushed the right buttons - not quite jailbreaking.
You haven't answered my question, and the answer I think is obvious - consider the entropy aspect.

It's not "secret" from the masses. This is just how the agnostic epistemology works (or doesn't). Communication limits are epistemic limits.
Information corresponds to evidence. And so we need some experiment to sway us away from the Null-hypothesis e.g we DON'T live in a simulation.

The point is that entropy is a two-fold phenomenon. physical AND epistemic. Epistemic entropy is called uncertainty.

You start with maximum epistemic entropy - I don't know if the hypothesis is true or not - then you design the experiment which would sway you one way or the other.

If we could transfer even 1 decibel of signal from the "outside" world into the "inside world", it would tip the scale.

No, I am not claiming we are living in a simulation - it's my secondary belief. My primary is that we are living in a divine reality, the primary reality, but that entropy is still paramount to how we conduct ourselves (that's a clue to the above answer still required.)

I don't know what's so 'divine' about reality that's trying to kill us? The entropy argument is precisely that. Reality is complex. We can't conquer such complexity. I reject this reality and substitute my own.

[attofishpi]

Not that it matters for your point, but you do underestimate what is required to acheive qualia/consciousness - and we have had this discussion in Robots - PHN articles thread. I don't know what is required - nobody does.

This is moot. IF we live in a simulation, somebody does know what is required. We don't know what is required, but somebody does.

Not necessarily - could still be the old 'brain in a vat'.

However, I disagree that we would be AI within the simulation, but it comes down to definitions. I was human, conscious prior to going in to the simulation.

Q.E.D IF human consciousness can be uploaded into a simulation, SOMEBODY does know what is required to digitise it. You are AI by virtue of your form, not your function.

No it doesn't - brain in a vat one example. It is still rendered by definitions of what IS Artificial Intelligence? For me, if it remains cold logic, no consciousness, no qualia - it is Artificial.

The consciousness and our intelligence therefore is NOT Artificial, it remains 'human'.

The adjectives matter not. Whatever consciousness is and however it works - it's transferrable/communicable, therefore it can be replicated (copied).

IF the consciousness of a human is transferred into a simulation, it remains non AI, by virtue of my above reasoning.

I have been building up a case of evidence - but it is not irrefutable.

For a scientist - irrefutability is a bad thing!

Thanks, I forgot about that.

And so if a successful jailbreak/exploit is evidence FOR living in a simulation, what would be evidence against? I can't think of anything actually.

It's similar to a point I make to atheists. That IF there is a God, one can know, can be made aware of it. IF there is no God, nooone can know this since it would require knowing everything about the universe and perhaps multiverse, if such a thing exists.

I pushed the right buttons - not quite jailbreaking.
You haven't answered my question, and the answer I think is obvious - consider the entropy aspect.

It's not "secret" from the masses. This is just how the agnostic epistemology works (or doesn't). Communication limits are epistemic limits.

But the AI running the simulation - or even the privvy programmers that created could quite easily convince all, perhaps upon their seventh birthday that they are living in a simulation because things outside are becoming rather dire.
The reason it wouldn't be revealed, is because the 'system' is quite happy to get rid of the users of the resources - even within the simulation, since they are still consumers of energy - based on judgement of their life actions. 10 commandments come to mind.

You start with maximum epistemic entropy - I don't know if the hypothesis is true or not - then you design the experiment which would sway you one way or the other.
If we could transfer even 1 decibel of signal from the "outside" world into the "inside world", it would tip the scale.

Good luck with that.

No, I am not claiming we are living in a simulation - it's my secondary belief. My primary is that we are living in a divine reality, the primary reality, but that entropy is still paramount to how we conduct ourselves (that's a clue to the above answer still required.)

I don't know what's so 'divine' about reality that's trying to kill us? The entropy argument is precisely that. Reality is complex. We can't conquer such complexity. I reject this reality and substitute my own.

The divine reality - God created, permitted us lots of energy, lots of resources but within a tiny fraction of the universe. Entropy remains for us to deal with, outside of the divine creators ability or perhaps even will, to provide us with more.
The answer to why there is DOUBT - again, is that the God system wants wo\man to make their own life choices with such doubt. We know what is right and wrong ethically. We make the wrong decisions, we lose our right to reincarnate back within the system - as human - perhaps we become the beast (for the real scum) -the enery for man to consume (Men knew - Menu).
Have you ever considered much from the buy bull? There is a good reason IT made the sign for the 'beast' as a number. It knew eventually, we would all be 'marked' by numbers - by way of phone numbers, car rego numbers etc etc...
I digress, but around the time the sage introduced himself to me from the aether (2005), I had been violently attacked (by the system - I pissed them off again - I can explain how I know it was the system) and lost my mobile phone - the new phone number 'they' gave me has 007666 in the middle.
I have asked them whether that is my future destiny - to become less than human - the 'beast' - but they have confirmed NO. Thankfully.
A few houses down the road from me there is a work van with the number plate "WHY 666"
This is a standard Australian number plate - not paid custom plate. Not much at all really in the scheme of things as to my experiences - but just interesting that in the entire country 'they' put that van just down the road to me - for me to consider.
Hopefully with your consideration\contemplation of the nature of reality - you don't just see this last segment as 'woo'.

btw. I should point out that the reason I believe we are in a divine reality - not simulation, is that the sage has informed me at least 3 times that 'Christ' did - what He did. Sure, we could still be in a simulation after that - since the original system can still invoke what 'it did' in the past within this reality - since as we both agree - he who controls time from the system above, controls all below.

[Skepdick]

Not necessarily - could still be the old 'brain in a vat'.

It's exactly the same metaphor.

