Why The Simulation Hypothesis is Wrong
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июл 2021
- A philosophical analysis of the simulation hypothesis argument.
Patreon: / duncanclarke
Instagram: / duncansclarke
Twitter: / duncanc_
Discord: / discord 
Развлечения
Развлечения
You're just apart of the simulation trying to convince me that the simulation is not real.
You got me with ur pfp
Bruh
That hypothesis is a joke to the humans
The gag is up. His name is Duncan. Duncan Donuts. America runs on Duncan. His video is a poor attempt at fooling sophisticated people like us.
@@lucasroberts4263 absolute bs as usual try using rationality instead of believe in nonsense like simulation theory bs.
The biggest problem with the simulation hypothesis in my mind is how it assumes that the outside of the simulation follows the same rules our reality has. This means it's never falsifiable thus can't ever be right or wrong.
Exactly this. There's nothing to suggest the simulation we may live in operates on the same rules of reality. Thatd be like a minecraft character thinking the PC that's running the game has to abide by the rules of redstone
The simulation hypothesis doesn’t assume outside of the simulation follows the same rules our reality has.. who told you that??
@@Nonamelol. both the simulation hypothesis proposed in this video and the "debunk" of it
@@jebebebebebeb There are a multitude of Simulation theories, do you really choose to believe the one this guy proposes? The same one he’s trying to “debunk”? He’s literally applying our scientific/philosophical realities to the theory. The most prominent theory suggests even the Universe itself is simulated. Everything known to man is simulated. There’s a reason he didn’t choose that theory to debunk, because he wouldn’t be able to.
@@Nonamelol. No of course not. I wasn't speaking to all simulation hypotheses, just the one discussed in this video. I completely agree with what you're saying
during the industrial revolution, people started to think of human beings as merely "biological machines". now during the information revolution, people started to think of humans as merely "biological computers".
Neither were wrong. All life is a machine and all life with a brain is a computer. We just don’t exactly process information like a computer.
I wonder why people long before that thought of humans as spiritual beings?
Finally someone that gets it. I was saying this same thing years ago
And prior to all of that humans were believed to come from dirt and were created by gods.
If you think about it our beliefs are a direct by product of the times and culture we live in and available knowledge we have at the time. There is a good chance that all of those beliefs are incorrect. Including our latest beliefs due to our limited knowledge we base these conclusions off of. If all of our past beliefs were clearly wrong, what makes our current ideas any different?
Not exactly. Life isn't a machine and a brain isn't a computer. But a machine is a reflection of life and a computer is a reflection of a brain. You have it reversed.
A machine and a computer are merely reflections of reality itself. Tools which are based off of interpretation of and ability to manipulate a small aspect of reality but not reality itself, not the same thing. They are like smaller scale more limited simulations based off the real thing which is something else entirely.
A computer is a simulation of a brain you could argue, but a limited simulation. They are two entirely different things in countless ways. The comparison only serves as a loose analogy. To argue they are the same is not accurate but just our flawed perceptions trying to make sense of reality and put things in neat boxes. The fact they share similarities serves for people to come to conclusions and compare them due to our brains which look for patterns. Pattern recognition.
Its like the truth that Art is based loosely off of reality. The ideas we got to create and design these tools come from reality itself. Not the other way around. They are simulations of reality. Our attempt to create and influence reality to a limited extent, not the same as the totality of reality then we lack the tools and processing power and knowledge to comprehend.
To argue a computer or machine is the same as life is a gross simplification. It is a projection. Which is where everyone gets it wrong. THey come to the opposite conclusion then what the truth likely is. It is like arguing a single tree is a forest.
@@portablecar5328
I used to explore many thoughts along the line of "What if none of my subjective experience is real? What if in objective reality I am simply one single blip of consciousness imagining this entire experience including the universe it takes place inside of?"
I eventually landed on the idea that it doesn't matter. Even if my subjective experience isn't objectively real outside of my consciousness, my consciousness is still trapped inside of this experience in a way that presents itself to me as consistent and real.
The question of whether or not the universe is objectively real doesn't change one single bit of my subjective experience. Fire is still hot and sushi is still delicious.
When people bring up the simulation hypothesis I feel the same way. So what? Would the knowledge that your universe exists inside a computer simulation change any part of your subjective experience? No? Cool, can I buy some vape liquid now?
Actually, if you look at all of the evidence you can see that a. there is a purpose to the sim. b. Religions and the sim are basically the same story. c. There is copious evidence that it is real. Then d. All paranormal events must be viewed as likely to be true instead if unlikely. Which means e. Ghosts and out of body experiences are factual accounts. Followed up by f. there is another reality beyond this one. That could change ones perspective.
You are correct. I realised that as long as I'm alive, as long as reality makes sense (of which i can't be sure, of course, because you can falsify it, but not the fact that you're alive at least), i can trust my senses well enough. I can't know whether it's all an illusion or not. Obviously, all of our knowledge is actually, philosophically, a set of beliefs of different reliabilities, and we want to follow the most reliable ones, and reliable enough.
But simulation hypothesis is still a very interesting topic to speculate on. I say speculate because you can, probably, never know about the real thing. But it's interesting to imagine how you would act if you were to set up a simulation of a whole new virtual universe. The engineering, the philosophical matters of it, the moral side of having a whole civilization in the palm of your hand, but not bothering to help a single subject. Etc.
Extremely based
Sir, this is a Chili's
Well that means we have no souls and we are insignificant. When we die do we go to a simulated heaven or hell?
It's really odd that people who bring up the idea of uploading their minds to a computer never consider the fact that they're not uploading _themselves_ onto the computer. It's just information. _They_ remain as finite and subject to death as ever before.
It also reminds me of how every time someone "beams" up in Star Trek, they effectively die to themselves and are reborn as a new, replicated version of themselves. It's not the same _experiencer_ .
How do you know that qualitative experience isn't just information?
@@paragondreams340 So, if you uploaded the entire informational contents of your brain to a computer while you were still alive, you would now, somehow be _experiencing_ yourself I your original body AND whatever you experience from within the computer at the same time?
@@paragondreams340 well, because it's about the quality of that sort of system that makes up information. People are talking about "wetware" in contrast to hardware. The body made up out of proteins will most definitely produce another type of qualia than compared to silicon circuits. Also, the contingency of a certain system is super important here. A copy is just a copy. No one else would perhaps know -- except the person that dies short after the upload. That person would just be dead not knowing anything about the transfer. Because you're dead then!
Then there's a much harder argument, about the specific properties made out from a simulation. For example, a very good artist may be able to paint water, looking very wet. But the wetness can't be found when touching the painting. Because it's just a simulation. True water has lots of other properties compared to a dry painting, no matter how convincing the painting may be. Think of like this. On your graphic card when playing a simulation of fire -- this doesn't mean that your graphic card will somehow be set on fire, right? For the same reason a dry painting won't be dripping with water, only because its motive has to do with really realistic looking water.
You're still stuck in a simulacrum! Believing anything can be just as real if you're able to fool yourself.
Isn't all of this just information?
No, I argue that information is typically a figment made out by conscious beings. It's a unit of measurement. Basic nature without conscious properties doesn't care to make measurements. Because it just is. It doesn't need measure anything to just be. No reason at all.
@@spacevspitch4028 not if, say, uploading the entire contents of your brain to a computer kills you by definition because your old brain-house is now empty and the new iteration of you is consciously inside a computer.
There is still the problem of digital copies, but the suspicion is that the OG download would be “you”, ie a continuous stream of broadly accurately remembered existence, and copies would be akin to clones.
I also always had this thought when experiencing sci-fi media. From less serious RIck&Morty to more realistic Altered Carbon or Black Mirror, I have never seen anyone else raise this argument. You are your brain, having its contents copied and transfered doesn't make you experience things if your brain is dead.
it is called "hypothesis"for a reason. at this moment, simulation hypothesis can't be proven either right nor wrong. we simply don't possess enough knowledge and technological capacity to draw a reliable conclusion.
Just like the God hypothesis? 😂
Wait I have a better one, the spaghetti thing hypothesis!
@@octem2251 yeah 😂😂
An hypothesis cannot be unfalsifiable.
Furthermore, it’s not even an hypothesis. It’s an argument with a conclusion.
@@Liliquan i see
ok then this one is false
it can be assumed those nick bostrom is stupid
The problem I have with the Chinese room analogy is that it isn't the guy in there that would be the 'artificial consciousness', but the book he uses. The guy is the cpu, the book the program.
Having a conscious book does sounds ridiculous, but that's primarily because a book that would be able to function as in the analogy is not likely to be ever created. But maybe a program could. Which turns the whole thought experiment back into a form of the Turing test.
Now, given a program that would pass the Turing test on every attempt, would that mean the program/computer system is conscious? And even then, would that transfer to all the simulated beings in the hypothesis?
