The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4053
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:01 pm

Noax wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:57 am
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:53 pm
Reality has a projection within itself, surely you cannot disagree with this. Consciousness is a unique configuration of reality, in that as a receiver of the projection it has the ability to receive, decipher, and logically comprehend the information received.
"A projection"? "the projection"? ...What do you even mean by that? Yes, I can agree that there is some projecting going on in reality. There wouldn't be a word for it if not. Your choice of words makes it sound like reality is one projection being played for the benefit of something, and I can't agree with that.
'the projection' ...by that I mean, what is being projected from reality external from the receiver - consciousness.
You used the term 'benefit'..the primary benefit would be the type of configuration of reality that has benefit from the projection - and that is a conscious entity, and not necessarily restricted to the level of conscioussness that humans have.
Noax wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:57 am
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:53 pm
Can a rock remember the appearance of an apple?
They remember the appearance of life, and of the dinosaurs, projections of magnetic fields, and all sorts of other things. The apple is more difficult, but yes, rocks can do that.
Memory is purely a living entities domain. Fossils are not a memory, they are a history. A rock cannot remember the light reflected by the apple, because it is not conscious..whatever of the photons that have entwined with the rock's electrons could never be considered a true reflection or memory of an apple. We are now left for you to find a definition of 'memory' that is not that of a conscious being, but that of a rock.
Noax wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:57 am
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:53 pm
All points of 3 are met, they are all from the point of a cause with a result being a projection, and within the confines of our debate, the receiver of the projection is our conscious decipheration of this information. To use 'transmits', for me is your 'firefly' example.
Doesn't seem to work. 3b for instance is to project one's voice in such a way that it can be better heard. That simply doesn't go on anywhere between my senses and conscious processing. My finger doesn't shout to my head that it detects heat, and even if it did, it wouldn't be 3b.
Your voice can shout such that it is projected to your concious awareness - that of hearing. Your finger placed upon a burning ember can project pain, such that you are consciously aware of it. As I stated - 3b should include the other senses receiving a projection from the reality beyond consciousness, or at least there should be 3a (already - light), 3b (sound), 3c, 3d, 3e at the minimum for the five senses.
Noax wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:57 am
attofishpi wrote:
Noax wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:57 am
If it came from the receiver itself, I see no projecting going on.
You are now contradicting your earlier statement:-
'I do project my observations. I'm doing it now, projecting them on this forum to you. Projecting is what one entity purposefully does to a target that is not the first entity.'
You and I are not the same entity. That comes from me, and you are the receiver in that example.
So you are the part of reality that is projecting to me. No?
Noax wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:57 am
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:53 pm
This is all irrelevant, it was just the definition's stance on the source of the projection. 3b also more importantly mentions the sense of hearing (from the projection) as I stated it is limited and should have also gone into other forms of sensory input to a conscious being.
There is normal speaking/singing, which yes, involves this interaction you speak of. I don't deny that. 3b is a specific alternate meaning of the word, and it just doesn't apply. It is a difference in how the sound is formed so that it penetrates better, and doesn't just mean shouting. I'm not trained to do it, but I know several who can, quietly even. It is impressive.
The form of the projection is the thing I am stating is irrelevant, whether is be a whisper or a shout.
Noax wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:57 am
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:53 pm
But conveying the image of the apple within your mind, as a memory was something you disagreed with as a projection.
4. present or promote (a particular view or image); convey
That seems to indicate my conveying an idea (of an apple maybe) to you. It could be projecting if I communicate it to something else, and not just imagine it myself. I don't remember using the word 'convey' when describing my imagining of an apple (post 44?). That has the same sort of implication of source->separate-target.
No, the image of the apple within your mind and as a memory, is an image (from an external source within reality - that of an apple) that is still projected within your mind, your memories of things are still a projection to your conscious awareness.
Noax wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:57 am
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:53 pm
The debate we are having isn't whether there is a purpose to what is received via our retina, the debate is whether it is a projection. What simulation? What Virtual Reality (VR)? That is the point - there is neither...why are you still on page 1 or 2?
The title suggests otherwise. OK, we're debating if there is projecting going on, apparently from physical reality to the non-physical experiencer.
But you are a materialist no? All that matters is that there is a projection from physical reality to a conscious entity, whether conciousness is considered material or non-physical is not pertinent to the question regarding 'projection'.
Noax wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:57 am
If there is such an arrangement, yes there needs to be information transfer of some sort going on in both directions (only one direction if epiphenomenal). But that information transfer is not well characterized as a projection since the 'projector' is incapable of sending the information.
How is light or radiant heat not information that is projected - from a source?
Noax wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:57 am
Photons and say EM waves do not leave 'reality'. The receiver, unlike the physical receiver which is an effect of the process, is going to have to be the cause and go out and fetch the information. This doesn't sound at all like 'projection'.
Consciousness receives information without necessarily making a conscious effort to gain it.
Noax wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:57 am
If on the other hand there is no such separation of experiencer from physical reality, then I don't see reality (no need to call it physical reality if there is no other kind) transferring information to anything that isn't reality. Information moves from parts of reality to other parts, so sure, there is projecting going on.
Eureka!
Noax wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:57 am
I must also point out that while I don't think there are different realms of reality (I am not fundamentally different than the apple), I see things as being 'my reality' and not 'reality'. That's almost idealism, except it has zip to do with consciousness. I don't hold a conventional view, but I don't intend to assert it. I'm not asserting physicalism here, in case you wonder.
I think you have been, and perhaps this is the main stumbling block.
Noax wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:57 am
attofishpi wrote:..when I state reality projecting to something, I am implying it is projecting to something that is conscious, something with the ability to discern in its own conscious way, the object of the input - from the projection that is external to said consciounsess.
That would qualify except for my objection above where reality has no mechanism to project information to beyond-reality. Fetching the information doesn't violate physics (it does violate most QM interpretations), but the role reversal of cause/effect does seemingly conflict with the definition of projecting.
Why are you talking about 'beyond reality'? I still don't understand why this is part of your side of the debate. Unless you want me to go into what I stated in another thread regarding qualia and dark matter/energy. For that matter is dark energy/matter beyond reality?

