Simulation Theory

[evangelicalhumanist]

Sorry, I was casually extrapolating from what Bostrom says. He does not set out the issue in those terms. But at the bottom of page 10 and the top of page 11, he suggests that we should carry on as normal. I take that to include the ethical aspect of our lives.

As Bostrom suggests, we cannot "rule out" being subjects in an simulation of which we are unaware (brains in a vat).

I go one further -- without some reason to suppose that we are in such a simulation, it would be really rather silly of us to do so. In other words, if it feels like you are really here, the wisest course seems to be to act accordingly.

[Typist]

In other words, if it feels like you are really here, the wisest course seems to be to act accordingly.

With you on this one, Bostrom's theory is an entertaining ivory tower mind game. Fun is good, but the real world is more interesting.

So, we are really here, best we can tell. Let's call it a fact for now.

And, another fact, we don't want to be here.

In our true hearts, we don't want to be constrained within the limits of being human in the real world, where almost everything is a compromise, an accommodation, an incomplete tiny fragment of what we really want.

After long practice from our very youngest years, we've learned to hide our true hearts from ourselves, because to face what we really want is to embrace the pain of disappointment.

So what do I want?

To be sitting in my office listening to jazz, scratching some chigger bites, and blowharding up some more noise to a bunch of invisible people I don't know?

Or, would I rather be sitting on the top of Mt. Everest, enjoying the view with Diane Lane? Yep, no offense to anybody here, but Holodeck wins every time.

Sorry to beat the dead horse, but to me, the simulation that's interesting is the one we're busy building in reality right now.

[bytesplicer]

In other words, if it feels like you are really here, the wisest course seems to be to act accordingly.

With you on this one, Bostrom's theory is an entertaining ivory tower mind game. Fun is good, but the real world is more interesting.

So, we are really here, best we can tell. Let's call it a fact for now.

And, another fact, we don't want to be here.

In our true hearts, we don't want to be constrained within the limits of being human in the real world, where almost everything is a compromise, an accommodation, an incomplete tiny fragment of what we really want.

After long practice from our very youngest years, we've learned to hide our true hearts from ourselves, because to face what we really want is to embrace the pain of disappointment.

Heh, that's the best summation of the human condition I've ever read.

So what do I want?

To be sitting in my office listening to jazz, scratching some chigger bites, and blowharding up some more noise to a bunch of invisible people I don't know?

Or, would I rather be sitting on the top of Mt. Everest, enjoying the view with Diane Lane? Yep, no offense to anybody here, but Holodeck wins every time.

But wouldn't the nagging knowledge that it isn't real dampen the experience? Sure, for the first fifty nights with Diane Lane I probably wouldn't be thinking about it. But then I'd realise this isn't the real Diane Lane, I haven't 'won' her, she doesn't love the way I nibble her ******, she's just an unfeeling slave. So in this respect you'd still be compromising and accommodating, and not getting what you actually want. You could create an identical Diane Lane, but what if the sight of you makes her sick? Boredom, and endlessly moving onto the next experience, would be inevitable, until you're just an empty decadent shell of a person, with no drive or passion, or compassion. On the other hand, once the craziness of having whatever you want wears off, there's nothing left to do but turn your mind to higher pursuits, with only occasional visits to Diane.

My point. The needs we have define us. Remove them and you remove drive and passion. We may be strong enough to get past the addiction phase, but if not the human race would wind down into extinction, gorged on false pleasure, and likely completely lacking in morals. Children would be made, as noone would bother having them, and the only avenue for new humans would be the endless pleasures of the simulation, there being no society left to do anything else.

That's the sci-fi horror version, hopefully the 'reality' won't be quite so bad!


Sorry to beat the dead horse, but to me, the simulation that's interesting is the one we're busy building in reality right now.

[Typist]

Hi bytesplicer, thanks for accommodating my addiction to this topic. Your points and questions above are just the kind of dialog I was hoping to be part of.

But wouldn't the nagging knowledge that it isn't real dampen the experience?

I don't know the degree to which that would happen of course, and am trying to reason it out. I'm trying to observe our relationship with current reality simulation technologies which are relatively primitive, and project our behavior patterns forward in to a coming era when these simulation technologies will become ever more realistic.