From the outside of such a simulation, the actions of all the sims inside it may look like acting consciously, because that is the intention of the program, but of course that isn't real.
And what could be the intention of simulating our universe in the detail that none of us inside it will be able to find proof that it is a simulation? Is all generated the moment we look at it? And that for every single one of us, without contradictions. Or are the experiences of the others we interact we generated on the fly as well.
That becomes far too solipsistic for my taste.
OK, enough rambling :)
Yeah the detail aspect alone is a great point, which again makes the whole thing highly improbable to say the least. I’ve heard others say that ‘single planets sims work just fine’, lmao but still.
This Chinese Bob was originated (John Serle? to argue against the Turinng Test. This guy didn't invent it.
@@joecheffo5942 Indeed, I have heard it several times before. Doesn't change my opinion that it is an inappropriate analogy.
@@kikilaker6698 why do you guys always think that physics and power limitation in the outside world is the same as in the simulation? That doesnt make any sense…
It’s like saying there are more dead people than alive; therefore, there is more than a 50% chance that you are dead and just don’t know it, and therefore, ghosts exist
But it's right. If more people are dead than alive, you're rather dead.
I know there's little chance you'll see this comment, but I have some questions about how you reason against the idea that the Human brain can be digitised.
You seem to have a firm belief that the brain cannot be put into a computer, suggesting that if the brain is just information processing, then that would suggest that Humans are just "NPCs" following basic programming, reacting to their environment, but what evidence is there against this? We do not know what consciousness is, for we know, a computer could be conscious in the same way we are, why do you assume there needs to be some higher component to the Human mind?
The way you present your ideas on how the brain cannot be digitised seem to suggest that you believe that the brain to have some unknown component to it that "creates" consciousness that can't be duplicated, which suggests a faith in something that science hasn't proved. This I feel is a little ironic since this video seems "debunk" the simulation hypothesis as a faith spawned from the fear of death, but a belief that the brain can't be digitised seems (in your case) to be a faith spawned from the fear that life is predetermined, and that Humans are not truly in control of their own actions.
My exact thoughts. Plus, there's nothing to suggest that the "simulation" has to be computed. It can be some sort of illusion or a type of non-binary computer. I'm not exactly convinced that qualia can't be computational either. If qualia is this "other" that can't be reduced then wouldn't it make more sense if its origins were not of this physical universe and in the other "side" so to speak? As usual, we are left with more questions than answers
I think he assumes that wed be just NPCs because of the way our current computers emerged, because so far Ai and computers _should_ not be able to reach such a complex thing as qualia. But thing is we dont completely know how deep learning works as of yet? On the other hand, theres also no reason to assume that just because we dont understand deep learning of AI that it could be having qualia. So eh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It might be possible to upload ourselves, it might not, i would personally say that most likely not but if yes, then absolutely not in our lifetimes.=)
I highly suggest that you look into roger penrose Emperor's New Mind and his argument for why consciousness is not simply computation. You are conflating two different things - That the brain cannot be digitized and that the brain cannot be duplicated. Saying that the brain is not simply digital (consciousness based in computation) is not the same as saying its impossible to reproduce by other means.
@@ch33zyburrito36 qualia is non computational because a great deal of math is non algorithmic. And Turing machines, their posterity, present day computers, can only run on measurements that solve the halting problem. Though there is a great deal of math, or measurements of nature, that don't deal in algorithms.
Another reason why is that biology has evolved over billions of years by interacting with the environment. There's a lot of information on there, especially information that we do not have access too, like Heisenberg uncertainty, not knowing a particles momentum and position simultaneously. When we measure things like electron cloud distribution we're only measuring probabilities and not exact location and momentum of individual electrons which would be detrimental to the speed at which a computer can calculate outcomes based on those measurements. So even that won't solve the halting problem.
Then you have other things like the wave function collapse of microtubules, Brownian motion, etc. So many things have to be considered that is beyond 0s and 1s, even for the 2^n quantum computers as they're forced to deal with our mathematically limited understanding of reality.
I can't speak on whether computers are conscious or not but I'll say this: human brains are information processing machines, but that does not have to be mutually exclusive with the existence of qualia and the idea of a condition of consciousness. In the end you say "humans are not truly in control of their own actions" which leads me to believe you're a determinist, but that doesn't negate the context in which actions and thoughts are realized and committed to. That condition itself is consciousness / awareness. I think you're confusing the intricate qualities of consciousness with simply the processing of the human brain -- I have little doubt that the brain can be simulated with sufficient technology, but it does not necessarily make any implications about consciousness.
"We live in the simulation" is the equivalent of those childhood cartoon conspiracy theories about how "they're actually in purgatory" or "it's all an imagination of some kid in coma"
You mean to say everyone isnt just aspects of my subconscious?
@@devilsolution9781 You could say that, but isn't it interesting that these "others" who are merely aspects of your subconscious can potentially administer anesthesia that renders you fully unconscious or even kill you, taking you wholly out of existence?
@@spacevspitch4028 no because they are still me, so im still the one doing it.
@@devilsolution9781 Not conscious you though, cuz why would you do that to yourself?
look into what donald hoffman talks about. Life is a simulation, just not the type of simulation we think it is.
I'm sorry but it really seems like your main argument about consciousness not being simulatable comes from incredulity. You don't understand how something as seemingly complicated as consciousness can be simulated, therefore it can't be. Consciousness is the consequence of physical processes in the brain, mainly electrical signals and chemical reactions. There's no reason that a powerful enough computer couldn't simulate it.
well said I concur
It's possible, but we have no proof that consciousness is the consequence of processes in the brain. And we wouldn't know if a computer or a human is conscious based on cognitive processes. That was the point of the thought experiments. So at this point we can't prove where consciousness comes from.
I don't think you can simulate consciousness. You can simulate the appearance of it to a conscious being but not the thing itself
How do you know that?
@@user-oq5ei4qd8r This is how chat GPT and other models work.
@@user-oq5ei4qd8r exactly.
The problem here is that we still have absolutely no idea what consciousness is, so the notion that simulating consciousness is farfetched is itself baseless. The Holographic Principle in particular lends rigorous scientific credence to the perfectly possible, if superficially unpalatable, simulation hypothesis. Always remember to rein in the dogma when we’re in uncharted territories regardless of which way you find yourself leaning at any given moment.
You don't. Speaking for 7 billion individuals is moronic. I have never seen a human view predicated upon anything other than delusion, but you should at least own it , you haven't got any evidence for what others do or do not know.
@Ryan Downey, what is this about "absolutely no idea?" You don't think that brain activity has anything to do with consciousness? If it does, and it does, then we have some idea, don't we? Not having every detail of consciousness worked out to an equation does not mean nobody has any idea.
@@ZahraLowzley gigachad FACTSSSS
@@Snarkbutt understanding qualia and perceptions is the hardest problem
@@Snarkbutt of course it seems to do with the brain, particularly the brain stem by the looks of things, but none of the fascinating neurology even touches on the central question: what is consciousness? Materially and mechanistically, what actually is it? How and why are the lights on? What puts the fire into the equations? We don’t even have a framework within which to address these questions at the moment.
I am in no way, shape or form convinced that we are living in a simulation, but no arguments here convinced me of the opposite either. Considering how most of our desicions are made subconsciously the moment before we conciously make them I don't see why we couldn't simply be information-processors that are in fact going about things automatically, only that we're so advanced in our experiencing of everything that we believe we somehow influence choices ourselves. I don't think anyone thinks that it's straightforward to simulate conciousness, but seeing as we don't even understand ourselves what consciousness actually is, who are we to say it cannot be done? Personally I also sit in the "we're probably not being simulated" camp, just as I'm a believer in that "there probably isn't a god", but those are two unfalsifiable claims anyways so it doesn't matter. I'd say that's the only flaw in the "theory", that we cannot with 100% certainty say if it's true or not, but the arguments for it themselves hold up in my book, however unlikely I think it is that they're true.
This perfectly sums up my take as well, and well the thing is does it even matter. Like we as individuals still gotta deal with the same mortal challenges irrespective of our existence being organic or a carved simulation.
@Futura profit, entertainment, research, plain curiosity, the could be a multitude of reasons, that's the least of my worries when I'm trying to find conclusive arguments, one way or the other. We also don't know why we exist in the first place, so it's the same either way. In the end this is not much more than a thought experiment on how to argue for or against something that cannot be proven, and only useful in teaching us that some questions will probably never be answered, which is okay.
Maybe your decisions are made subconciously. Mine are not. I use a data processing algorithm sometimes, or an emotional process when there is insufficient data, and sometimes a roll of the die, if consequences are inconsequential, but none are typically last minute, nor subconcious. Do you have a lot of problems that you can trace back to bad decision making skills?