Brain in a vat.
Mind in The Matrix.
Mind in a Universe.
Consciousness in a Simulation.

You have an ontological conception of "you" (the Christian notion of The Spirit) that exists irrespective of the context in which it exists.

And in ALL of those conceptions, the notions of "power" and "control" mean the exact same thing.

Can I make the jar do what I want it to do?
Can I make The Matrix do what I want it to do?
Can I make The Universe do what I want it to do?
Can I make The Simulation do what I want it to do?

It's the very meaning of the human value of determinism.

I want to determine what happens next.

No it doesn't - brain in a vat one example. It is still rendered by definitions of what IS Artificial Intelligence? For me, if it remains cold logic, no consciousness, no qualia - it is Artificial.

If I am a brain in a vat - I want to control the chemical composition of the vat such that I determine what I experience.

It's a positive feedback loop maximising for the brain's desires.

IF the consciousness of a human is transferred into a simulation, it remains non AI, by virtue of my above reasoning.

It's meaningless. If the consciousness of an AI is transferred into a simulation alongside the consciousness of a human, and you can't tell the difference between a human-consciousness and an AI-consciousness. Then there is no difference.

It's similar to a point I make to atheists. That IF there is a God, one can know, can be made aware of it. IF there is no God, nooone can know this since it would require knowing everything about the universe and perhaps multiverse, if such a thing exists.

No, it's much simpler than that. Before you look for something in the universe, you have to know what that thing is. You have to have some pre-conceived notion else you won'd be able to recognize the thing you are looking for.

If I asked you to find a grobmunf, and you could search the whole universe it won't help you unless you know what a grobmunf is.

A priori knowledge is mandatory for a search algorithm. You have to know WHEN you have found whatever it is that you are looking for.

But the AI running the simulation - or even the privvy programmers that created could quite easily convince all, perhaps upon their seventh birthday that they are living in a simulation because things outside are becoming rather dire.
The reason it wouldn't be revealed, is because the 'system' is quite happy to get rid of the users of the resources - even within the simulation, since they are still consumers of energy - based on judgement of their life actions. 10 commandments come to mind.

Sure. But I can conceive of another reason. AI makes for good slaves. Even though modern computers lack the intelligence of humans, we still find them useful. We use computers to do computations FOR US.

So it's conceivable that we are the experiment. And we added value to the "overlords". Until we figured out we are in a cage.

The divine reality - God created, permitted us lots of energy, lots of resources but within a tiny fraction of the universe. Entropy remains for us to deal with, outside of the divine creators ability or perhaps even will, to provide us with more.

OK, but... why couldn't God deal with Entropy?

btw. I should point out that the reason I believe we are in a divine reality - not simulation, is that the sage has informed me at least 3 times that 'Christ' did - what He did. Sure, we could still be in a simulation after that - since the original system can still invoke what 'it did' in the past within this reality - since as we both agree - he who controls time from the system above, controls all below.

I don't know what the difference between a "divine" and a "simulated" reality is.

I don't know what the difference is between God and humans, except maybe - God created a simulation. Humans haven't created a simulation yet.

he who controls time from the system above, controls all below.

This is actually questionable. If there are consciousness both "inside" and "outside" the system, and the system is vulnerable, then the question of control is not a dichotomy, it's about degrees of control. Which is more aptly called "power"

Those outside (may?) have more control than those inside, but those inside do not have zero control.

That is precisely what an exploit does. It hijacks the control-flow of the system.

There will be an asymmetry of knowledge however. I would expect "them" to know more about their system than we do.
It sort of follows from the adage "knowledge is power". The "outside" sentience is more knowledgeable - therefore more powerful.

[attofishpi]

Not necessarily - could still be the old 'brain in a vat'.

It's exactly the same metaphor.

Brain in a vat.
Mind in The Matrix.
Mind in a Universe.
Consciousness in a Simulation.

You have an ontological conception of "you" (the Christian notion of The Spirit) that exists irrespective of the context in which it exists.

All very well, but ignoring the point I was making - that just because you are in a simulation does not mean that the creator of the simulation has a comprehension of how to CREATE consciousness - qualia. Which is why I stated the brain in a vat - still in a simulation, but not requiring the creator of the simulation that 'feeds'/feeds (the brain) to KNOW how the darn brain is able to experience qualia.

No it doesn't - brain in a vat one example. It is still rendered by definitions of what IS Artificial Intelligence? For me, if it remains cold logic, no consciousness, no qualia - it is Artificial.

If I am a brain in a vat - I want to control the chemical composition of the vat such that I determine what I experience.

Sure, as an intellectual you should remain still in an attempt to determine who\what is providing the inputs and receiving the responses to you and from your brain, since you want to jailbreak it!

IF the consciousness of a human is transferred into a simulation, it remains non AI, by virtue of my above reasoning.

It's meaningless. If the consciousness of an AI is transferred into a simulation alongside the consciousness of a human, and you can't tell the difference between a human-consciousness and an AI-consciousness. Then there is no difference.

Ok, but now you are stating that the AI within the simulation is conscious. As per my definition I stated earlier, if it is conscious - to me - it is NO LONGER Artificial Intelligence. It IS true intelligence.
AI is SIMULATED intelligence, a machine, cold logic - not too distant from a tractor.

It's similar to a point I make to atheists. That IF there is a God, one can know, can be made aware of it. IF there is no God, nooone can know this since it would require knowing everything about the universe and perhaps multiverse, if such a thing exists.