As example, television is 60 years old now, so our relationship with TV is a large factual data set we can use as a baseline. TV is a primitive reality simulation device, interactivity is very basic, and it's limited to a small 2 dimensional screen. Most of the content is pretty lame. In spite of all these limitations, very large numbers of people all over the world dedicate a significant percentage of their free time to this device.

Having established a baseline, we can now ask, how will our relationship with these devices change as the technology progresses towards ever more realistic simulations such as Startrek's Holodeck, which I'm hoping readers are familiar with.

To address your question we could ask, do we sit in front of the TV thinking to ourselves, "this isn't real, this isn't real, this isn't real"?

Or do we willingly surrender our sense of reality to the illusions created by TV programs we find satisfying?

My proposal is that as the simulated experience becomes ever more realistic, it will be ever more compelling and satisfying, and thus we will be ever more willing to buy the illusion. We and the technology meet in the middle.

This proposal is clearly debatable, so I'm proposing we debate it.

Sure, for the first fifty nights with Diane Lane I probably wouldn't be thinking about it. But then I'd realise this isn't the real Diane Lane, I haven't 'won' her, she doesn't love the way I nibble her ******, she's just an unfeeling slave.

The actors in porn aren't real people in the viewer's life, but lots of users don't seem to care, because within the simulation the user has a level of control not available in reality.

Of course lots of people have no interest in porn, for the reasons you cite. How will that change if/when porn jumps off the 2D screen in to 3D space, and becomes much more interactive?

It's probably relevant to recall there are lots and lots of lonely people out there who are entirely dissatisfied with their personal lives. A simulation doesn't to be perfect to be an improvement in many cases.

So in this respect you'd still be compromising and accommodating, and not getting what you actually want.

Good point, the Holodeck would move us a long way in a certain direction, but it would never be a perfect simulation so long as we knew it was a simulation.

You could create an identical Diane Lane, but what if the sight of you makes her sick?

I already have that now, so I won't be buying this program.

Boredom, and endlessly moving onto the next experience, would be inevitable, until you're just an empty decadent shell of a person, with no drive or passion, or compassion.

This is a very interesting point. Would we burn out on getting what we want? There is evidence of this in the real world, as many wealthy people seem to be jaded, cynical, and disappointed with their wealth.

Does our happiness depend on us not getting what we want much of the time, so that our desires remain unfulfilled, and thus still motivating?

On the other hand, once the craziness of having whatever you want wears off, there's nothing left to do but turn your mind to higher pursuits, with only occasional visits to Diane.

I'm sorry to report higher pursuits could be explored within simulation as well.

My point. The needs we have define us. Remove them and you remove drive and passion.

That makes a lot of sense.

My point in reply is that we are unlikely to really get the wisdom of your insight until we've fully explored and exhausted the getting what we want experience. Imho, hyper-real simulations are inevitably coming, and will be extremely popular, whether it's a good idea or not.

I tend to agree with you that it's probably too powerful of a technology for us to handle wisely. But I'm convinced we'll try nonetheless.

We may be strong enough to get past the addiction phase, but if not the human race would wind down into extinction, gorged on false pleasure, and likely completely lacking in morals.

Ha, ha, this sounds a lot like what our grand parents might have said about the TV generation, we boomers, and it's turned out to be largely true.

Children would be made, as no one would bother having them, and the only avenue for new humans would be the endless pleasures of the simulation, there being no society left to do anything else.

Yes, this does seem like a very real possibility. We become a society of addicts, with all power in the real world flowing to those few who can resist the incredible pull of the simulated reality.

Thanks again for playing!

[bytesplicer]

Haha, you've clearly thought about this a lot you naughty little imp!

Yes, I think I agree with you. The correlation with TV and other technology hints that not only is this technology inevitable, but that the vast majority will give themselves over completely to it. I can't lie, there's an enormous back catalogue of fantasy material in my head just waiting for the technological outlet, I likely won't re-emerge from the simulation for at least a few decades once I enter

On the other hand, even now there is a growing desire for 'authenticity' as a backlash against the already artificial nature of many of our experiences. This is hard to quantify, especially when you consider the original topic of our reality being a simulation itself. Still, I think even the greatest opponents of simulation would end up trying the technology, and would possibly lose themselves.