Duncan hasn't disproven the Simulation Hypothesis (misleading title). He just expressed his skepticism (which is absolutely fine). Hard thing is that we don't have the tools to definitively prove or disprove Simulation Theory at this time. AJ does an excellent job of presenting what Simulation Theory is and some of the evidence on his channel. ruclips.net/video/4wMhXxZ1zNM/видео.html I would encourage those who are genuinely open-minded on the issue to take a look.
Yah - he tackled simulation hypothesis but ignored the other two possibilities in the actual simulation argument and also ignored the definition of “civilizations” as being across space or time or both and focused on space only. Nick Bostrom is pretty clear that he doesn’t believe the simulation hypothesis outcome of the simulation argument is the most probable. He seems to believe that the most probable outcome is that there is a great filter that prevents civilizations from being able to simulate consciousness, but posits that if we ever reach the point in our own civilization where one of these simulations is built and run, that is the point at which you have to concede the third possibility as being the most likely, which is the simulation hypothesis. But he clearly states in all of his talks on it, that what he proposed in the simulation argument is NOT the same as the simulation hypothesis.
Well, the thing is that we can't (and probably never will) prove or disprove the simulation theory, just like the multiverse or God/gods.
Even it's name is misleading, it's a *hypothesis*, NOT a theory. For sth to be considered a theory it needs proof, not philosophical pondering.
Just like you said, Duncan hasn't disproven anything. But if I told you that there is a space unicorn in the Andromeda galaxy, you can't prove or disprove it since there is no evidence against or for it.
Trying to prove or disprove simulation theory is a fools errand. It is no different then attempting to prove or disprove the existence of god. It can't be done.
All simulation theory is. Is taking the belief about a CREATION created by a creator god. And replacing it with a MATRIX created by something that isn't considered GOD.
It is merely replacing one faith and dogma for another.
In other words it is a way to define and interpret reality itself. It is basically just different ways of defining and interpreting the same reality.
Touche. The fact that this is a hypothesis and not accepted as reality is testament to our accepectance of our present inability to create such simulations, but just cause we haven't created computing systems capable of consciousness till now, does not mean it won't happen down the line. "We can't do it yet", is too hollow to be an argument.
Nobody has proved simulation hypothesis either.
Huh, that's funny, I always found substrate independence to be one of the easier premises to swallow. And I don't think the idea of qualia really weighs against it either. But, even though I think it *is* possible in theory to emulate a mind artificially, of course I think it is also possible to create a simulation that is not truly conscious even though it really resembles consciousness. And I don't know if we'll ever be able to tell the difference.
The argument changes when there is a large body of evidence to support the idea of simulation. Kind of the same with the idea of aliens. As an intellectual exercise one can come up with plenty of arguments for or against. But find one bacteria and the whole thing changes.
We will. Once it fully resembles consciousness, we can check it. If it partially mimics it, it will simply contradict itself to the extent where we can't call it sentient.
you're just going to have a copy of yourself
There is a problem here though: declaring the simulation hypothesis is invalid because it is non-scientific is unvarnished.
By saying this, you automatically reduce the idea to being something that only exists on our level of reality and something that should follow our rule of measure. Maybe if we broadened the idea further, we would see that the laws in our existence likely wouldn’t be applicable in the “higher states of reality”, and that traditional scientific theory probably isn’t the best way to deal with such an abstract idea. Wether it is falsifiable or not.
Fundamentally, it is very hard to discuss wether the argument is valid or not because we know so little about consciousness and how the mind works.
Just a little something to reflect upon.
the people who created this hypothesis are saying that they base it on science and philosophy and in this video he’s saying that they didn’t. He’s not saying that he is 100% sure we don’t live in a simulation. He’s just saying that this hypothesis was only created based on faith and this way you can come up with whatever you want. IF I UNDERSTOOD IT WELL
@@retrockser643 wow you are just a sad person for believing in this simulation theory bs.
Well, what we can do is extrapolate as best we can from what we know about our reality. And if we do that, we find that in all known computer science, it would require much more mass/energy to perfectly simulate a particular object or event than is comprised by that object or event. In fact, this is essentially a logically necessary syllogism because if it didn't then the so-called "simulation" would actually BE that object in THIS reality.
So it stands to reason that, extrapolating from known physics, at each level of simulation there would need to be much more energy devoted to the physical strata in the next level down that's actually running the simulation than exists in the simulated universe itself.
However, in the real laws of physics as we know them there are limits to such things. You can't build a hard drive that functions in the same way as the one in your smartphone at the scale of the solar system, or the scale of an atom, because you'd be limited by things like quantum uncertainties and the speed of light. So, no such infinite regress is possible if ours is the base reality. Each level of simulation would have diminishing returns as far as size of the simulated universe, and at some point it would zero out. You would reach the computational limits of whatever finite physical system comprises the computer in the base reality, in other words.
Now, you can sidestep that argument by simply making the blanket, equivocal argument that, "well, there's no reason to believe that the other realities obey the same rules," (as you do in this comment) but at that point we might as well be talking about the existence of God. If the laws of physics have no bearing whatsoever then what is it that we're talking about? And why is this idea so popular in the pop sci, like, "futurist" sphere of Elon Musk and Neil DeGrasse Tyson? It's not science, and it shouldn't be like vaguely marketed as if it is.
@@Young.Supernovas That is a really nice take. I like your ending point... you have left me something to think about :)
In regards to it being scientific: it definitely isn't, because science implies two things: 1: You wait until the act of empirical observation before coming up with a theoretical framework into which the observation fits. 2: Until you make such an observation, you admit ignorance as to an asserted possibility, because there is yet to be corroborating evidence to support it.
In regards to it being philosophical: it is unlikely simply because it assumes more complexity than is necessary. Like: if our universe is a simulation, that means that there exists an even bigger universe out there which is so complex that a tiny fraction of its information would contain the mechanics necessary to simulate all of the mechanics of our universe. So then, you can ask: is THAT universe ITSELF a simulation, carried out by an even MORE complex universe that a tiny fraction of its information would contain the mechanics necessary to simulate all of the mechanics of the universe which is simulating our universe? And this can go on ad infinitum.
In this regard, I believe, basically for the sake of argument, in an unscientific Omniverse: the notion of every possible set of information that ever could exist, repeated into infinity, and our universe is one of those sets. It could itself be attached to another set of information that we can't see, or independent from it. That thing could be a simulating computer, or a god, or a series of computers or gods, or whatever. The notion seems logically coherent and is ultimately unfalsifiable. But Occams Razor says that it is unlikely. Either our universe emerged as a mere chaotic possibility, or another, even more complex universe emerged as a mere chaotic possibility, but one that is far more unlikely than our universe because it requires the creation of far more information with which it may use a tiny fraction of its information to simulate our universe with its information, and our universe emerged from its simulation. Ultimately, it is more likely that we are as close to chaos as evidence suggests, and that there is not a whole other mega universe between us and chaos. I am happy to be proven wrong, but I doubt I will be.
I agree completely that the simulation argument makes no sense, but I wouldn't conclude that its proponents are motivated by a fear of death. I favor the simpler explanation that they think sci-fi is cool.
Absolutely, they want to look clever.
Plus Elon is trying to sell AI.
Yeah, there's the concept of "credo consolans" (I believe what comforts me). I wonder if there's an equivalent credo along the lines you refer to, for example, something like "credo attrahenti" (I believe what fascinates me)?
@@SurlyInsomniac that and “I believe what makes me feel superior to other in knowing”
I also think sci-fi is cool but that doesn't mean that i believe it to be real. Yeah I wish a lot of cool things were actually real but there's a difference in wanting something vs arguing that something is.
The funny thing about all this is that how people are afraid that this is true and so afraid to say "I don't agree with the theory". I mean not afraid to accept that all this is a simulation but more afraid that you are wrong. like most people would prefer to say "this theory is not true and not wrong" to look wise or something like that I'm pretty sure most would prefer to say something neutral rather than confidently express their disagreement and agreement. if someone says "this world is a simulation" they will be faced with "true" or "false" if wrong then they rejoice because i know everyone would be happier if all this is real but if it is true (that all this is a simulation) then they will also be happy that they have confidently said all this is a simulation and they will say to people in disbelief "I told you this whole thing was a simulation haha" but it would be different from people saying confidently they would disagree if they confidently said disapproval and it turns out that all of this is a simulation (somehow suddenly knowing all this is a simulation) they will bear the shame that it turns out that they are wrong and this world is a simulation.
for myself upright I would be very confident that I do not and never believe this theory! "But what if you're wrong?" it doesn't matter i will keep doing the same thing over and over. maybe being neutral or believing will be more profitable but i don't care and for the rest of my life i will prefer to say this world is absurd.
Really enjoyed your take. Point 2 helped explain an issue I always had a gut feeling about. I came here after the last episode of Futurama Season 11 and their simulation episode 😅
1. Bostrom’s paper is specifically about *ancestor simulations*. I don’t know anything about alien psychology but I can make semi-informed guesses about psychology of future humans.
