Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bradyvscoffeeguy t1_j8k1fj7 wrote

Reply to comment by MasterReset7 in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 13, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt

>If we lived in a simulated universe, we would not be conscious right? Like, if we have a code that could perfectly simulate a human mind into a game, such that this simulated mind really really looks like to us to have conscious, this would be nothing more than a illusion because is just this, a simulation, a program extremely complex created by us.

I think this is wrong. Let's assume that we don't have souls, that instead the mind arises solely from the material world, i.e. our brain. Then the mind, including consciousness, is an emergent phenomenon, which is currently generated materially. But you posit a hypothetical in which the same phenomenon could be generated using programmed software and hardware to run it on. But the emergent phenomenon is the same (because you posit it is), and so consciousness still emerges.

3

MasterReset7 t1_j8l5li6 wrote

Yeah, I understand what you are saying, like, of course is the same phenomenon observed, but is not the same phenomenon in the 1 person POV.

1

bradyvscoffeeguy t1_j8l9c8k wrote

If consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and if consciousness entails a first person perspective, then a first person perspective does arise from the simulation. That experience within that perspective will be the same if the emergent phenomenon is the same, which I assume you were positing by allowing the simulation to be sufficiently accurate. Of course this means that the "external" part of the simulation will have to respond to the subroutine running the mind, such that it can then produce "sensory" feedback for the mind in response to the mind's "actions". But in this hypothetical you propose I don't see why that would be impossible.

To conclude, if you accept materialism of the mind, then you must accept that your first person experience could in principle be born from a sufficiently accurate simulation. To use a sci-fi allegory, you could be a program in the Matrix.

3

MasterReset7 t1_j8lstu1 wrote

I cannot agree that conscious could arise from a simulation, is still would be a illusion.

Take this way, the only thing that we can be sure of existing, is ourselves, everything else could be simulated, how do I know that you are not a simulation that appear here in Reddit to fill my simulated world? Same me, you cannot tell if I’m a simulation that are answering you here, but the point is, we know for sure that ourselves are real.

1

Qawali t1_j90elk2 wrote

i disagree. i dont think the only thing we are sure of existence is ourselves. i think the only thing we are “sure of” is that we know nothing.

and to ponder on whether or not we are in a simulation/illusion is a ridiculous waste of time. who cares if we are, what do you do then? what difference would it make from that of “reality?”

this shit literally is the basis of cogito ergo sum. you are exploring a pointless thought that some dude hundreds of years ago panicked about already.

1

MasterReset7 t1_j90i7ea wrote

Some people think that philosophy it self is a waste of time, even so we are here.

So you think that even our selves maybe not real? You are not sure that you are real?

1

MasterReset7 t1_j90iva1 wrote

With "sure of" I mean the precisely meaning accurate of the word. So is wrong: be sure of "know nothing" cause even little, we know something, and one of this things is that we exist, if not you would not writing your comment.

But, what I wanted to achieve here is to see the vision of others about the matter. Even being just a concept that I was thinking about in my mind.

1