There's also an interesting point of being 'born' in the simulation (a la the matrix) and not knowing any other way. Authenticity wouldn't be an issue here at all, unless someone managed to leave the simulation. Given a few generations, and assuming the technology is self-sustaining, we could encase ourselves in whatever reality we want with no fear of rejection. There's quite a famous quote that I can't recall, boiling down to normal technology is what's around when you're growing up, with anything appearing when you're older being world ending and disgusting, along the lines of what you mention about what our grandparents say about emerging technology.

So we could be living in a simulation now, but not created 'outside' but by us a few generations ago, perhaps that's the point Bostrom was making and I missed. As you say though, that simulation could do with an upgrade!

It would likely be the rich who would put this technology to use first. Would they disappear into it, leaving the world to the rest of us? Alternatively, as a tool of control (again a la the matrix) it would be difficult to find something better than an eternal porn fest, would the poor be forced to live their lives in these machines, with the energy of their endless orgasms powering the next round of industrial machines, as well as providing the raw material for the next round of w(an|or)kers.

Moral implications are quite heavy, will it be ok to simulate a child and have sex with them? What about murder? We have these questions now with hentai art and video game violence. These issues will be carried to their extreme in simulation. Control of the simulation is another biggy, a lot of power will lie with those who control the off-switch. They could turn your dreams to nightmares, or imprison you within an artificial reality, even convincing you that you left the simulator while 'transferring' you into a scenario mimicing your 'real life'. This parallels cloud computing and the issues we see now, again carried to the extreme. Who controls your experience, and what happens if they have an agenda.

Living in a simulated or artificial reality, where anything you want is possible, can certainly answer a lot of questions about you as an individual. There's an honesty in what you wish for, and if you keep getting it, you'll be more and more honest about what you want in the hope you'll get it also. We'd learn things about human nature that would be impossible to duplicate or predict in 'real life'. Also, simulation technology would open up whole new vistas of experience, in the same way I can watch species from wild and inaccessible places on TV, so we'll be able to experience, accurately, far away places of all scales and sizes. Simulation may open the way for answering many of the questions that plague us now, by allowing us to examine situations from many more angles than is possible now.

Finally, I recall a short story about simulation and being able to do whatever you want (damned if I can remember the name). In this scenario, it wasn't so much a simulation but a really powerful machine that could re-write reality. The end result for those 'inside' was the same, being able to do anything and everything they desired. The story revolves around one of the characters trying to 'get out' so they could die. Was a good story, I'm not doing it service with my swiss-cheese memory.

So yeah, as you say, there can't really be any debate on whether it will happen, only on what we will do with it, whether it's right or wrong, and whether we will continue to hold onto a concept of right and wrong in the face of it.

Rambling a bit as usual but this subject has a lot of legs, not unlike Diane Lane, perhaps we can continue this discussion while enjoying her and her twelve twin sisters in a few years

[chaz wyman]

Does anyone believe we are living in a simulation? If so, what evidence is there that could prove this? I am always looking for any subtle flaws in my environment but I suspect any flaws will be shown up on a microscopic scale rather than anything macroscopic. I guess we can only speculate until the simulators reveal themselves or we find hard solid evidence.

We live in the state in which we live. This state is the metric by which we judge what is or is not a simulation. All simulations have to stand in mimicry to this state in which we live. Therefore we cannot ourselves be living in that state which can only lie in simulation of our state. Thus NO.
There are simulations however. For details see Baudrillard.

[chaz wyman]

In other words, if it feels like you are really here, the wisest course seems to be to act accordingly.

With you on this one, Bostrom's theory is an entertaining ivory tower mind game. Fun is good, but the real world is more interesting.

So, we are really here, best we can tell. Let's call it a fact for now.

We are also asked to accept that we live in some sort of heavenly plan overlooked by a god that cares for us, despite all the suffering. I think the brains in vats is far more likely. But as there is no evidence for either, i'll just stick to reality.

[Typist]

Haha, you've clearly thought about this a lot you naughty little imp!

No, that's wrong, I don't believe in thought, as I've clearly explained in my 47,234,983 posts on this forum. But, oh my, you are proving to be a spectacular simulation scenario speculator.

The correlation with TV and other technology hints that not only is this technology inevitable, but that the vast majority will give themselves over completely to it.

Imho, the pattern goes back way before any technology, to primitive peoples sitting around the campfire at night, telling stories.

