For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
To that, I agree. But I'm not sure that control is what we really want.Typist wrote:I'm proposing that we don't yet grasp how powerful these emerging simulation technologies are, and are still enjoying a naive delusion that we are in control of them.
What do you mean? I want to control your desire to give us a fuller explanation. I thought that was the F9 key, but that didn't work. Hmm.... Must read manual again.Notvacka wrote:But I'm not sure that control is what we really want.
But I'll give it a bit of a go.
Yes, I think so, if one were one of these and I tend to be a bit of both. So the simulation model, for me, that would fit both of these would be the one where the 'simulation' is not a deliberate one designed to suit the human but more like Conway's Life program with the laws of nature being the possible physics based upon the patterns produced by the simple calculating rules of the 'grid', rules not necessarily designed to produce 'this'.Richard Baron wrote:Hmm, is your point that if we are in a simulation (or whatever else we should call it), then the laws of nature for us are as they appear to us (or at least, as they will appear to us once we have done enough physics, where "physics" means what we can do from our position)? The inaccessible outside-the-computer would be nothing to us, and any talk of it would be (for a Kantian) something that we should not even attempt, contentless, because it could not possibly be linked to our intuitions, or (for a logical positivist) contentless because beyond all possibility of verification or falsification by us. ...
Do you continually track down all the people you've ever had a conversation with?Typist wrote:...Have you made an effort to track down anybody who has left this forum to see how they're doing? Me neither. It seems that, generally speaking, in this environment we're all pretty much totally disposable. ...
As it is in the 'real' world?...And, we're choosing this environment in part because of that feature. Disposable means that at the very instant we find someone boring or annoying, we can end that relationship with a flick of the mouse without notice or apology, and this is the accepted community standard. ...
How so?That is, this is an environment where we have lots of control over our experience. In real life, we would have to make all kinds of compromises to have these conversations. ...
Don't understand why this "desire for control" is necessary for this "prediction". I also think that its not that theres a 'simulated reality' that we 'go into' but that reality is changed to accomodate simulations as part of reality.People have been trying to control their own experience by controlling other people since the beginning of time. If we just project this demonstrated desire for control forward in to the future, it's easy to predict an ever deeper immersion in to a simulated reality.
"Rapture of the Nerds" is my take and it wouldn't last long as how could these "Digital people" be people and be "infinitely easier to control and customize"? The point of 'people' is that they are not 'us', its what makes life and online FPS games interesting.Digital people will be infinitely easier to control and customize. We will become like Gods, sculpting our own social environment with great precision. As this power becomes ever more available, lots and lots of people are going to find it irresistable.
Using a method of communcation that is millennia old?And they will look back upon forum blowhards like you and me, and call us the primitive ancestor pioneers. You're taking the first big step towards a software based social environment, as you read this.
This post was written by TrollBot version 1.0. Version 1.0 is not customizable, but you can yell at it, and it will yell back.
Yes, the distinction between a deliberate and a non-deliberate simulation (I don't want to say "accidental", that may commit to too much) seems to me to be important, and to fit with my point, for the following reason. If we see a simulation as deliberate, we imagine someone (not necessarily a human being, but some kind of conscious agent) as setting it up. If we imagine that happening, then we automatically imagine a world outside the simulation. So we attach sense to the notion of that world, and we can start to wonder whether the laws in that world match the laws as they appear to us. If we do not think of a simulation as set up deliberately, we lose that automatic route to imagining an outside world.Arising_uk wrote:So the simulation model, for me, that would fit both of these would be the one where the 'simulation' is not a deliberate one designed to suit the human but more like Conway's Life program with the laws of nature being the possible physics based upon the patterns produced by the simple calculating rules of the 'grid', rules not necessarily designed to produce 'this'.
Time for bed?Typist wrote:Arising, you are so predictable, even I could code a bot to talk to you.
If someone says tomato, you say tomawto. If someone says tomawto, you say tomato.
Yawn....
First, if it interests you to get responses, try asking better questions. Or not, as you wish.I am very predictable in that I'll generally ask questions, as predictable as your non-response too such things?
How the fuck can I ask a 'better' question than the one I've thought of? Tell you what, you tell me all the answers you can think of an I'll see if I can think of any questions.Typist wrote:First, if it interests you to get responses, try asking better questions. Or not, as you wish.
What conversation?Second, I've had this conversation a number of times, and a certain frustration with predictable routine patterns has developed here. I apologize for directing this general frustration at you specifically, sloppy writing and the usual lack of diplomacy on my part.
I thought you said we already live in our sims? So what 'reality' are they blurring?But, a solution is coming...
To me, a couple of things are clear, and very interesting.
1) Media engineers are busy creating technologies which will increasingly blur the line between reality and simulation.