No, it's much simpler than that. Before you look for something in the universe, you have to know what that thing is. You have to have some pre-conceived notion else you won'd be able to recognize the thing you are looking for.
If I asked you to find a grobmunf, and you could search the whole universe it won't help you unless you know what a grobmunf is.
A priori knowledge is mandatory for a search algorithm. You have to know WHEN you have found whatever it is that you are looking for.

OK. It's paramount that I tell you that I HAVE found a grobmunf. It is something resembling a word, made up of alphabetic characters, but as yet no actual meaning\definition has been determined. It was found on a philosophy forum somewhere within a solar system of the galaxy where the alphabet was determined to exist.

But the AI running the simulation - or even the privvy programmers that created could quite easily convince all, perhaps upon their seventh birthday that they are living in a simulation because things outside are becoming rather dire.
The reason it wouldn't be revealed, is because the 'system' is quite happy to get rid of the users of the resources - even within the simulation, since they are still consumers of energy - based on judgement of their life actions. 10 commandments come to mind.

Sure. But I can conceive of another reason. AI makes for good slaves. Even though modern computers lack the intelligence of humans, we still find them useful. We use computers to do computations FOR US.
So it's conceivable that we are the experiment. And we added value to the "overlords". Until we figured out we are in a cage.

I don't understand any relevance to your response in relation to the hidden entropy dilema, and why such a situation would remain concealed as I have proposed.

The divine reality - God created, permitted us lots of energy, lots of resources but within a tiny fraction of the universe. Entropy remains for us to deal with, outside of the divine creators ability or perhaps even will, to provide us with more.

OK, but... why couldn't God deal with Entropy?

It probably does, once we are long long gone and restarts from the chaos.

btw. I should point out that the reason I believe we are in a divine reality - not simulation, is that the sage has informed me at least 3 times that 'Christ' did - what He did. Sure, we could still be in a simulation after that - since the original system can still invoke what 'it did' in the past within this reality - since as we both agree - he who controls time from the system above, controls all below.

I don't know what the difference between a "divine" and a "simulated" reality is.
I don't know what the difference is between God and humans, except maybe - God created a simulation. Humans haven't created a simulation yet.

A divine reality is a reality created from a unique singular intelligence, perhaps an intelligence that formed from chaos.
A simulated reality is a copy of the reality created by the above, created by man or other intelligent beings.

he who controls time from the system above, controls all below.

This is actually questionable. If there are consciousness both "inside" and "outside" the system, and the system is vulnerable, then the question of control is not a dichotomy, it's about degrees of control. Which is more aptly called "power"
Those outside (may?) have more control than those inside, but those inside do not have zero control.
That is precisely what an exploit does. It hijacks the control-flow of the system.

ya, not sure.
I don't think you will ever exploit the current system (unless of course you become a Christian hahaha)

[Skepdick]

All very well, but ignoring the point I was making - that just because you are in a simulation does not mean that the creator of the simulation has a comprehension of how to CREATE consciousness - qualia.

If you are in the simulation, the creator of the simulation knows how to copy/replicate consciousness.

Knowing how to copy/replicate something is the same as knowing how to create it.

You literally have a bit-wise replica of the thing. A perfect representation. An ideal form.

Which is why I stated the brain in a vat - still in a simulation, but not requiring the creator of the simulation that 'feeds'/feeds (the brain) to KNOW how the darn brain is able to experience qualia.

You are tripping up over the "problem" of consciousness. What if qualia don't exist except as emergent?

Ok, but now you are stating that the AI within the simulation is conscious. As per my definition I stated earlier, if it is conscious - to me - it is NO LONGER Artificial Intelligence. It IS true intelligence.
AI is SIMULATED intelligence, a machine, cold logic - not too distant from a tractor.

You are tripping up over language. Being conscious and being an AI are not mutually exclusive things.

It's the Turing test. How do you know whether I am an AI or a "real consciousness". How do you know that you are conscious? What if you aren't?

It's just a linguistic distinction without a testable/falsifiable difference.

OK. It's paramount that I tell you that I HAVE found a grobmunf. It is something resembling a word, made up of alphabetic characters, but as yet no actual meaning\definition has been determined. It was found on a philosophy forum somewhere within a solar system of the galaxy where the alphabet was determined to exist.

Sure, you have found the word "grobmunf". Are you aware of the field of semiotics? Are you aware of the distinction between a signifier and a signified?

Obviously you have found the signifier - you have found the word "grobmunf", but I doubt that you have found the signified. Because I haven't told you what the signifier "grobmunf" signifies.

The same problem exists with God. Suppose I told you that I am God - how would you test/falsify this claim?

This is the limit of human epistemology. You can't test/falsify for anything beyond your own imagination.

I don't understand any relevance to your response in relation to the hidden entropy dilema, and why such a situation would remain concealed as I have proposed.

Because entropy is only a property of this (simulated?) universe. It may not be a property of the other outer universe. It may also be the case that if entropy is indeed "hidden" the outer entities don't even know what entropy is.

But worse than that, entropy is also a property of your own epistemology. So it's really difficult to decouple systemic from epistemic entropy.

It probably does, once we are long long gone and restarts from the chaos.

That explanation doesn't fly or me. An omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent being can create a universe without chaos.

Such a being can create any universe with any laws of physics it desires.

A divine reality is a reality created from a unique singular intelligence, perhaps an intelligence that formed from chaos.
A simulated reality is a copy of the reality created by the above, created by man or other intelligent beings.

How would the occupants of the divine reality determine that they are not in a simulated reality?

I don't think you will ever exploit the current system (unless of course you become a Christian hahaha)

We are exploiting the current system.

We took the abstract idea of "computation" and created actual computers from it.

[attofishpi]

All very well, but ignoring the point I was making - that just because you are in a simulation does not mean that the creator of the simulation has a comprehension of how to CREATE consciousness - qualia.