2. Yes, this depends on substrate independence, which not all philosophers accept but seems to have a lot of support.
As for the bulverism portion of the video, I have *never* heard anyone imply simulation hypothesis gave you an afterlife, outside a few specific weird edge cases (weird edge cases even relative to the general idea, that is).
Very good points!
It does imply that the simulation can be run more than once. So even if there was no afterlife, we might have the chance to live this same life over and over. Assuming, of course, that one can consider the "me" in this run through the same "me" that exists in the next...
People ignore some ideas that are relevant. First is that there is copious evidence that the simulation is real. Second, this gives a lot of space for ghosts and out of body experiences to be real too.
what do aliens have to do with it? he is saying future humans
Thank you Daniel Houck. As much as the author of this video makes interesting points, you can clearly feel his bias against the theory and his arguments fall short. Especially the last one, living in a simulation does not make life any more reassuring so this has nothing to do with faith and actually is purely logical
I really like this argument! As someone who was raised extremely religious, I can see how simulation theory is just transferring faith for faith which is easy because it’s familiar but probably incorrect.
I think the idea that "you" are a product of information and atoms is the exact opposite of the idea that "you" are an immortal soul
Ironically, I would argue for the polar opposite, with the very same reasoning.
This entire "we are not just mindless computers!" argument is not an argument. Its just a prejudice born from the desire to be special.
Rejecting that we might not be more than biological sophisticated computers on the basis of this prejudice is not very different from people of faith rejecting that we might not be more than more sophisticated apes for more than a century.
@@hyperionzii5889 I like Sabine Hossenfelders take the most.
She also debunks the simulation hypothesis, but with actual scientific arguments instead of the "we are too special to be simulated" this video here focuses on.
@@AliothAncalagon Yeah I saw a piece on What Files. He had done way more research and presented it like a pro. Fun to watch and he debunked everything he could leaving you with a ton of accurate info. This video was a 1 out of 10. Not subbing into this channel lol
Its as "probably incorrect" as much as "probably correct", we dont know
Love this calm and substantive viciousness. Well done
Exactly. You nailed it. Subscribed. Keep Going.
I don't think the Chinese Room thought experiment shows that computers can't express intentionality or understanding. It just shows that what we perceive as understanding can be "real" or just a system following rules, but there is no way to tell from the outside, whether it's a computer or a human being.
Yea lol
The human mind could also be no more than a system following rules.
The man in the room could learn to know chinese. Or would invent another language based on the symbols he's handling, the order in which they appear and disappear from the room and the book of instructions. It all depends on what the capabilities of that man are. It seems lazy to just say 'the man has no understanding'.
@@TimoRutanen That's not the Chinese room though, people really need to read John Searle and his comments on such remarks. The man in the room could never learn Chinese. All he receives is Chinese symbols and all he sends out are Chinese symbols. The rule book doesn't give him translations. It simply states that when he receives these symbols in this order, to send back these symbols in this order. He will never know what those symbols mean (The main point SEMANTICS), he is just giving and receiving, no semantics. Sure he could attach his random meanings to those random symbols but that has absolutely nothing to do with the Chinese room argument not to mention that is the capacity of a human mind not a syntactical computer with which the argument is based upon.. Not to mention we are talking about a human doing it, with semantics, so that's null and void. After all this is a scenario to explain semantics and syntax.
@@Alphardus The thought experiment buries a ridiculous assumption that the book itself is capable of carrying out any conceivable Chinese conversation when executed properly, in which case it not only “understands” Chinese but is also basically omniscient.
The arguments against consciousness being a computation sound more like "I don’t want it to be that way, so I won't believe it". What should be the meaningful difference between a biological brain and a computer that is capable of simulating the chemical interactions inside the brain?
I do agree that it doesn't seem reasonable to just assume we're part of a simulation though.
It's questionable wether or not chemical interactions are the only physical actions inside the human brain necessary to generate consciousness. It has been proposed that there may be quantum-mechanical processes involved in it. In that case it would be a lot harder to simulate, though not nescessarily impossible. Furthermore it seems that it's not that easy to separate the brain from the rest of the body, since both parts are heavingly interconnected.
Nonetheless, I agree with you that if consciousness is an emergent property of all the physical interactions happening inside the brain, then we should be able to simulate this process on a computer and would end up with a human mind.
I always believe that trying to upload your "brain" to a computer won't moves your consciousness to the computer, just your memories, so you'll be dead and their ganna be a computer with all your memories stored on it,
Similar to switching bodies in fiction, your not switching consciousness you've Just switched memories
If the only thing that constitutes our consciousness is the atoms in our brain then theoretically we could create AI by recreating the processes of a brain and if it were that simple we probably would've figured it out already which leads most people to believe there is a part of our consciousness that does not exist within the material world.
@@Nick-ij5nt I'm not sure why that should be simple. The brain is a complicated organ that has become what it is in the course of a very long time. And "AI" / neural networks are still a pretty new thing and are already generating impressive results. We're far from the point of being able to say that we've tried everything and there must be more to it than atoms.
@@Fuggl I agree that it would be ridiculous to just throw our hands in the air and give up because that wouldn't be very scientific. But in my opinion there has to be more than the material, scientists have been saying we're a few years away from AI since the 70s. There's obviously something crucial that we're missing here.
Thank you! This is the first time I hear someone making logical arguments against this hypothesis. On top of that you pointed out, that it is really more like a religious belief. People need to learn to think more for themselves and believe others less.
here's a fun one. Science is faith-based.
For science to work, we must assume uniformity (that is, events happen in a similar, predictable manner across time and space). This cannot be scientifically tested because we do not know the future. If we did know the future, science would have no use because we would already know everything that happens.
(And don't take my word for it. This is well-established in the philosophy of science. Kant was writing about this in the 1700s)
Now imagine the servers chrashing
Bostrom posits many civilizations, but it's interesting to note that "many civilizations" is not actually a requirement for the SH. You can get to the exact same result if there only ever was one base-level organic civilization, that just created many simulations.
Bostrom posits ancestor simulations.
Even so, these are just possible, future simulations. What if there are many, many more futures in which ancestor simulations never get created? This to me negates the "it only takes one" argument.
@@emark8928 I don't understand. What about those futures? :) Space where nobody exists is vaaastly larger than space occupied by conscious observers but how is that relevant to the argument?
What % of our planet surface is occupied by humans? 5 % maybe? What % of solar system is occupied? 0.00000000000001%? What percent of space in 100-lightyear radius? What % of possible universes have laws compatible with conscious observations? Probably infinitesimally small... :) But that is still irelevant because what counts are the observers that actually exists.
Or just that the natural laws of the parent universe is such that matter naturally through some force just creates the simulations
Vertical Simulations:
-Every simulation inside a simulation can only have a fraction of the data capacity of the previous simulation.
-If any of the simulations in the chain is finite then this would run very fast into the ground.
-Especially if you want a realistic simulation with general intelligence, realistic physics and with 8 billion people and many more animals, plants and all the other ordinary entities.
Horizontal Simulation:
-And if there are parallel simulations on the ground level, why would this be fare more then all other civilizations that do not create such simulations?
-One creates 100 simulated civilizations and 999,999,999 create no simulations.
-This would also be a strange civilization, probably spending a large portion of their resources into simulations in which they don’t even live and which produces data which they maybe could have acquired with other technologies which don’t require simulations.
-There is no reason to believe that they will not acquire a technology that make simulations redundant. Maybe a AI can easily come to such conclusions without simulating scenarios.
Re: "computers can never express intentionality"
Well the same logic could be applied to a conscious biological system. That box could just as easily be a neuron. A neuron doesn't know what it's doing. It is mechanically converts chemical signals into other chemical signals based on rules.
That does not mean a machine made of neurons cannot behave in a conscious way.
Additionally, Searle's version of the Chinese room argument is poorly constructed because it assumes there is an external source of consciousness. Instead, consider billions of people in billions of rooms communicating, not consciously aware they are performing the functions of neurons? Can you disprove that there is a higher consciousness here, which does know Chinese?
Searle looks at the individual parts and concludes that all of them together can't do what the individual parts can't do. That's like saying "My XBox doesn't know what Batman looks like. This game CD is just a hunk of plastic. Therefore, putting this game CD into my XBox can't draw a picture of Batman."
It's the fascinating idea of bunch of stupid things making something smart
Atoms connecting into proteins, those interact with each other
Cells making tissues and tissues connecting into organs and those into living being
Would you say that Google translate know chinese, or is it just like that man in a box
Yeah, lots of really bad arguments in this video I think. Many of them can be overcome by sheer numbers. Perhaps a particular civilization isn't interested in making simulations, but that doesn't mean much when you have trillions of civilizations with countless opportunities to do so.