Fetching the information? As I stated above, consciousness receives information without necessarily making a conscious effort to gain it.
Noax wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:57 am
attofishpi wrote:Funny, ironically I was going to bring up the term 'seems' but I thought you were more certain about such a thing.
That would be horrible. Why philosophize if you already know the answers? I've changed views at least half a dozen times, forever finding contradiction in whatever is yesterday's favored view.
Glad to hear it! I can't say I've formally studied philosophy but over the past years of what i've read, there is a fair amount I would not subscribe to.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:12 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:01 pm
Memory is purely a living entities domain. Fossils are not a memory, they are a history.
Fine. Then what I do is also retain a history, even if I'm not conscious of the memories. I need a word to describe the same thing (information stored for a duration) in both places, because they're the same thing albeit not using the same mechanism. If you restrict the word memory, then we need to use a different one. No, a rock need not be aware that it retains history, but a geologist consults the history retained by the rock, using its own language, pretty much the same way I consult the history in you (without access to your consciousness) if I asked if it rained by you yesterday.
A rock cannot remember the light reflected by the apple, because it is not conscious..
Only because you forbade the use of the term with the rock. In fact, something not conscious like a photograph very much retains the history of the light reflected by the apple, so it isn't for lack of consciousness that the rock doesn't record the apple image well. But a rock takes a one-shot picture of other things very much like a photograph, and retains it far longer than the photo or something conscious. Fossils are only a subset of that.
So you are the part of reality that is projecting to me. No?
No, I don't say that it is the reality projecting. I am projecting in that example, and yes, I am part of reality.
your memories of things are still a projection to your conscious awareness.
Hard to classify this as projecting though. For one, I suppose that my processes could be separated into memory (hippocampus and temporal lobe for short/long term memory respectively) and conscious reflection of that memory (prefrontal cortex), and thus information transfer between the two, so you have separate entities at least. But memory doesn't project apple image. It needs to be fetched. OK, so the receiver puts out a sort of request about the apple, and the memory I suppose could be considered to 'project' that information back to the requester. I wouldn't have chosen the word.