I can't lie, there's an enormous back catalogue of fantasy material in my head just waiting for the technological outlet, I likely won't re-emerge from the simulation for at least a few decades once I enter

No shit, me too. And that's only the beginning. We've rarely asked the question "what do I really want" so far because there is usually no point to the question within the limits of the real world. Who knows what kind of fantasies we might explore once we take up the job in earnest.

It's possible that a Holodeck type device would breathe new life in to philosophy, because big questions could be asked in a new way, and then directly addressed within the simulator.

What do I really want, and why?

On the other hand, even now there is a growing desire for 'authenticity' as a backlash against the already artificial nature of many of our experiences.

Yes, that's true, good point. It seems that this backlash might grow along side the development of the simulation technology. I hadn't thought of that before, it could become a big cultural divide. My generation (boomer) experienced this somewhat during the hippy era, where we temporarily rejected "plastic society" and returned to the land etc.

Still, I think even the greatest opponents of simulation would end up trying the technology, and would possibly lose themselves.

It could be that those who are most critical are actually very interested, and fighting the desire within themselves. I think we can see this phenomena in many atheists. Some of them are more interested in God than the typical theist.

There's also an interesting point of being 'born' in the simulation (a la the matrix) and not knowing any other way. Authenticity wouldn't be an issue here at all, unless someone managed to leave the simulation.

In a way, I see this happening now with the 20 something's generation relationship with the Net. Same for my generation and TV.

It would likely be the rich who would put this technology to use first. Would they disappear into it, leaving the world to the rest of us?

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that either. I had a friend when I was young who is very rich, and chose drug addiction as a dominant pattern of his entire life, so nobody is immune.

It could be a very class oriented thing, with the rich and powerful keeping the technology for themselves, afraid to release the technology upon the servant classes?

Alternatively, as a tool of control (again a la the matrix) it would be difficult to find something better than an eternal porn fest, would the poor be forced to live their lives in these machines, with the energy of their endless orgasms powering the next round of industrial machines, as well as providing the raw material for the next round of w(an|or)kers.

Ha, ha! What a vision this is! Wanking the energy source for the coming simulated reality! What a classically human story that would be.

Moral implications are quite heavy, will it be ok to simulate a child and have sex with them? What about murder?

Wow, hadn't thought of this either. Yes, what a puzzle this is. If people could explore evil in the simulation, would this relieve a desire to do evil in the real world, or the opposite?

Who controls your experience, and what happens if they have an agenda.

Yes, and of course they will have an agenda. TV has been almost entirely given over to stoking the fires of consumerism.

One question would be, how accessible are the tools which create the simulations? Will these tools be exclusive like TV, or inclusive like the Net? Will everybody be able to create simulations, or only a few?

Living in a simulated or artificial reality, where anything you want is possible, can certainly answer a lot of questions about you as an individual.

Yes, indeed, that's what makes the topic so very interesting. It would a lot like meeting ourselves, our real selves, for the first time.

We'd learn things about human nature that would be impossible to duplicate or predict in 'real life'.

Yes, and we'd be changing human nature in profound ways at the same time.

Also, simulation technology would open up whole new vistas of experience, in the same way I can watch species from wild and inaccessible places on TV, so we'll be able to experience, accurately, far away places of all scales and sizes.

Yes, the era of realistic simulations will be one of the defining moments in the history of humanity, like the development of language or agriculture.

Simulation has the potential to erase the distance between human beings, as we will able to experience what the other is experiencing.

The story revolves around one of the characters trying to 'get out' so they could die.

Ah, yes, there couldn't be an accurate death simulation, that might become the one authentic experience left to us that the simulator can't improve on.

Rambling a bit as usual but this subject has a lot of legs, not unlike Diane Lane, perhaps we can continue this discussion while enjoying her and her twelve twin sisters in a few years

One mention of Diane Lane's legs, and my internal fantasy simulator sucks me out of this conversation, in to a better world.

Thanks again!

[Sol]

Does anyone believe we are living in a simulation?

This morning I was unsuccessfully looking for some paperwork and thought if my brain were like a computer, all I would need to do is think about a key term of the paperwork and all those objects I had seen at some point in my life and commited to memory which included that term would be , by action of my brain, highlighted as glowing, I would then at least have filtered what I need to look for.