If you are in the simulation, the creator of the simulation knows how to copy/replicate consciousness.

Not in the brain in a vat scenario. All the creator knows is how to interface to the brain to enable the simulation.

Which is why I stated the brain in a vat - still in a simulation, but not requiring the creator of the simulation that 'feeds'/feeds (the brain) to KNOW how the darn brain is able to experience qualia.

You are tripping up over the "problem" of consciousness. What if qualia don't exist except as emergent?

I don't understand the question.

Ok, but now you are stating that the AI within the simulation is conscious. As per my definition I stated earlier, if it is conscious - to me - it is NO LONGER Artificial Intelligence. It IS true intelligence.
AI is SIMULATED intelligence, a machine, cold logic - not too distant from a tractor.

You are tripping up over language. Being conscious and being an AI are not mutually exclusive things.

They are to me. Artificial Intelligence remains artificial because it simulates consciounsess, for example us. It is just a machine, a tool, that can achieve substantially more 'human' like traits than a tractor.

It's the Turing test. How do you know whether I am an AI or a "real consciousness". How do you know that you are conscious? What if you aren't?
It's just a linguistic distinction without a testable/falsifiable difference.

We are back at our Robots discusssion. It's the 'problem of other minds', I know I am conscious, I cannot know anything beyond me that is. I assume since I am human and I am conscious, that other humans are also conscious.

OK. It's paramount that I tell you that I HAVE found a grobmunf. It is something resembling a word, made up of alphabetic characters, but as yet no actual meaning\definition has been determined. It was found on a philosophy forum somewhere within a solar system of the galaxy where the alphabet was determined to exist.

Sure, you have found the word "grobmunf". Are you aware of the field of semiotics? Are you aware of the distinction between a signifier and a signified?
Obviously you have found the signifier - you have found the word "grobmunf", but I doubt that you have found the signified. Because I haven't told you what the signifier "grobmunf" signifies.

Not aware of the field, but ok then.

The same problem exists with God. Suppose I told you that I am God - how would you test/falsify this claim?

Well, I don't believe God is a man, but that it certainly can take a mans form, so that doesn't help. There would still be no way to test/falsify the claim - even if you turned my glass of water into cognac.

I don't understand any relevance to your response in relation to the hidden entropy dillema, and why such a situation would remain concealed as I have proposed.

Because entropy is only a property of this (simulated?) universe. It may not be a property of the other outer universe. It may also be the case that if entropy is indeed "hidden" the outer entities don't even know what entropy is.
But worse than that, entropy is also a property of your own epistemology. So it's really difficult to decouple systemic from epistemic entropy.

Ok.

It probably does, once we are long long gone and restarts from the chaos.

That explanation doesn't fly or me. An omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent being can create a universe without chaos.
Such a being can create any universe with any laws of physics it desires.

omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent:-
Are NOT attributes that I would define God by, but I have noticed they come up quite a lot on this forum. Who came up with those attributes for God?

But I'll give it a crack:-
omnipotent: has the ability to control anything within what we perceive as reality.
omniscient: 'it' knows everything within our reality, up to its current state.
omnipresent: to our entire reality.

A divine reality is a reality created from a unique singular intelligence, perhaps an intelligence that formed from chaos.
A simulated reality is a copy of the reality created by the above, created by man or other intelligent beings.

How would the occupants of the divine reality determine that they are not in a simulated reality?

That's my dilemma.
As I said, the only reason I believe it do be 'divine' is what the sage told me about Christ.

I don't think you will ever exploit the current system (unless of course you become a Christian hahaha)

We are exploiting the current system.
We took the abstract idea of "computation" and created actual computers from it.

That's no more an exploit than me exploiting the fact that it is a sunny day and I'm going to take my dog for a walk.
The exploit in the context you were using it has not been fullfilled, unless perhaps you connect it up to something built at CERN and achieve something rather more fundamental - perhaps pulling 'information' out of the outer shell, determining that there is logic of intelligence that could only be behind it -God/'God', and then working out how to affect the logic of this 3rd party intelligence - God/'God'.

[Skepdick]

Not in the brain in a vat scenario. All the creator knows is how to interface to the brain to enable the simulation.

It applies to the brain-in-a-vat scenario also! If you know which brain stimuli (electrical or chemical) produce which experiences then you have successfully mapped that which we call "the mind".

If you have a map of the mind you can re-create it.

I don't understand the question.

I don't understand what you don't understand about the question. You are pre-supposing qualia.

I am assuming an agnostic position about them. "Redness" is not a thing. I experience red.

They are to me. Artificial Intelligence remains artificial because it simulates consciounsess, for example us. It is just a machine, a tool, that can achieve substantially more 'human' like traits than a tractor.

I don't know if this is just your philosophical contrarianism, or if philosophers genuinely don't understand this point.

Epistemically speaking - there is no difference!

1. You do not know what "consciousness" is any more than you know what a "grobmunf" is.
2. You do not know whether you are "conscious" any more than you know whether you are "grobmunf".

Suppose two hypothesis on the table:

A. attofishpi is a simulated consciousness
B. attofishpi is a real consciousness

What measurement would you take, what experiment would you perform on yourself to to determine A or B?

We are back at our Robots discusssion. It's the 'problem of other minds', I know I am conscious, I cannot know anything beyond me that is

No you don't. You are ascribing consciousness to yourself, even though you don't know what consciousness means. It's just a word we use to describe ourselves. Slightly modified version of the above experiment:

A. attofishpi is a conscious
B. attofishpi is a not conscious

What measurement would you take, what experiment would you perform on yourself to determine A or B?