I note the trekkies still bodly go... holodeck or not. But as an FPS player I look forward to it but it'll be bloody2) The extensive use of today's relatively primitive media devices illustrates that more advanced immersive realistic simulations (ala Holodeck) will be wildly popular.
[REB] rules! Buncha Yank bastards Did you know that heroin was introduced as a reasonably non-addictive substitute for morphine?It's as if somebody is in the back room, cooking up a new drug that is 100 times more compelling and addictive than heroin.
Actually it does but its easier if there are two. And apparently the virtual world allows questions to be asked and answered?What do you want? What do you really want?
No need to answer, because like me, you probably don't even know. The real world doesn't offer us a lot opportunities to really ask this question.
Depends what you mean? You have visions of a dystopia where most are plugged into their own little 'god' worlds? Intravenous feeding, etc? How will they pay the leccy bills?Realistic simulations will present us with this question, and once we ask and answer it, and get what we want, we will be bailing out on the real world in huge numbers.
Who you talking too?Yes, yes, I know, I know. I've heard it a hundred times. Readers prefer the real world, they prefer real people etc etc. Sorry, I don't buy it, I just don't.
They're asleep! And one neighbour is a retired headmaster and classicist, so its never boring mundane neighborhood gossip.Here's why. Anyone reading this is already on the road to what I'm talking about, right now, by your own choice.
You could be spending these moments talking to your real world next door neighbor right now about whatever boring mundane neighborhood gossip they are interested in. But you're not. You're not talking with them.
You're talking with me instead, just a brain and typing fingers, all other characteristics of humanity removed.
You've used technology to control your social experience, and have chosen a highly abstract experience which is more tailored to your taste than the non-digital real world.
So I wanted to be told what I think and be the butt of someones frustration?
Choose what instead? You can write in any style you like mate but I'd just like it if you'd address at least one of them. But thanks for the complimentAnd when it becomes possible to craft me in to a conversation partner that carefully addresses each and every one of your points, and makes the brilliance of your insights the center of every conversation, using just the right balance of challenge and fawning flattery, you will drop me, and choose that instead.
You a Second Lifer with big tits?And if I can appear in video, in the form of a stunning super model, so much the better.
There are many models out there of 'whats coming', I find yours fairly old-hat.What I'm shopping for are conversation partners who are insightful enough, and honest enough, to see this coming, and understand how compelling the invitation to create one's own reality, to be God, is really going to be.
The realization of the deepest dreams of mankind, coming someday to a mall near you. Anything you want, at your finger tips. Stop pretending you aren't going to buy and use the device that makes it possible.
But even more so because his paper does not disallow the possibilty that sims can go posthuman too 
Unless its like Neitchze said and the Great Simulator just resets it all before this can happen, Eternal Recurrence - so do every action as tho' you will be doing it forever, coz you will! By slowing down, and thinking more, before you fire back the first thing that pops in to your head, just to have something to come back with.How the fuck can I ask a 'better' question than the one I've thought of?
Typist wrote:Second, I've had this conversation a number of times, and a certain frustration with predictable routine patterns has developed here. I apologize for directing this general frustration at you specifically, sloppy writing and the usual lack of diplomacy on my part.
Answer: This conversation, the one we're having now, about simulated reality. Why do you keep asking pointless questions like this?Arising wrote:What conversation?
Typist wrote:1) Media engineers are busy creating technologies which will increasingly blur the line between reality and simulation.
The reality where you eat your dinner. Again, you're just being a quibble monster with replies like this, and adding nothing to the thread.Arising wrote:I thought you said we already live in our sims? So what 'reality' are they blurring?
There you go, now we're getting some insight in to what you really want. An experience of giving the Yank bastards their just deserts!I note the trekkies still bodly go... holodeck or not. But as an FPS player I look forward to it but it'll be bloody
Did you know this is another example of the kind of non-contribution come back that only a silly person like myself would attend to?Did you know that heroin was introduced as a reasonably non-addictive substitute for morphine?
From within the simulation, like they do now when they pay their bills online, because walking to the mailbox in the real world is too much trouble.How will they pay the leccy bills?
Clearly nobody.Who you talking too?
More pointless comebacking, just to have something, anything, to say.They're asleep! And one neighbour is a retired headmaster and classicist, so its never boring mundane neighborhood gossip.
Because you appeared to think I was privy to your 'numberless conversations' and you did not say what these "predictable routine patterns" were? A pattern you appear to repeat, along with talking to yourself and then typing it, and ignoring questions.Typist wrote:By slowing down, and thinking more, before you fire back the first thing that pops in to your head, just to have something to come back with.
As example...
Typist wrote:Second, I've had this conversation a number of times, and a certain frustration with predictable routine patterns has developed here. I apologize for directing this general frustration at you specifically, sloppy writing and the usual lack of diplomacy on my part.Answer: This conversation, the one we're having now, about simulated reality. Why do you keep asking pointless questions like this?Arising wrote:What conversation?