It subsequently occurred to me that for all the attempts to construct anthropocentric concepts where human reality and human consciousness arguably fit, would it be possible for me to think like a computer, seeing no difference between simulation and reality? Or would I perhaps meander through life waiting to be switched on by the big robot in the sky!

[i blame blame]

I take it this is a reference to Nick Bostrom's work:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
The conclusion is preposterous, but it is hard to say precisely what is wrong with the argument.

Richard, thanks much for posting that link, very interesting stuff. Very interesting.

To me, the value of the theory is that it points us towards the fact that "living in simulation" is at the heart of the human experience.

I'm living in simulation right now, as I close my eyes, and imagine myself dating both Jennifer Aniston and Diane Lane, at the same time.

I'm living in simulation right now, as I organize my social life around hypothetical digital people who share my obscure nerdy intellectual interests. Do I really care if you're actually human? Probably not.

Every time we find ourselves "lost in thought" we can observe ourselves retreating from the real world, where we are infinitely small, to an inner abstract simulation world, where we are God.

It seems entirely logical to me that we will continue to develop technology which further enhances our God fantasies.

You are always "trapped" in a simulation of the real world created by your brain.

[bytesplicer]

You are always "trapped" in a simulation of the real world created by your brain.

Very good point, made more interesting by the fact that your brain itself is part of the real world, in effect using the real world in order to simulate the real world. I think

[i blame blame]

Very good point, made more interesting by the fact that your brain itself is part of the real world, in effect using the real world in order to simulate the real world. I think

That's what I meant, yes.

[bytesplicer]

I like the idea, it occurred to me before that the brain builds a model of the world outside, but I never thought about treating that model as a simulation, something to ponder, thanks for mentioning it

[bytesplicer]

Haha, you've clearly thought about this a lot you naughty little imp!

No, that's wrong, I don't believe in thought, as I've clearly explained in my 47,234,983 posts on this forum. But, oh my, you are proving to be a spectacular simulation scenario speculator.

Heheh you are prolific to say the least.

The correlation with TV and other technology hints that not only is this technology inevitable, but that the vast majority will give themselves over completely to it.

Imho, the pattern goes back way before any technology, to primitive peoples sitting around the campfire at night, telling stories.

Yeah, I think so too, once you've finished the hard slog of the day, your mind naturally wants to go 'someplace else'. I have an artist friend who loves the idea of our ancestors inspiration through watching a flickering flame, and he tries to capture this in his art. In a way the whole basis of our art is linked in with the idea of simulation (art itself being a simulation of a kind, something that takes your mind someplace else, or a glimpse into an alternate, or modified reality).

I can't lie, there's an enormous back catalogue of fantasy material in my head just waiting for the technological outlet, I likely won't re-emerge from the simulation for at least a few decades once I enter

No shit, me too. And that's only the beginning. We've rarely asked the question "what do I really want" so far because there is usually no point to the question within the limits of the real world. Who knows what kind of fantasies we might explore once we take up the job in earnest.

I'm not so sure about this, I certainly ask the question a lot in terms of what I fantasise about. Where I agree is the power of the simulation will be in making those fantasies solid, and allowing them to play out in ways I can't predict, but without having to deal with the consequences of my lack of foresight. In the real world 'be careful what you wish for' is sound advice, but wouldn't apply the same way in simulation, though psychological effects of living your fantasy may be an issue. See either version of the movie 'Bedazzled' for an example

It's possible that a Holodeck type device would breathe new life in to philosophy, because big questions could be asked in a new way, and then directly addressed within the simulator.

What do I really want, and why?

This is true, but may depend on the sophistication of the simulator, whose power may be limited by the mind of its authors. If the 'programmer' doesn't know the answer, the simulator may not too. Emergent behaviour within the simulator could however, lead to new insight.

On the other hand, even now there is a growing desire for 'authenticity' as a backlash against the already artificial nature of many of our experiences.

Yes, that's true, good point. It seems that this backlash might grow along side the development of the simulation technology. I hadn't thought of that before, it could become a big cultural divide. My generation (boomer) experienced this somewhat during the hippy era, where we temporarily rejected "plastic society" and returned to the land etc.

Still, I think even the greatest opponents of simulation would end up trying the technology, and would possibly lose themselves.

It could be that those who are most critical are actually very interested, and fighting the desire within themselves. I think we can see this phenomena in many atheists. Some of them are more interested in God than the typical theist.