And lets suppose that there was an experiment that could be performed, lets suppose that a measurement could be taken such that you can conclude B. How would your experience of the world change if it turned out that you aren't conscious?

This is a problem with language Wittgenstein pointed out. There is a grave distinction between what we SAY about things and what things actually ARE.
Just because we SAY that we are conscious it doesn't mean that we are conscious. It's just what we SAY about ourselves.

Language is not ontology!

Well, I don't believe God is a man, but that it certainly can take a mans form, so that doesn't help. There would still be no way to test/falsify the claim - even if you turned my glass of water into cognac.

It's exactly the same epistemic problem! Hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis A: Skepdick is God
Hypothesis B: Skepdick is not God.

What measurement would you take, what experiment would you perform on yourself to to determine A or B?

Everything boils down to the scientific metaphysic. Being able to distinguish things.

Are NOT attributes that I would define God by, but I have noticed they come up quite a lot on this forum. Who came up with those attributes for God?

But I'll give it a crack:-
omnipotent: has the ability to control anything within what we perceive as reality.
omniscient: 'it' knows everything within our reality, up to its current state.
omnipresent: to our entire reality.

I don't know where they come from, but as concepts omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience are useful. As a programmer existing outside of time and being able to control time, having full access to system memory I understand those terms empirically.

I ascribe those terms to myself. What happens inside a computer is completely in my control. I am omniscient of every layer, right down to the million transistors in the CPU, all memory-space, the kernel, the interpreter. I can debug ANYTHING in the system.

That's my dilemma.
As I said, the only reason I believe it do be 'divine' is what the sage told me about Christ.

I prefer evidence to lip service.

That's no more an exploit than me exploiting the fact that it is a sunny day and I'm going to take my dog for a walk.

It is not at all the same thing.

The exploit in the context you were using it has not been fullfilled, unless perhaps you connect it up to something built at CERN and achieve something rather more fundamental

We are doing "fundamental" things as far as physics is concerned! The concepts of determinism/power/control are human concepts. Human desires. We project those desires onto reality.

A physical computer manipulates matter and energy deterministically (or within some acceptable bounds of error). For this text to appear on your screen, we have arranged trillions of 14-22 nanometer transistors in a particular ways, which generate electrical waves at various frequencies, and yet - in very particular and deterministic ways, and so you are reading this, because billions of atoms/electrons behaved EXACTLY as we wanted them to behave.

[attofishpi]

Not in the brain in a vat scenario. All the creator knows is how to interface to the brain to enable the simulation.

It applies to the brain-in-a-vat scenario also! If you know which brain stimuli (electrical or chemical) produce which experiences then you have successfully mapped that which we call "the mind".
If you have a map of the mind you can re-create it.

You are not mapping the mind - not mapping the brain!
You are triggering the synaptic connections mimicking the nervous system from the body to the brain:- sight, touch, taste, smell and hearing.

Sure the interface would require an understanding of the way the synapses chemically and electrically transmit the information from the simulation to the correct connecting parts of the nervous system to the brain, but it still would not require comprehending how the brain is actually conscious.

They are to me. Artificial Intelligence remains artificial because it simulates consciounsess, for example us. It is just a machine, a tool, that can achieve substantially more 'human' like traits than a tractor.

I don't know if this is just your philosophical contrarianism, or if philosophers genuinely don't understand this point.
Epistemically speaking - there is no difference!

You don't think there is a difference between human consciousness and what a tractor experiences?

1. You do not know what "consciousness" is any more than you know what a "grobmunf" is.
2. You do not know whether you are "conscious" any more than you know whether you are "grobmunf".

Agreed, but only because I have no idea what a "grobmunf" is.
I know what IT IS to be conscious, even though I do not know how consciousness works/exists.

Suppose two hypothesis on the table:

A. attofishpi is a simulated consciousness
B. attofishpi is a real consciousness

What measurement would you take, what experiment would you perform on yourself to to determine A or B?

What do you mean by a 'simulated' consciousness?
All I know is that I am conscious.

We are back at our Robots discusssion. It's the 'problem of other minds', I know I am conscious, I cannot know anything beyond me that is

No you don't. You are ascribing consciousness to yourself, even though you don't know what consciousness means. It's just a word we use to describe ourselves. Slightly modified version of the above experiment:
A. attofishpi is a conscious
B. attofishpi is a not conscious
What measurement would you take, what experiment would you perform on yourself to determine A or B?

It's a no brainer:
A has qualia.
B could never be tested. (i'd be either be dead or sedated to the point where I am unable to think - a key requirement for consciousness - and the ability to do an experiment!)

And lets suppose that there was an experiment that could be performed, lets suppose that a measurement could be taken such that you can conclude B. How would your experience of the world change if it turned out that you aren't conscious?

Irrelevant as per my answer above - i'd be dead.

This is a problem with language Wittgenstein pointed out. There is a grave distinction between what we SAY about things and what things actually ARE.
Just because we SAY that we are conscious it doesn't mean that we are conscious. It's just what we SAY about ourselves.
Language is not ontology!

No, but it is our most accurate way of describing ontology.

Well, I don't believe God is a man, but that it certainly can take a mans form, so that doesn't help. There would still be no way to test/falsify the claim - even if you turned my glass of water into cognac.

It's exactly the same epistemic problem! Hypothesis testing.
Hypothesis A: Skepdick is God
Hypothesis B: Skepdick is not God.

What measurement would you take, what experiment would you perform on yourself to to determine A or B?

I wouldn't be performing an experiment on myself - I would expect you to prove you have those attributes that you mentioned prior:- omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent

But doubt would remain.