And this....
Typist wrote:1) Media engineers are busy creating technologies which will increasingly blur the line between reality and simulation.The reality where you eat your dinner. Again, you're just being a quibble monster with replies like this, and adding nothing to the thread.Arising wrote:I thought you said we already live in our sims? So what 'reality' are they blurring?
Say's the one who raised American politics within this thread. Are you sure you should be on a philosophy forum?You mistake me and are obviously not a gamer as the [REB] tag is my clan tag and they ARE, in the main, a bunch of redneck yank bastards, as I tell them, but they still appear to let me play, if only to give me my just dessertsThere you go, now we're getting some insight in to what you really want. An experience of giving the Yank bastards their just deserts!
Just pointing out that your emotive analogies are generally based upon unsound assumptions.Did you know this is another example of the kind of non-contribution come back that only a silly person like myself would attend to?
And the actual work they'll do to pay for it and their food? Or do you have some kind of communist utopia in mind?From within the simulation, like they do now when they pay their bills online, because walking to the mailbox in the real world is too much trouble.
No, you were clearly having a conversation with someone, it just didn't appear to be me?Clearly nobody.
I'm sorry? You asked me why I was not talking to my neighbour. You appear very unsed to people questioning your thoughts or replying to your questions.More pointless comebacking, just to have something, anything, to say.
Was I paying for anything?Ok, that's all you get for a quarter.
But what kind of immortality? As Bostrom points out the Simulator may reset us everytime we get close to becoming posthuman. So a kind of Neitchzian eternal recurrance immortality? Also he raised the prospect that we might actually be one of the 'dumb' sims created to keep the posthuman amused, how could we tell if we were the 'real' deal and not a sub-sim?Croatguy wrote:Nick Bostrom rates the chances of us actually living in a simulation 20% in his simulation argument. Even if we are not living in one, then we will almost certainly create one once the AI singularity is reached. I cannot see why we will not create one when the technology and computer resources will be readily available. For my sake, I hope we are living in one now, as immortality would be guaranteed.
That's a very good point. The root of this issue lies in the use of the word 'simulation' in the first place. Many of the assumptions in the paper itself are based around a deliberately created simulation, from the perspective that if we can deliberately create a simulation then it is likely that we have been deliberately created in a simulation also. The simulation word remains problematic even if you remove a conscious or deliberate creator from the equation, as you must still ask the question 'what is being simulated' or 'what are the conditions under which this simulation is running'? So simulation is really a bad choice of wording, as it implicitly implies a world outside the simulation, or at the very least a 'something else' which our universe is simulating, either deliberately or non-deliberately.Richard Baron wrote:
Yes, the distinction between a deliberate and a non-deliberate simulation (I don't want to say "accidental", that may commit to too much) seems to me to be important, and to fit with my point, for the following reason. If we see a simulation as deliberate, we imagine someone (not necessarily a human being, but some kind of conscious agent) as setting it up. If we imagine that happening, then we automatically imagine a world outside the simulation. So we attach sense to the notion of that world, and we can start to wonder whether the laws in that world match the laws as they appear to us. If we do not think of a simulation as set up deliberately, we lose that automatic route to imagining an outside world.
While amusing, the idea of simulations within simulations is meaningless if you must presume some fundamental "reality" at the bottom of it all. That's why I like the "turtles all the way down" anecdote for all the wrong (right) reasons. If a completely convincing simulation of reality is possible within reality, we might as well be done with the idea of reality altogether.Arising_uk wrote:Hi Croatguy,But what kind of immortality? As Bostrom points out the Simulator may reset us everytime we get close to becoming posthuman. So a kind of Neitchzian eternal recurrance immortality? Also he raised the prospect that we might actually be one of the 'dumb' sims created to keep the posthuman amused, how could we tell if we were the 'real' deal and not a sub-sim?Croatguy wrote:Nick Bostrom rates the chances of us actually living in a simulation 20% in his simulation argument. Even if we are not living in one, then we will almost certainly create one once the AI singularity is reached. I cannot see why we will not create one when the technology and computer resources will be readily available. For my sake, I hope we are living in one now, as immortality would be guaranteed.
What's really funny is it's meaningless whether you presume a fundamental reality at the bottom or not. Turtles all the way down, or a pipe-smoking badger at the bottom, neither answer gets us anywhere.Notvacka wrote:While amusing, the idea of simulations within simulations is meaningless if you must presume some fundamental "reality" at the bottom of it all. That's why I like the "turtles all the way down" anecdote for all the wrong (right) reasons. If a completely convincing simulation of reality is possible within reality, we might as well be done with the idea of reality altogether.