Haha yeah I definitely agree on this one. In many cases, the atheists are the ones who are actually searching for answers, and are naturally forced to address theism as part of this process.

There's also an interesting point of being 'born' in the simulation (a la the matrix) and not knowing any other way. Authenticity wouldn't be an issue here at all, unless someone managed to leave the simulation.

In a way, I see this happening now with the 20 something's generation relationship with the Net. Same for my generation and TV.

Yes, and I do admit to concerns about this. Removal into 'the real world' would be deadly to many should some of our favourite apocalyptic fantasies come to light. A simulation of the breakdown of our society would be very revealing to many, especially if they didn't know it was simulated!

It would likely be the rich who would put this technology to use first. Would they disappear into it, leaving the world to the rest of us?

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that either. I had a friend when I was young who is very rich, and chose drug addiction as a dominant pattern of his entire life, so nobody is immune.

This is interesting, as he was rich, in a way he was living in a world the rest of us simulate through fantasy. From the outside, we don't see the downsides of that fantasy world, another lesson that could perhaps be learned through simulation.

It could be a very class oriented thing, with the rich and powerful keeping the technology for themselves, afraid to release the technology upon the servant classes?

Alternatively, as a tool of control (again a la the matrix) it would be difficult to find something better than an eternal porn fest, would the poor be forced to live their lives in these machines, with the energy of their endless orgasms powering the next round of industrial machines, as well as providing the raw material for the next round of w(an|or)kers.

Ha, ha! What a vision this is! Wanking the energy source for the coming simulated reality! What a classically human story that would be.

Moral implications are quite heavy, will it be ok to simulate a child and have sex with them? What about murder?

Wow, hadn't thought of this either. Yes, what a puzzle this is. If people could explore evil in the simulation, would this relieve a desire to do evil in the real world, or the opposite?

And as you've said before, this is a question we're asking now, in terms of tv, the internet and video games. Simulation would bring this discussion to a head I think.

Who controls your experience, and what happens if they have an agenda.

Yes, and of course they will have an agenda. TV has been almost entirely given over to stoking the fires of consumerism.

One question would be, how accessible are the tools which create the simulations? Will these tools be exclusive like TV, or inclusive like the Net? Will everybody be able to create simulations, or only a few?

Indeed, and will probably lead to all the same scenarios of quality, censorship and freedom of speech.

Living in a simulated or artificial reality, where anything you want is possible, can certainly answer a lot of questions about you as an individual.

Yes, indeed, that's what makes the topic so very interesting. It would a lot like meeting ourselves, our real selves, for the first time.

Heh, this could be very dangerous, I think many would hate themselves on sight!

We'd learn things about human nature that would be impossible to duplicate or predict in 'real life'.

Yes, and we'd be changing human nature in profound ways at the same time.

True, and again something we see now with tv and the internet, where opinions and attitudes can be changed on a large scale.

Also, simulation technology would open up whole new vistas of experience, in the same way I can watch species from wild and inaccessible places on TV, so we'll be able to experience, accurately, far away places of all scales and sizes.

Yes, the era of realistic simulations will be one of the defining moments in the history of humanity, like the development of language or agriculture.

Simulation has the potential to erase the distance between human beings, as we will able to experience what the other is experiencing.

This is an interesting point. Empathy is something that seems to be lacking in our society (at least in my experience). Simulating the reality of a starving child, or the plight of those trapped in war, or the symptoms of someone near death, either through old age or illness, could potentially raise our understanding of each other dramatically, in a way that words or video or art could not match.

The story revolves around one of the characters trying to 'get out' so they could die.

Ah, yes, there couldn't be an accurate death simulation, that might become the one authentic experience left to us that the simulator can't improve on.

But as you said earlier, we could try out various scenarios, for entertainment if nothing else

Rambling a bit as usual but this subject has a lot of legs, not unlike Diane Lane, perhaps we can continue this discussion while enjoying her and her twelve twin sisters in a few years

One mention of Diane Lane's legs, and my internal fantasy simulator sucks me out of this conversation, in to a better world.

She was on TV here the other night, foxy beyond belief, even in a crap movie

Thanks again!

[i blame blame]

I like the idea, it occurred to me before that the brain builds a model of the world outside, but I never thought about treating that model as a simulation, something to ponder, thanks for mentioning it

You're welcome