@@Christobanistan I'm not really arguing simulations will be common places to live. just that there is a material basis for consciousness. Attacking substrate independence isn't necessary to poke gaping holes in the simulation hypothesis.
@@Christobanistan you’re still making the assumption that there are trillions of civilizations. Any argument either way can be countered in my opinion
I've watched quite a few vids on the subject, and this one is by far the best and the most comprehensive. I'm especially very glad you addressed the qualia problem (Mary's Room). Qualia are even more relevant now that everyone seems to assume that AI may be in the process of becoming 'conscious'. And no one even seems to care that they ignore the qualia. Most people, even quite smart ones, simply equate being 'mentally active' or 'conscious' with the movement of bits of information. It's quite maddening really. The ONLY thing we can really be sure about is that we have an 'inside', an inner world of thoughts, perceptions, feelings, in other words, the only thing we can be certrain about are qualia. So to simply pass them by as if it's some irrelevant phenomenon feels to me as if they are talking about an elephant without discribing its colour, its trunk and its size.
Qualia doesn't disprove anything and this video is just bad because his arguments are bad.
If you take into depth the concept of qualia, it is impossible for you to prove that other people are even real minds like yours. By taking qualia into account, you can't prove that AI is conscious....but you cant prove that anyone but YOU are. So, ironically, you made people and AI even closer by using the concept of qualia.
And lets assume that AI became conscious. How would we know about it? We wouldn't. Exactly because of qualia. And by the same reasoning, you cant even prove that anyone other than you is conscious.
The idea that no one but humans can acquire some form of qualia is based on pure faith and anthropocentrism.
Spot on. Our minds are flawed and it’s hard for ourselves to see our flaws. They wanna be right and have that hope
What do you mean
It’s absolute bullshit
It's a strange hybrid of _wanting_ to believe in something beyond our comprehension, while also trying to make specific claims about it. It narrowly avoids having to admit that we may never actually understand what lies beyond.
Something we tend to assume about the simulation hypothesis is that the universe that is being simulated has to be the same as the one the simulation is running in. Perhaps this "higher universe" has different physics than we know and our physics are simply an approximation of those. If this is the case, suddenly simulations are very feasible and there is no reason to be questioning the possibility of simulations.
Exactly
Do you have any evidence that we are living in a simulation or are you just salty because he debunked you sim theory bs.
Yep. The outrageous transitions during the early stages of the big-bang really blow the doors of possibilities open.
For this to be a valid defense you need to show that you can simulate a universe with completely different physics. I mean no quarks, no leptons, no EM force, no gravity, etc. make that work and we’ll talk. Fact is you can’t do it and if you could it would defeat the purpose because now there’s no reason to hook up your mind to it since it’s incomprehensible to you, and it doesn’t let you do research on your ancestors either. It’s a complete waste of time
@@cosmictreason2242 Except, I don't? All I need to do is show that reasonably accurate and computable physics simulations are possible.
Also, don't assume the intentions of beings from a different universe. You will almost certainly be wrong.
Although you fall too many times into the so called argument from ignorance, this is a really good vid and it shows you made research about the topics used for the video.
If we are living in a simulation, it doesn't make any difference.
Exactly. I think people really liked the first matrix movie but it’s a movie. We can’t break out like Keanu Reeves. We are bound to this reality until the die we die. After that it’s anyone’s guess. I like the idea of reincarnation or going up in the clouds to kick it with god but these are just beliefs. Beliefs aren’t facts. Just like simulation hypothesis is a belief, not a fact. I never really thought of it as a religion but it really is.
Is there any other channels similar to this one that you recommend? Just found you and I’m LOVING the videos.
i agree for the simulation hypothesis to work you have to accept the premises but i don't see how you can just put it down like that. it would be naive to consider "our" consciousness as something special and irreproducible.
Yeah if it's based on physical processes surely it can be replicated.
I would say so too. Sure it has never been done, but so was once the case for a lot of technology we have now. And we kind of have evidence that it's possible through our selves.
@@kieran8578 Theoretically maybe. Practically? Probably not.
@@rambo3rd471 yeah I getcha it's not like we can do it ourselves but nature has already done it through selection
I don't feel like most people would say the simulation hypothesis is objectively impossible because you're right; we don't know whether consciousness is something that can be reproduced through technological means. The problem is when people assign a probability to the idea, like saying the odds are greater than 50/50, etc. There's just no way to assign such a value based on what we know currently. Even assuming it is possible to replicate consciousness in a simulation, that doesn't mean there are more simulated consciousnesses than non-simulated. How frequently could a civilization actually develop to create a simulation? How many consciousnesses are in sim? Can sims create lower level sims? We don't know any of this, so assigning some kind of probability to the idea is a little silly. It's just a possibility at best, and nothing more
Funny that he says “if you’re a joe Rogan brain” you will believe the hypothesis without much thought, but Nick Bostrum Was on Rogan’s podcast and could not convince him of the validity of the hypothesis (It could be that Rogan just didn’t understand what Bostrum was getting at). Though the guests he has on are sometimes a bit short sighted on many things, Rogan himself is a pretty skeptical guy who likes to contemplate without necessarily believing the things he hears from interesting people.
Agreed. People just disagree without engagement which, when you’re criticising a theory for not being sufficiently scientific, is very ironic.
Yeah I remember that, Joe Rogan was kind of bashing the entire hypothesis and the guy, stating that he did in fact understand. It's interesting that this video proposes the opposite of what Joe Rogan actually did.
And actually Joe Rogan is a huge conspiracy guy, he was pushing moon landing hoax for a long time.
Rogan loves ideas, sometimes a little much, but that's what he loves. That doesn't mean he believes and adopts those ideas, he entertains them.
Simulation = Heaven, but you have to worry about the electricity being cut off.
Would love to see a full video regarding simulating consciousness within a computer from you. While I do agree with what you've stated here regarding contemporary computers, it seems to me that unless one adopts a dualist position they'd be forced to accept that the conscious processes can be recreated 1:1 within a powerful enough computer via an exact simulation of the physical matter that makes up the brain.
That's a good idea. I will probably make that video. Interesting point that you might be forced to accept that conclusion if you want to avoid falling into dualism. Idealism might work I suppose, but I've always been iffy about that view. I haven't read too much about it yet, and I'm curious how enactive/embodied approaches or panpsychists would answer that question.
sure, but _nobody_ knows what "exact" actually means in this statement, for it to be true
@@duncanclarke Have you heard about Alternative Intelligence? Imagine we'd find beyond earth some responsive consciousness that is wildly abstract to us. Ideas like the universe being self regulating it's chaos and order
To me, it has always been the desire to think someone or something has control over reality
To me, that reality isn't in control
Circle gets the sqaure.
yeah humans need a way to cope with reality’s complexity, basically science/spirituality/religion/philosophy is just that
We as humans try to figure out what life is based on our own minuscule, and weak perceptions, bruh we are just scratching the surface of tech and even understanding the things around us, and people are already going the next step and thinking about things we can’t even perceive, such as if we are in a simulation. The truth of the universe is far more grand than anyone could ever think of. In essence it’s unfathomable that a physical reality so complex could stem from a bunch’s computer code
The idea isn’t that we’re living in some “computer code” it’s more so from a similar design that we use in our computers. Basically a similar concept. Which makes sense considering everything from our brain to our perception of reality links to working based on similarities to that we create in other simulations like in games. ThTs basically where the simulation theory stems from so idk why it’s too irrational to believe.
That’s so very true, and the grandness of the universe is created by what the universe truly is, consciousness. The universe is only generated/perceived by ones individual mind, and one only lives because of the universe in which created it. Therefore, one is the universe, and the universe is it. Which you could refer to as god. 🕉🙏
@@rtytuyi The perception that our brain creates is created by a base reality in which that our perception is based upon. Therefore, our conscious perception is the universe, making that our perception is either in a parallel universe to other perceivers, or that this is the grand base reality. I’m which each parallel universe is its own grand reality. Once again proving that a perceivable simulated universe is truly impossible, and un probable. The universe only exists because of you, and you only exist because of it, therefore you are it, you are the universe, you are god…. 🕉🙏
@@rtytuyi do DMT, the things I have experienced are impossible to depict in words, so have the universe explain it to you personally, you’ll see what I mean by that comment.
@@lucas.hahn2027 exactly, good man.
The main problem is that humans tend to want to find purpose in things. People don't like knowing that life could end in a fart. Being apart of something bigger creates comfort.
Thanks for comforting me
Assuming we are in a simulation then we can only know the universe to the extent that the simulation parameters are discoverable by the program that governs our simulated brains. In other words…
If those simulation parameters require an understanding of parameters outside of the simulation (in order to explore them further) then our consciousness or what we like to think of as “consciousness” is only within the context of the simulation itself and that creates an inherent limitation. Therefore we are not conscience in a true sense but only conscience within the context of our limited existence. We might take this analogy to a spiritual level and come to the conclusion that only God is truly conscience and the only creator of this simulation. In this sense, it can no longer be a simulation (as we define “simulation”) and is therefore rendered as our only reality as we can not match the consciousness of God.
but the whole argument was about every civilization creating at some point such simulation. therefore the knowledge necessary to be god is given for every simulated civilization and simulating civilization
Paraphrasing the philosoper Immanuel Kant:
"The limit of our understanding is our humanity."
Everything we understand is understood by the lens of an generalized human perspective, I say generalized because each being experiences reality differently, that is why there is no such a thing as an objective or neutral understanding of reality.
Like a dog trying to understand humans?
no that's still a simulation and in this case instead of having a normal creator you're assuming it's god, doesn't change the fact that it still belongs in the definition of a simulation.
like if I were to get a space simulator and make some suns hit each other, they would only exist in the simulation, would I be their god then?
@@eVill420
Well, you have gotten to s point I agree with, looking at how we can control everything in videogames like "Minecraft" and also in lucid dreams, we cannot help but wonder if what we call reality is not also a videogame or a dream of someone or something.
On a sidenote, our parents are the closest thing we have to our gods since they created us.
I believe there’s a programmer in the upper dimension who forgot to break after he made a while loop and created infinite simulations within simulations of which we are a part of
right now im researching im looking at both sides doing my own research thanks for showing me your side :)
very very good, surprisingly the first video debunking this absurd hypothesis
Ok, you've made a valid argument, but I have a few counterpoints.
First off, you say that the first postulate: that aliens exist that are exceedingly more advanced than us, is a faulty assumption because we don't have, or more accurately can't find any evidence they exist and that it's possible we're the only life in existence. This gets into the Fermi paradox, but essentially, that's an anthropocentric argument, and nitpicking the premise doesn't debase the argument. Also, it's very likely we on planet earth aren't the only life because the fossil record shows that as soon as life was remotely possible it happened, and in a universe as large as the one we can see, assuming we're the only life to exist is even less likely than to assume life exists somewhere else.
Second, you refute the second premise by saying we shouldn't assume any existing alien species, given premise 1, would want the same things as humans, and that to assume so is an anthropocentric argument. A bit hypocritical given your first point, but fair enough, the counterpoint though, is that there are some conclusions we can make about how the universe works from observing our own world, that's just science, and if something is possible for us, it's likely any other species that reaches a similar level of technological development will have the same capabilities. In fact, if even 1 out of trillions of civilizations discovers the ability to simulate consciousness, then this premise too is valid. This is assuming the universe simulating us functions in the same laws our own universe does, the argument sort of breaks down otherwise as you get into the topic of metaverses and multiverses which is beyond the scope of the hypothesis.
Third, you make the argument that because certain philosophers think that there's something 'more' to consciousness than computation, and we haven't figured out how to simulate minds yet, then it's not only irrational, but faith based to even think it's possible, which just grinds my gears, because as a computer scientist interested in simulated intelligence myself, there is very little I have seen to prove to me that there's anything particularly special about human minds, and to assume there is is another anthropocentric argument. For example, the argument that a computer has no true "understanding" is basic AI stuff, and can be simply disproved by computers generating neural networks to accomplish complex tasks by trial and error until it "figures it out" which is basically what evolution did but over a much longer time scale, I'd say that's understanding by any definition. The man in a box argument is also flawed, because whether or not the underlying system making something work (in this case a man in a box) is irrelevant to the outside perception of that system, in which, the Chinese man "speaking" with the box perceives it as sentient and carrying on a conversation, which you could say is the same way our brain works, the neurons themselves have no "true understanding" of consciousness, just the rules on which they operate, and when presented information from our nerves and senses, produce specific reactions, for example: jumping back from a burning stovetop. The argument for "qualia" or "what it's like"-ness is just philosophizing. You can have a computer or program that just has a very fine, continuous even, scale on which things are measured, which it compares to other data it's received, in fact that's exactly what our brain does too, it takes the continuous spectrum of light coming into our retina and bounces a few electrochemical signals around the brain before handing that data to our hippocampus to be "perceived". It's naive to assume humans are somehow special in a way that can't be replicated computationally or physically, and if we were simulated, we'd assume we weren't because we have no way of knowing, any good simulation would be self correcting, devs could just pause the simulation, remove any discovered evidence, rewind time, and let us go on, none the wiser to any of it. The simulation hypothesis is an unprovable argument for a reason.
Lastly, you assert that belief in the simulation hypothesis is somehow a religious faith phenomena and it's related to mind uploading and our hope for something after death, which isn't really the case for the people who actually know what they're talking about, like Bostrum, NDT and others. While some people take it to a weird religious extreme, It is a logical conclusion, and at the end of the day, it's only logic, logic alone cannot prove something true or false, just like Roko's Basilisk, it relies on you accepting the premises to the argument being made. If you accept the premises, a logical conclusion is that we might live in some sort of simulated reality, and even if it were simulated, would that make it any less "real"? It's real to us, which is all that matters. If you don't accept them, then fine, but that doesn't make the argument itself any less logical, and some people who accept the premises think it may really be the case, which is where I agree it branches into belief and faith so to speak, because you're relying on something that is as yet unproven to conclude something that's unprovable by nature, but heavily suggested by the argument given as a possibility. that said, it's only tangentially related to mind uploading, which yes is motivated by a fear of mortality, but only tangentially in that if we are simulated, then we can likely simulate minds ourselves given time and the right tech. Mind uploading itself has nothing to do with the simulation hypothesis. As far as death goes in the simulation hypothesis, it doesn't imply any sort of life after death, in fact it contradicts it, because what does a computer do with data it no longer needs? It gets deleted and overwritten. So if we are living in a simulation, then there's even less reason to believe in some sort of afterlife, unless you make further assumptions about this, again unprovable, higher world.
In conclusion, the simulation hypothesis IS logical, but as logic goes, the conclusion itself is unprovable, hence the statement relies on you accepting the premises as true outright, which is where the misconception that it's "faith based" akin to belief in God is faith based. The major difference, is that the premises are actual possibilities, where as the main premise of religious faith is that "God is real" and so you proceed from an already unprovable premise, to an equally unprovable conclusion. It's entirely faith, whereas the simulation hypothesis is only kinda faith in that you have to accept the premises as valid for it to be valid, but the premises don't necessitate the conclusion, only it's possibility. To further illustrate the difference, religion is a circular argument since it presupposes God is real, then tries to prove it under that assumption, where the simulation hypothesis isn't predicated on the fact that we do live in a simulation, but on things that are themselves actually possible, making it a deductive, hence logical, argument.
First off, you’ve *already* massively miscategorized the first premise, as well as his response to it. The first postulate was “there are many civilizations”. You categorizing this as “aliens exist that are far more advanced than is” already adds information that wasn’t in the original premise, and creates an entirely different qualification.
Furthermore, he doesn’t claim these civilizations *don’t* exists. He simply claims that we do not know of these civilizations, much less they’re goals and motivations, therefore the assumption that there both ARE other civilization AND they have an interest in simulation is just that: a massive assumption. He never says they’re not out there, so he is absolutely not invoking any kind of anthropocentric claim that humans are the only conscious civilization out there. Once again, you’re massively mistaking and misrepresenting the stance you’re trying to respond to.
Your next point is that ‘drawing observations from the world around us’ is science. That is not science. Science is the rigorous process of testing the world around us, and then observing the results. Not just simply observing the world around us and drawing conclusions; that is the opposite of science.
Your second point reads exactly like this: “yeah i totally understand that projecting human intentions onto aliens is a very anthropomorphic (therefore, poor) assumption to make, but I’m going to do it anyways”. Like you seem to realize that this kind of assumption is flawed, yet assert it anyways? Why?
And let me clarify the defintion of anthropomorphism, as you are clearly throwing around words you don’t understand the meanings of. Anthropomorphism isn’t the belief that humans are some special creature. So further on in your comment, when you accuse OP of ‘being anthropomorphic’ by implying that he believes there is something special about human consciousness, there is no actual relationship to anthropomorphism at all. Anthropomorphism is the assignment of human attributes to other things. It is hard to have a fruitful discussion when people do not know the meanings of the words they are using, and just try to use big words to sounds smart.
To go on, I’m personally not going to touch your ‘response’ to the Chinese Room argument, but I suggest you do a bit more research on that matter; particularly if you want to be a computer scientist. But for the most glaring flaws I can address immediately: equating neural networks accomplishing complex tasks to consciousness is an absurd claim. Your claim that ‘this is understanding, by any definition’ is, in fact, a **very** different definition of understanding that anyone in the field of philosophy would ever claim, and is literally the exact issue that the ‘Chinese Room’ argument is intended to bring to light. Again, I highly suggest you look into the discussion surrounding the Chinese Room more.
You then claim consciousness to be no different than the man in the chinese room, which would suggest you have a purely deterministic belief on how the consciousness is produced by the brain. And thats fine, it’s a belief that I share personally. But thats all it is, a belief. The nature of consciousness is still far beyond our grasp, and nobody with even remotely rigorous scientific mindset would assert conclusions about it given current information.
You claim that there definitively *isn’t* some component of consciousness that can’t be simulated. Is this a verifiable claim? If you could verify this with some valid support you would revolutionize both the fields of AI and philosophy, and would probably be someone who goes down in history. But nobody on the planet can verify this, so just like the rest of us, you are only making claims based on belief, not evidence.
yall writing essays out here lol
You're wrong about quite a few things.
1. In all star systems examined, of all the exo planets we know of, of all the years we've been investigating the stars, we have found no evidence of extraterrestial life. Without a proper dataset of life and its possibility, with us being the only known instance, we cannot speculate on the probability of life. "There are many civilizations" (what civilizations? we know of none). Any belief that there are extraterrestrials is just a leap of faith since we know of none and have nothing confirming their existence, nor do we have any data available to generate a probability of life in the universe. So I do not believe "There are many civilizations" is a strong premise whatsoever. "nitpicking the premise doesn't debase the argument" yes it does that's how an argument works. If the premises are false the conclusion cannot be true
2. I shall group your other points together to dispute that computers can simulate conscious beings:
Are computers purely logical? Yes, of course they are
Are human minds logical? Not always. Sometimes they are illogical.
So how can something purely logical be illogical? It can't, thus conscious minds can't be simulated.
I just discovered this channel and wow this is exactly the content I have spent years looking for. Thank you and good luck in your RUclips career.
My thought exactly!
You've spent _years_ looking for lack of imagination, woolly thinking, and straw-man arguments? You really have set low goals for yourself.
I know I'm pretty late, but you argued that we shoulden't assume that we can simulate the mind, and then you gave your oppinion on the matter. My question is that isn't it antropo centric (was it the word you used?) to think that our form of subjective experience can't be created in a diferent method?
He didn't talk about multiple civilizations, he talked about human or comparable civilization. You don't need many civilizations for simulation to work. The argument is basically either humans be capable and willing to create simulated realities with conscious beings in the future or not, in the first case we are likely living in the simulation, in the second case we don't. That's it, there's nothing religious about it.
I think the idea of our world being a function of a greater whole (simulation) is a valid concept, and backed by our philosophical ideas around the laws of this universe. Our "universe" (observable) no matter how vast, is finite in higher dimensions. I don't agree with the idea that the world is a simulation in the traditional sense. I believe there's some validity behind the idea that our observable universe, is but a small part of a much greater whole.
Side note, you made an equally large leap of faith in stating you don't think the mind can be computed. Its unscientific to assume the mind is somehow special, and exists without computational proxies. To do so defines determinism as inaccurate, seeing how we should be able to determine the values that define the mind mathematically. This is all underlined by the assumption, that there exists a hard difference between biological and non biological.
Something I left out prior but feel should be said is: Our experiences are approximate simulations of objective reality. Our consciousness is a product of those experiences. The world we perceive is one entirely made up of simulations. Such concepts have been explored for ages now, one such is Plato's cave allegory.
Someone gets it
Even if we assume that there is difference between biological and not biological, what if we've made a processing unit made of biological mass of neurons
There shouldn't be anything stoping us from replicating the conditions in our brains
@@slice6298 Those who believe "biological" systems are somehow special, typically dismiss such things. They dislike reductionist views.
@@magnuserror9305 that's very interesting
That kind of believe would make sense for religious people, but the author seems to not be such
There's no proof that brain is more than just bunch of neurons
@@slice6298 There definitely is a difference. :) Von-Neumann CPU is far from a biological neural network in terms of physical architecture. And Bostrom's hypothesis kind of depends on the premise that it would be easy and cheap to create many simulated minds at scale. This might not be possible with the biological approach.
My most serious issue with the idea of the simulation hypothesis is that we actually do know that it’s *literally* impossible to simulate reality perfectly. This is because each time you simulate a particle in a self-interacting system simulation you have to add variables. Because of these interactions, you have to add an exponentially greater number of variables. What this means is that to *perfectly* simulate a quantum object as big as an iron atom, you need a computer that uses more particles than is in our solar system (you need at least one particle to track the value of each variable). Keep in mind this only takes into account the electrons - we haven’t even started discussing the quarks and gluons inside the nucleons of the nucleus. With these variables, we would need a computer using an unimaginably large number of particles to simulate just a single atom. Imagine simulating the particles in the computer, and simulating the particles used in that second computer, and so on. Each level demanding an exponentially larger number of particles.
I want to make clear that this isn’t a technology issue, no magic science can save this. The absolute smallest computer that can track a system is one that contains as many particles as variables in that system.
Entanglement can’t help lower the number of particles since it’s definitionally impossible to transmit information with it (this is what saved special relativity after entanglement was proven to not rely on hidden variables). The holographic principle sounds like one way to rectify this issue, until you learn that there is literally no evidence for it being true - even mathematically. It’s been shown to hold in mathematically idealized universes, but the rules used for these universes are incompatible with our observations. It’s just another math hack from string theory that brings us no closer to truth.
In short, the perfect simulation idea is absolute crap and holds no water. What we do know is that it’s impossible. This means that there’s no reason to think we are in a simulation.
For easy learning about either the computation issue I discussed or the holographic principle, I highly recommend PBS Spacetime’s videos on DFT, the holographic principle, and their recent one about simulating nucleons.
In addition to it requiring 10^80 atoms, the simulation is far more detailed than it needs to be if all it is is a recreational diversion for people’s minds, or a science experiment to see how society might have developed differently. If it’s an ancestor simulation, then the simulation simply cannot have the same amount of complexity that the original world did, which begs the question of why we have detail all the way down to the level of quarks and leptons. You’re heading in this direction but didn’t quite get there: to simulate a universe the size of ours, it would have to have more mass in the computers than is permissible by the schwarzschild radius. Because all of that data will experience light lag if you spread it out so gravity won’t break the computers apart, so you can’t actually simulate all the stuff going on because there would be too much mass in the system. Consequently, if this is a simulation, the original universe either has much higher c or much lower G, and when you make that change, you are now no longer simulating the original universe accurately. So it is not just impossible but self refuting
But you don't need a perfect simulation. You don't need to simulate what goes inside every atom of iron. Except when someone is observing it, which is going to be pretty rare. The rest of the time, you can use a statistical treatment for instance, or even ignore what goes on at a sub-atomic level. Or even at a larger scale. Have you verified that the chair you're sitting on is actually made of atoms,for instance? A simulation only needs to simulate the experience of being sat in the chair, not the behavior of every particle in that chair.
You have no idea what the 'world' outside the simulation is like. There is nothing to say that the outside operates on the same scale or rules as this potential simulation does. That would be like you are inside of a video game simulation, counting the pixels to explain the impossibility that they are generated.
Who says that everything must be perfectly simulated? You only need to simulate a particle when someone observes it, and in fact, you don't even have to simulate it, you can just simulate the observation. Much simpler. Besides you can't have any idea of the ressources of the universe where this simulation would be ran.
Y'all have it wrong ...
Its not a computer simulation.
Its a simulation made from consciousness.
This place is a creation, and you and me are part of that.
just discover your channel. really cool videos, myself never give much thought to this hypothesis
Your counter argument to the simulation hypothesis is cool and follow a logical path. However, the overwhelming hostility towards the other side make your point sound petty. You should just make your point and let people arrive at the conclusion. You're transforming a good argument into an emotional rant that really distract viewers to fully immerse in your viewpoint.
Yes! 👏
Right it's like he's scared he might have to cut the gay sex out or something
What hostility? Perhaps you’re perceiving something that isn’t there? Facts are more important than feelings.
@@theyliveyousleep8965 is that you, ben shapiro? The guy you replied to is right.
I didnt recognize hostility, but to each hos own theory and perception
Keep this kinda stuff coming, subscribed!
One major problem I have with the theory is that its assumptions rest on observations that we would be making within the simulated universe itself. The first assumption (there are many civilizations) may make some sense based on the sheer vastness of our observable universe, but if that universe is a simulation, we would know absolutely nothing about the ‘real’, non-simulated universe. One would have to assume that the alien intelligence could set the parameters of the simulated universe, and the laws of its physics, in any way it saw fit, and therefore we could make no assumptions as to the nature of the actual universe.
Most convincing argument for simulation I’ve seen is that particles behave differently when observed. Brings to mind rendering
However , this is a misconception. The "Observer" does not have to be conscious , it could just as easy be called that the collapse of the superpositioned objects are "not isolated from the rest of the universe" instead". Its a bit hard to explain but it has nothing to do with a conscious observer anyway.