Are NOT attributes that I would define God by, but I have noticed they come up quite a lot on this forum. Who came up with those attributes for God?

But I'll give it a crack:-
omnipotent: has the ability to control anything within what we perceive as reality.
omniscient: 'it' knows everything within our reality, up to its current state.
omnipresent: to our entire reality.

I don't know where they come from, but as concepts omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience are useful. As a programmer existing outside of time and being able to control time, having full access to system memory I understand those terms empirically.
I ascribe those terms to myself. What happens inside a computer is completely in my control. I am omniscient of every layer, right down to the million transistors in the CPU, all memory-space, the kernel, the interpreter. I can debug ANYTHING in the system.

Yes, but you are not God to THIS reality.
If you were able to create a conscious intelligence or even artificial intelligence within the computer, those entities could consider you God.

That's my dilemma.
As I said, the only reason I believe it do be 'divine' is what the sage told me about Christ.

I prefer evidence to lip service.

Well, the evidence from my experiences, coupled with what a sage stated to me (from the 'aether') are enough for my belief - i see no reason for the sage to lie.

The exploit in the context you were using it has not been fullfilled, unless perhaps you connect it up to something built at CERN and achieve something rather more fundamental -perhaps pulling 'information' out of the outer shell, determining that there is logic of intelligence that could only be behind it -God/'God', and then working out how to affect the logic of this 3rd party intelligence - God/'God'.

We are doing "fundamental" things as far as physics is concerned! The concepts of determinism/power/control are human concepts. Human desires. We project those desires onto reality.
A physical computer manipulates matter and energy deterministically (or within some acceptable bounds of error). For this text to appear on your screen, we have arranged trillions of 14-22 nanometer transistors in a particular ways, which generate electrical waves at various frequencies, and yet - in very particular and deterministic ways, and so you are reading this, because billions of atoms/electrons behaved EXACTLY as we wanted them to behave.

Sure, but I am also manipulating matter and energy deterministicly by exploiting the fact that it is a sunny day and taking my dog for a walk.

I thought you wanted to 'jailbreak' the simulation, hence why i re-added the bit you omitted from my quote on this point you are making of exploiting the system.

[Skepdick]

You are not mapping the mind - not mapping the brain!
You are triggering the synaptic connections mimicking the nervous system from the body to the brain:- sight, touch, taste, smell and hearing.

Being able to predict which input causes which output/response is called mapping. And if it's not called mapping - lets agree to call it mapping going forth.

How do you, the an entity observing the brain in the vat, know that this exact combination of electrical impulses and chemical triggers maps to the exact experience of eating/tasting a banana?

To be able to map the electrical input to the qualitative output is exactly knowledge of the mind.

Sure the interface would require an understanding of the way the synapses chemically and electrically transmit the information from the simulation to the correct connecting parts of the nervous system to the brain, but it still would not require comprehending how the brain is actually conscious.

You have tangled yourself up in the linguistic mess. What if the brain isn't "conscious"? What if "consciousness" it's just a meaningless word?

You don't think there is a difference between human consciousness and what a tractor experiences?

Leave the tractor out - it's not helping the epistemic point.

I don't know that what I am experiencing right now is "consciousness". The word "consciousness" adds nothing to my understanding of my own experiences.

What do you mean by a 'simulated' consciousness?
All I know is that I am conscious.

Do you? All I know is that "I am".

I don't know what "consciousness" is and so I can neither claim nor reject having or being "conscious".

It's a no brainer:
A has qualia.
B could never be tested. (i'd be either be dead or sedated to the point where I am unable to think - a key requirement for consciousness - and the ability to do an experiment!)

Can the theory "A has qualia" be tested? Can it be falsified?

I think it has already been falsified. if consciousness has qualia, and redness is an example of a quality, are colour-blind people conscious?

Irrelevant as per my answer above - i'd be dead.

So you are using the word "being conscious" to mean exactly the same thing as "being alive"?!?!?

Why do you need two words to say the same thing?

No, but it is our most accurate way of describing ontology.

But you aren't "accurately describing ontology". You are equivocating ontology in a way that is not useful towards replicating ontology.

I wouldn't be performing an experiment on myself - I would expect you to prove you have those attributes that you mentioned prior:- omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent

But doubt would remain.

What if I don't want to prove it? What if I don't want to convince you? What if I don't care if you doubt me?

That doesn't help address your epistemic problem. Deciding A or B.

Yes, but you are not God to THIS reality.

Well, there are two scenarios where I might be
1. I can jailbreak the simulation and take over the control-flow of the system
2. I entered my own creation

If you were able to create a conscious intelligence or even artificial intelligence within the computer, those entities could consider you God.

Precisely my point. Any sufficiently sophisticated technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The trick is to NOT believe in magic! And so when I speak of God, I ascribe no magical properties to such entity.

I simply assume "entity more knowledgeable/experienced/powerful than me".

Well, the evidence from my experiences, coupled with what a sage stated to me (from the 'aether') are enough for my belief - i see no reason for the sage to lie.

Of course, but you ought to be skeptical of that sage (as being just a figment of your imagination) until you've seen the jailbreak code working...

Trust but verify.

Sure, but I am also manipulating matter and energy deterministicly by exploiting the fact that it is a sunny day and taking my dog for a walk.

If you were truly doing that, you would make sure it's sunny every day.

I thought you wanted to 'jailbreak' the simulation, hence why i re-added the bit you omitted from my quote on this point you are making of exploiting the system.

Yes. There is a less-than-miraculous explanation of the word "exploit". And a far less mystical one too. Fundamentally the notion of "extracting information from a system" is exactly the same notion as "making a system work for you".