BTW, I am sort of working off the physical model of things. If you have a different model where consciousness is something separate from physical processes, you need to tell me what parts (memory, volition, awakeness, contemplation, etc.) are done by each. If you don't have a good idea, then I'm not very impressed with the model. If the idea involves an afterlife, the question can be answered by listing what you expect to take with you into that, and what will be lost. Another stupid question designed to answer it: I know it is impossible, but what if without warning you suddenly were somebody else. or suddenly experienced being somebody else (say somebody who was singing a song in a language you don't know), what would that be like? How quickly would the audience notice something weird had happened?
OK, we're debating if there is projecting going on, apparently from physical reality to the non-physical experiencer.
But you are a materialist no?
Definitely not that. Nobody has ever found any actual material. Seems doubtful that we're made of it if they can't find any. Still, I'm responding to you with my physical-monist hat on, not from my personal viewpoint. I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong, but rather flush out what I see as weak points in the position.
Most of the time I've stuck to monist interpretations of one form or another. I'd express my current favored position as 'relativist'. Feel free to tear it apart. I find little literature on it. The entries talk about being relativist towards a topic (like aesthetics or morals), but not in a general sense, including ontology.
All that matters is that there is a projection from physical reality to a conscious entity, whether conciousness is considered material or non-physical is not pertinent to the question regarding 'projection'.
Sorry then. I'm going to insist that it comes from real things, but not from reality itself. The latter wording just leads down unintended roads. It seems a very biased way of expressing the relationship. That there is a projection is OK, and that it comes from real things seems compatible with both models (physical or not).
Noax wrote:If there is such an arrangement, yes there needs to be information transfer of some sort going on in both directions (only one direction if epiphenomenal). But that information transfer is not well characterized as a projection since the 'projector' is incapable of sending the information.
How is light or radiant heat not information that is projected - from a source?
Those things only go to other physical places, and take time to do so. If it is to be to something that is not part of physical reality, it won't be by means of photons. Still, I have no right to say it is impossible since I have zero access to what physical reality can or cannot project to beyond, or posit the means by which it might do this. So I think I'll retract my statement that the information necessarily needs to be fetched sort of like how the memory of the apple is fetched.
Consciousness receives information without necessarily making a conscious effort to gain it.
Agree, but you don't know the mechanism of the exchange. So it might work this way, or it might require fetching, even if not at a level where you are aware.
Noax wrote:Information moves from parts of reality to other parts, so sure, there is projecting going on.
Eureka!
I said that all along, just insisting it be from 'parts of reality', and not from 'reality'.
Noax wrote:I'm not asserting physicalism here, in case you wonder.
I think you have been, and perhaps this is the main stumbling block.
I am contrasting your view with it, yes, but not asserting it. I'm willing to consider alternates, but have been resistant to what I see to be biased wording of things that don't need to be.
Why are you talking about 'beyond reality'?
Beyond physical reality then. You talk about reality projecting to something, so I presume you have a beyond in mind.
I still don't understand why this is part of your side of the debate. Unless you want me to go into what I stated in another thread regarding qualia and dark matter/energy. For that matter is dark energy/matter beyond reality?
No, all that has been quantized and makes predictions and all that. It has location, properties, mass, etc. It is part of a scientific model, not metaphysics. We see gravity either, but rarely is posited as not being part of physical reality.
Fetching the information? As I stated above, consciousness receives information without necessarily making a conscious effort to gain it.
I backed off on the 'necessary' part, and I never stated that a conscious effort was needed. I'm just trying to express my observations of this (as yet) poorly described view being presented. I suspect that the lack of effort put behind formalization of the model (and the empirical distinctions predicted) are not made because they already know which way the answer will fall, and they have a stake in keeping it alive. That fact is a huge reason I think the view is wrong. There's ways to approach a theory that you actually believe might be true, and those methods are always avoided. Simple differences like: is time part of physical reality, or does physical reality exist in (external) time? It isn't really a question to the monist who denies an external to the physical, but the answer creates a falsification test (albeit an expensive test) for the immaterial consciousness model.
Noax wrote:Why philosophize if you already know the answers? I've changed views at least half a dozen times, forever finding contradiction in whatever is yesterday's favored view.
Glad to hear it! I can't say I've formally studied philosophy but over the past years of what i've read, there is a fair amount I would not subscribe to.
Well, I definitely rode the immaterial mind wagon long after I discarded the teachings of the church. I could not reconcile the physical model with the improbability of being something as unlikely as this near-top of the foodchain/intellectual/financial/technological situation in which I find myself. There are, in all history, a lot more say fruit flies (or dust specks for that matter) than successful humans, so how did I get so lucky? That was a hard nut to crack, but I think I resolved it.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4053
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:44 pm

Noax wrote:
attofishpj wrote:
Noax wrote:Information moves from parts of reality to other parts, so sure, there is projecting going on.
Eureka!
I said that all along, just insisting it be from 'parts of reality', and not from 'reality'.
Yes, we are back to that point. It looks like this is where I get off the bus, me attempting to suggest reality is projecting itself to our consciousness through all of our senses doesn't validate that 'reality' is a projection (where 'projection hypothesis' should be used) to us (conscious beings) since as you state, we are part of reality.

The part about 'simulation hypothesis' which I have seen various UTube vids with various scientist using the term still irks me some, since as I am of the opinion that the term 'simulation' (where they are suggesting that it IS reality being simulated) requires knowing that there is some other more primary reality being simulated, and we've already covered our opinions on that!

simulate
Verb.
1. produce a copy of; "she copied the famous painting"
2. enact or perform again; "They reenacted the battle of Princeton"

I wonder if the scientists that believe we are in a simulation will ever consider using the term 'God' for the simulator.

Thanks for an enjoyable debate Noax, I think you've won this one! :D

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests