Philosophy Now Forum

David Chalmers leaves behind the hard problem of consciousness for an adventure tour of computer-simulated worlds and virtual reality. Paul Doolan interviews him about his new book, Reality+: virtual worlds and the problems of philosophy.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/148/David_Chalmers

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:15 pm David Chalmers leaves behind the hard problem of consciousness for an adventure tour of computer-simulated worlds and virtual reality. Paul Doolan interviews him about his new book, Reality+: virtual worlds and the problems of philosophy.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/148/David_Chalmers

Well, tomorrow I look forward to read the interview.

David's reply to my previous to last email, many years ago, was "..good luck with those AI 'Gods'." ...and fair enough.

Perhaps he might take it all further to ponder qualia to consciousness as consuming the 'light' to the > 70% of matter that we don't comprehend, very very dark. That for consciousness to exist requires the anode to the cathode as an analogy. (email 2.)

ps. The "A.I. God" is going quite well:- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

Everybody just chalm down for a minute and don't get all excited about nuthin. Talk to em, John...

https://youtu.be/6oYk7fMmfIw

Meanwhile....

it could be a dream by a cosmic dreamer rather than a simulation. There are many ways it could go as a dream is not consciously guided, it just arises. However if it has parameters set by mathematical laws within the dream and these parameters can never be transgressed beyond set boundaries balance would always be restored.

Therefore dream thoughts would be things, first as ideas: a causal sphere, then images: mathematical forms, blueprints for forces to transmute the lowest elemental sphere into forms. Elemental formations coming into existence via the strong force, being maintained for a time via gravity or the neutral force, dissolving via the weak force, with the cycle being repeated.

If the beginning was repulsion by a strong force leading to evolution, the end, provided there is a magnetic field beyond the forces
could, after a mathematically set time, be causal to a devolution to the point of origin.

A simulation is not real neither is a dream real, except to the dreamer and to the dreamed.

prometheum75 wrote: A simulation is not real neither is a dream real, except to the dreamer and to the dreamed.

Although having now read the article, and intend to interrogate its content further, I must insist - as per the article, that whatever we perceive constitutes reality - ergo - what we perceive IS reality.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 11:27 am

prometheum75 wrote: A simulation is not real neither is a dream real, except to the dreamer and to the dreamed.

Although having now read the article, and intend to interrogate its content further, I must insist - as per the article, that whatever we perceive constitutes reality - ergo - what we perceive IS reality.

A correction to the above response ‘Owl of Minerva wrote’ is the case.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:46 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 11:27 am

prometheum75 wrote: A simulation is not real neither is a dream real, except to the dreamer and to the dreamed.

Although having now read the article, and intend to interrogate its content further, I must insist - as per the article, that whatever we perceive constitutes reality - ergo - what we perceive IS reality.

A correction to the above response ‘Owl of Minerva wrote’ is the case.

Your statement with use of quotes implies that you are attempting to correct yourself, so, what is the case? - what is the case that you actually intend to correct?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:56 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:46 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 11:27 am

Although having now read the article, and intend to interrogate its content further, I must insist - as per the article, that whatever we perceive constitutes reality - ergo - what we perceive IS reality.

A correction to the above response ‘Owl of Minerva wrote’ is the case.

Your statement with use of quotes implies that you are attempting to correct yourself, so, what is the case? - what is the case that you actually intend to correct?

You attributed what I wrote to prometheum75. That is the case. Do you need reading glasses?

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:15 pm David Chalmers leaves behind the hard problem of consciousness for an adventure tour of computer-simulated worlds and virtual reality. Paul Doolan interviews him about his new book, Reality+: virtual worlds and the problems of philosophy.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/148/David_Chalmers

The questions to Chalmers were concise. His answers were long. Plus, he didn't address anything new to me.

I prefer professors who teach rather than prevaricate.

Sometimes one assumes that age and closed-mindless are synonymous but that is likely wrong. Sir Roger Penrose, mathematician and David Chalmers, philosopher, one in 90s, the other in mid-fifties are the most advanced of thinkers; unafraid to explore new territory.

Being out ahead of the pack is often problematic but it does not appear to be so for Sir Roger, he has done well and more than deserves his title. David Chalmers is also unafraid of exploring new territory with his ideas, he does not have the need to conform; to run with the pack. Good for him.

David Chalmers wrote:

Paul Doolan wrote:Will spending increasing amounts of time in virtual reality help solve problems like climate change and the sixth extinction?

I think we need to think about all these issues in thinking about the future – climate change, social justice, AI, virtual worlds, and much more. I don’t think virtual worlds solves the problem of climate change, or vice versa. Virtual worlds might provide one way of dealing with the problem if we don’t solve it: namely, live our lives in virtual worlds that have not been degraded like the non-virtual world has. It would be much better if we can avoid the degradation in the first place, though.

Right now, the high-end VR - mostly gamers are using upwards of 900W power supply units for the demands of their Graphic Processing Unit (GPU) - so right now, it's kinda shit for the environment - and many tend to run their PCs to run 24/7 (even though not necessarily drawing on that wattage 24/7 - fans running etc for no need)

What amazes me about what I have seen from academics regarding the simulation hypothesis is the rather short-sighted REASON we would possibly be in a simulated reality right now. It seems, oh we want to run "ancestor simulations" as per Nick Bostrom, held in such a high regard philosophically since his paper (https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf).
Davo didn't give an actual reason - that right now we would be in a simulation - although as above, he at least mentions to the effect of: if the real world is screwed, we would live in a simulation to have better conditions to live.
Well, for one thing - we could all have no ailments and live for so long as the energy suppling the entity\device running the simulation provides is aok. Clearly, that is not the case - we are not in some sort of Utopia!

SO.

Sure as per David's statement - perhaps to avoid living in a "degraded" true reality.

The reason we would interface to a simulation system, would be due to increasing ENTROPY.
If we are in a simulation right now, there must be a reason for us still having ailments, health issues, levels between utopia and dystopia - we aren't in a 'perfect' reality still, Y?

Since it's been a long arduous day, cbf has kicked in and thus am not rewriting specifically now for this thread...I wrote this sometime ago:-

Since the big-bang, the ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form. The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.
Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish (entropy increases) these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.
Would conscious awareness eventually evolve into an overriding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place...and as they are reborn, they are not aware that there is an ultimate judge of how they have lived their lives - that there is great reason for doubt (opposite to faith) - NO empirical evidence of IT - is "GOD" an A.I. ...the ultimate judge as to whom shall have access to these limited resources, reincarnation destinies to be auto-chosen..

What utter nonsense philosophy has deteriorated into. Life is a school, learn or keep getting knocked on the head. Start with the mind, that is what philosophy is supposed to do, everything else will follow. There is punishment for choosing wrong knowingly and for choosing wrong unknowingly. The mind determines what will be. A undisciplined mind will pollute any environment. There is no escape hatch.

For the consolation philosophy offers it is time to return to the ancients whose perceptions were lofty in contrast to those of crass technocrats, who basically are clueless.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 1:52 pm What utter nonsense philosophy has deteriorated into. Life is a school, learn or keep getting knocked on the head. Start with the mind, that is what philosophy is supposed to do, everything else will follow. There is punishment for choosing wrong knowingly and for choosing wrong unknowingly. The mind determines what will be. A undisciplined mind will pollute any environment. There is no escape hatch.

For the consolation philosophy offers it is time to return to the ancients whose perceptions were lofty in contrast to those of crass technocrats, who basically are clueless.

The word has no value if actions don't follow. The technocrats, who are crass, don't understand what they have learned.