And so if we were to "jailbreak the simulation" what and HOW it would APPEAR to us (while still stuck in our human forms) - it would simply be "we can make the universe do things for us that weren't possible before".

Fact of the matter is, that the moment you have two-way causality (inside affects outside, outside affects inside) then the whole notion of inside-outside loses its meaning.

[attofishpi]

I wish you would quote at least two levels deep as I do - it keeps things a little more in context for any readers, and myself when attempting to ensure I am still within the context on my replies

You are not mapping the mind - not mapping the brain!
You are triggering the synaptic connections mimicking the nervous system from the body to the brain:- sight, touch, taste, smell and hearing.

Being able to predict which input causes which output/response is called mapping. And if it's not called mapping - lets agree to call it mapping going forth.

Oh, I will definitely agree.
However, the 'mapping' would be via dialogue with the person about to interface with the simulation.
For example, are you seeing red as closely as you perceived red prior to the interface? - of course there would be methods to allow the interfacee the ability to confirm the result.

How do you, the an entity observing the brain in the vat, know that this exact combination of electrical impulses and chemical triggers maps to the exact experience of eating/tasting a banana?

See my above answer.

To be able to map the electrical input to the qualitative output is exactly knowledge of the mind.

No it's not.
Above I have shown how the 'mapping' could take place...it's just another example of simulating what is required of the conscious mind.
Comprehending what is required of the conscious mind is far from comprehending how it is that the mind is conscious.

Sure the interface would require an understanding of the way the synapses chemically and electrically transmit the information from the simulation to the correct connecting parts of the nervous system to the brain, but it still would not require comprehending how the brain is actually conscious.

You have tangled yourself up in the linguistic mess. What if the brain isn't "conscious"? What if "consciousness" it's just a meaningless word?

How would consciousness being a meaningless word...if it is, then arn't they all?

I don't know if this is just your philosophical contrarianism, or if philosophers genuinely don't understand this point.
Epistemically speaking - there is no difference!

You don't think there is a difference between human consciousness and what a tractor experiences?

Leave the tractor out - it's not helping the epistemic point.

Yes it is.

I am making the point that a computer is a machine incapable of consciousness just like a tractor.

Epistemology is the philosophical theory of knowledge. The only difference between a tractor and current computer technology - even technology agreed to have an AI running upon it, is that the AI machine is better at retrieving information for man from processed data than a tractor is, yes it IS a knowledge base, but a machine nonetheless.

I don't know that what I am experiencing right now is "consciousness". The word "consciousness" adds nothing to my understanding of my own experiences.

So you do agree that you experience? Ergo, you have qualia. Ergo, you have a key attribute of what is required for consciousness.

What do you mean by a 'simulated' consciousness?
All I know is that I am conscious.

Do you? All I know is that "I am".

So you are conscious of the fact?

I don't know what "consciousness" is and so I can neither claim nor reject having or being "conscious".

No, you just don't know how it exists. You know you are conscious virtue of the fact 'i think therefore i am' .......conscious of the fact.

It's a no brainer:
A has qualia.
B could never be tested. (i'd be either be dead or sedated to the point where I am unable to think - a key requirement for consciousness - and the ability to do an experiment!)

Can the theory "A has qualia" be tested? Can it be falsified?

Yes. I can scratch the back of my hand and confirm I was conscious of the sensation. Under an MRI it probably could be confirmed that I am conscious.

...if consciousness has qualia, and redness is an example of a quality, are colour-blind people conscious?

Of course, you have just confirmed it by stating they see colour, albeit differently to the majority of conscious minds.

No, but it is our most accurate way of describing ontology.

But you aren't "accurately describing ontology". You are equivocating ontology in a way that is not useful towards replicating ontology.

Says you. The way you post - not quoting 2-3 levels deep, I can't be bothered checking the context of this part of the argument.

I wouldn't be performing an experiment on myself - I would expect you to prove you have those attributes that you mentioned prior:- omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent

But doubt would remain.

What if I don't want to prove it? What if I don't want to convince you? What if I don't care if you doubt me?
That doesn't help address your epistemic problem. Deciding A or B.

I don't care either.

If you were able to create a conscious intelligence or even artificial intelligence within the computer, those entities could consider you God.

Precisely my point. Any sufficiently sophisticated technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The trick is to NOT believe in magic! And so when I speak of God, I ascribe no magical properties to such entity.

Neither do I - it will always come back to physics and physical properties. If you have altered something beyond the physics of this system, then yes, you have a jailbreak changing things from the top down.

Well, the evidence from my experiences, coupled with what a sage stated to me (from the 'aether') are enough for my belief - i see no reason for the sage to lie.

Of course, but you ought to be skeptical of that sage (as being just a figment of your imagination) until you've seen the jailbreak code working...
Trust but verify.

I have had 22yrs of verification of this system. 17yrs since the sage introducted himself to me. On the night he introduced himself I did not know what a sage was. I was being forced awake continuously by an energy surge. I asked 'ok, are you God?' - the voice replied 'I am a sage.'
I did not know what a sage was at the time. The sage instructed me to check my dictionary - i read 'an extremely wise person'.
Was my imagination talking to me? What Logikal conclusion would you make?

Sure, but I am also manipulating matter and energy deterministicly by exploiting the fact that it is a sunny day and taking my dog for a walk.

If you were truly doing that, you would make sure it's sunny every day.

I am not determined to do so.

I thought you wanted to 'jailbreak' the simulation, hence why i re-added the bit you omitted from my quote on this point you are making of exploiting the system.

Yes. There is a less-than-miraculous explanation of the word "exploit". And a far less mystical one too. Fundamentally the notion of "extracting information from a system" is exactly the same notion as "making a system work for you".
And so if we were to "jailbreak the simulation" what and HOW it would APPEAR to us (while still stuck in our human forms) - it would simply be "we can make the universe do things for us that weren't possible before".
Fact of the matter is, that the moment you have two-way causality (inside affects outside, outside affects inside) then the whole notion of inside-outside loses its meaning.

Agreed, but only to those with access to the jailbreak.

[Skepdick]

However, the 'mapping' would be via dialogue with the person about to interface with the simulation.
For example, are you seeing red as closely as you perceived red prior to the interface? - of course there would be methods to allow the interfacee the ability to confirm the result.

No it's not.
Above I have shown how the 'mapping' could take place...it's just another example of simulating what is required of the conscious mind.
Comprehending what is required of the conscious mind is far from comprehending how it is that the mind is conscious.

You insist on setting yourself up for untestable scenarios.

if you are brain in a vat (and I know that you are, but you don't know that you are), I can simply ask you the question "Do you see blue now?" (while knowing that I am showing you red).

I can lie to you to test you. I can do any number of tricks to calibrate you.

Comprehending what is required of the conscious mind is far from comprehending how it is that the mind is conscious.

This is the Presumptious Philosopher problem. At no point in your interaction have you actually allowed for the possibility that you are NOT conscious.
Because it's trivial to argue that you are an AI that has merely been convinced of its own (false) consciousness.

How would consciousness being a meaningless word...if it is, then arn't they all?

Yes! They are. In the worst possible interpretation words don't mean anything - scribbles on paper. Pixels on screen. Interpretation of those symbols ascribes meaning.
The empirical way to demonstrate this is to show you a Russian textbook and ask you what it means. To you - it means nothing because you can't parse/interpret it.

This is how computer compilers/interpeters for programming languages work.

This is the trap of logocentrism I keep warning about. You must look at things beyond the words used to describe things.
Knowledge is conceptual, not linguistic.

I am making the point that a computer is a machine incapable of consciousness just like a tractor.

If we live in a simulation right now, the above is false.

You are capable of consciousness (whatever that is)
You are in a computer.

The computer you are in is capable of consciousness.

So you do agree that you experience? Ergo, you have qualia. Ergo, you have a key attribute of what is required for consciousness.

The word "experience" suffers from the exact same problem as the word "consciousness". Rinse repeat.

I don't really know what "experience" means, and so I can't ascribe or reject this property upon myself. It's just a word I use to describe myself, but in the end I don't even know what it means to experience.

The language I use to describe myself it not my ontology. It's just language. Meaningless language.

So you are conscious of the fact?

Are you grobmunf of the fact? If you don't know what "consciousness" means - you can't ascribe it to yourself.

It's just a word!

No, you just don't know how it exists. You know you are conscious virtue of the fact 'i think therefore i am' .......conscious of the fact.

Now you are just putting words in my mouth and ideas in my head. That's no way to debate.

I don't know what consciousness is, therefore I cannot determine if I am conscious or not.

Look, how desperately you are trying to invent language! You have brought the words "fact" and "think" to the table (out of nowhere). So desperate to define yourself!

You cannot be defined in a natural language. Are you not comfortable with this idea?
You could be defined in a language that precisely manipulates matter e.g programming language.

Yes. I can scratch the back of my hand and confirm I was conscious of the sensation. Under an MRI it probably could be confirmed that I am conscious.

OK, I want you to give up the word 'conscious' from your vocabulary and try again. Assume that you are an AI that has been fooled into believing in your own consciousness, but you aren't actually conscious, then try describing the experiment again.

Of course, you have just confirmed it by stating they see colour, albeit differently to the majority of conscious minds.

So blind people are unconscious?

What I am drawing attention to is the fact that you are interpreting absolutely everything as confirmatory evidence for "consciousness".
What you are not sharing with us is what response from your subject would convince you that they are not conscious.

What would falsify it? Nothing? Well done. You are guilty of confirmation bias.

Says you. The way you post - not quoting 2-3 levels deep, I can't be bothered checking the context of this part of the argument.

You can't keep track of this in your head? Ok. I'll try.

I don't care either.

And yet absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you were able to create a conscious intelligence or even artificial intelligence within the computer, those entities could consider you God.

Precisely my point. Any sufficiently sophisticated technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The trick is to NOT believe in magic! And so when I speak of God, I ascribe no magical properties to such entity.

Neither do I - it will always come back to physics and physical properties. If you have altered something beyond the physics of this system, then yes, you have a jailbreak changing things from the top down.

I have had 22yrs of verification of this system. 17yrs since the sage introducted himself to me. On the night he introduced himself I did not know what a sage was. I was being forced awake continuously by an energy surge. I asked 'ok, are you God?' - the voice replied 'I am a sage.'
I did not know what a sage was at the time. The sage instructed me to check my dictionary - i read 'an extremely wise person'.
Was my imagination talking to me? What Logikal conclusion would you make?

I would make the conclusion that I can't draw any conclusions. It is what it is. it happened - you experienced it. Speculating about the origin of this experience is a waste of your time. Because you can never really know.

Agreed, but only to those with access to the jailbreak.

The jailbreak would be exactly the scientific procedure (recipe of actions/steps) you are required to perform in order to obtain the expected result.

it's algorithmic. It's know-how. It's exactly how programming languages work today.

The jailbreak could be published on github. Whether you have the compiler required to turn it into a universe-executable sequence... who knows.

[attofishpi]

The language I use to describe myself it not my ontology. It's just language. Meaningless language.

"Understand" - I am not sure we can continue to BOTHER conversing using language if you see it as meaningless.

In fact, what to you does it MEAN LESS than?