Yes i agree, However....Is this something you have seen in the flesh, or just another honest to goodnest youtube video?...think about it.
I said that twenty years ago.
You haven't seen it though.
@@benegmond6584 there's alot I haven't seen but I trust multiple scientist that says that's the case.
We're living in a simulation concocted by our own imagination. It's not a computer, it's a dream.
Exactly
@@Joe-sg9ll Baudillard's theory is interesting. Thanks for prompting me to look it up.
@@finnyjoseph7050 I used to have lucid dreams and they are like the progression of "Groundhog Day". You do all the fun things you'd never do in real life, until you find yourself bored of hedonism. Then you kill yourself every time you enter the dream. I think "real life" is the same. We're a butterfly dreaming we're men for the purpose of play. Many of us are bored of the play and Pluxtony Phil has to die.
@@somethingelse4150 If this was the case, you would be able to breath through your nose after pinching it, as breathing in the real world is not affected by actions in a dream.
@@tfan2222 the dream seems completely real. Complete with all the necessary things. Don't let the necessary things fool you. You and I can only speculate what happens when we die, but I can't imagine it being much different than taking a nap.
What's your big picture? What do you see as the prime mover? I think you're not seeing the big picture. Which totally justifies us as dreamers just living a fantasy.
I love neuroscience more than anything else. I plan on doing a PhD in neuroscience and I am taking a simulation neuroscience course. However, the question of consciousness is difficult and while it is definitely my favourite thing to think about, I doubt I will ever find a conclusive answer as to what consciousness even is.
Jumping to conclusions can be dangerous, especially since laypeople may take it the wrong way.
Impulses of an organ. I’m kinda kidding but I mean that’s what it is ide say ole chap
a simulation neuroscience course. where?
I am intrested as well
“Yeah, fuck those ‘laypeople’ always dangerously misinterpreting my genius!” You pseudo-intellectual goofball🤣
Consciousness is nothing special, it's an emergent effect created by evolution, and also human social interactions and technologies, such as writing. We are biological lifeforms, animals adapting to reproduce, socialize and survive - the human brain is just an information central that is adapted to solve tasks to achieve these goals. It's first and formost a commando central that allocates different resources to different functions of the human body, which it is totally worthless without.
Thinking consciousness as something hard to explain and mysterious is bogus.
@@Carloshacheevolution is nothing but just another theory.
Great take about how continental philosophy can be used to debunk certain analytic themes that are take for granted.
you failed to metioned the double slit expiriments and its findings which cannot explained through materialism
I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone use syllogisms to solve real-world debates. This was a really interesting video. Definitely subscribing.
I find Bolstom's stimulation theory compelling but not for the reasons he gives. I don't think you can say one of these things is true, like it is just a probability game. Also, he assumes most cultures would evolve towards computers just like us.
This was overall a very weak attack of the simulation hypothesis, in my opinion.
I personally don’t believe human consciousness can be uploaded in the ways ray kurzweil-ites desire, and I don’t think that the simulation hypothesis is in any way an escape of afterlife, I really don’t think most proponents of it do at all.
You make a large argument about anthropocentricity, which I agree with in part, but you also assume we must be so unique as to be the only ones interested in making simulations, even though you just admitted that the vastness of space makes the existence of other life a near certainty despite there being no evidence for it right now. Would the same vastness not be responsible for other simulating species?
Also, who says the computational theory of consciousness is entirely invalid? Do you have another proposal that isn’t somehow religious? What makes you so guarded about the special nature of your subjectivity? What if the interaction of the circuits in your computer is enough to form a cogent reality for a system of simple subjects in a way you can’t comprehend. What if we’re the simple 8-bit simulation of a computer grander and more vast than we could possibly understand?
These are certainly all hypothetical questions but you dismiss this sort of hypothetical thought outright far too easily. Remember that the idea of atoms and bacteria and so many other things were ridiculous propositions at the time that gained steam and found their evidence as they went, and were able to produce predictions. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Overall this video just felt too desperate to attack. The simple gotcha counterarguments of someone unfamiliar with a deep and nuanced discourse. In the future you should try to make content that is more informed and constructive. As someone who cares a lot about nuance I just hate to see these complex issues simplified.
Ya I just don't understand how consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of our brains architecture.
The video was just about what reality may not be, instead of proposing any alternative, by the way, here are some other hypothetical answers for what is our reality:
- The universe we exist in is a dream if not the imagination of something.
- All living beings are the multiple personalities that exists in the inner world inside the mind of something, as if that thing had Dissociative Identity Disorder.
- The universe we exist in is a videogame in which all non-human living beings are NPCs, something like as in the game called "Minecraft".
Exactly.
Exactly what I thought. But I have to correct you on one point. We will never find any evidence of us being simulated. Neither if we are or are not. When it is part of the purpose of the simulation to stay hidden from us, like in an ancestor simulation, we couldnt find hints of it or if we did the evidence would be erased and the simulation rolled back. That's the neat part about artificial universes, you can modify them.
@@SirThomasJames Your GUESSES are a lot fucking worse thou.
That was well said and well made. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, or not so obvious!
As a computer scientist, the simulation hypothesis is hard to buy. Computational resources so massive they would be fighting physics to even be a fraction of capability
The Chinese room argument is wrong, you can never really share the exact same experience. Same way we both can see the colour red but how can you say your experience of red is the same as mine?
We just come to a shared consensus. If an AI simulation is given the chance to value human biological factors affecting our psychology the simulation would be indistinguishable.
I think you need to rethink simulation theory for arguments sake because even AI simulation once gets to horizon point will have the capacity to evolve 100 fold in seconds beyond humans and their comprehension.
The simulation theory doesn't conclude it's a computer simulation, just that it's a simulation.
Like the boltzmann brain thought experiment, which is like some kind of predecessor of the simulation theory.
The problem in this video, I think, its supossing there is only one way to achieve conciousness: human conciousness and its own qualia. Just after stating AI's will have boundaries to understand reality, it contradict itself and states we have those boundaries too, when refering to qualia.
And this discrimination between conciousness (which is already an issue for other animal species because of some humans who enslaves them), is gona become even a higher problem in the future, where some people will agree any kind of conciousness deserves being respected, but other people wont, and will use them in their own sake.
what you can say are we living in simulation yes no or possible
I think there is a possible physical limit to the complexity of simulation in physical reality.
Usually simulations are run with quite an explicit purpose. Simulating a long and complex time of reality isnt really something to do just cause.
Tho that could be less of a problem if the reality where our reality was simulated had different laws of physics. But also I would say theres a high chance that our reality would generally imitate theirs as by definition a simulation is an imitation of something in reality.
@@MommysGoodPuppy Complexity can come from simplicity like an apple which came from a tree that has a root system, leaves, branches etc. They all start and end with a seed which can birth more trees and apples. All we need is a simple principal. In the case of A.I it all starts with silicone chips, binary computations and even moreso with electricity which is found in abundance as a state of matter in the universe.
In terms of the simulation theory the thing that makes our universe simulation like and unique is time, outside of time states of matter, consciousness, simulation's/simulator could exist. We could be in a sort of cosmic fishtank, and there are many theories in how our universe evolves such as the cyclical universe.
@@doughboy3389 Possible, but first I have to clarify that possibilities are just part of the human mind experience, thinking about possibilities is just a way we use to approach reallity but they are not part of reallity and defend it is just gambling. Yes, under my imagination its possible, but not probable. Under my imagination is possible to think about red horses living in a planet near to sagitario A. Is it possible? Yes, but highly improbable. We talk about something being probable also as just a way to reimagine reallity, but what it is: it already is.
And, as a being simulated or as an organic being: I think, therefor I am. Even if we are not real (meaning in that case being simulated being) we are here, and the true nature of things doesnt change anything for us, we are just some primate-ants in any of those scenarios. So, life has the same meaning in any of them (and I know, that is not your question, but I think its the most important thing to remember than Descartes already though about life meaning even if its not "real" or just the dream of yourself being in coma (btw: wake up!! we are waiting for you!! ... joke... hehe).
I think in some way is natural for us to sometimes feel like a puppet of the circumstances, as if there is something bigger taking control of this fkn computer full of lag, which I hate haha. But I think thats a natural consequence of how our mind works, the search for patterns and a common feeling which Im opossed to surrender against it. Probably its some kind of evolved superstition, I wouldnt say an instinct, but a logical consequence of the search of meaning behind patterns.
We dont have any evidence to think of a simulated universe as something more possible than just being in an infinite universal bucle, or as the existence of those red horses in Sagitario A, or as the existence of a god or a devil using us as puppets for its entertaining.
Scepticism and doubts should come before and after imagining any of those scenarios.
In my opinion the issue with the simulation hypothesis is that we could even argue that the simulators also exist in a simulation and their simulators also exist in a simulation and so forth.
It doesn't explain why we are not the highest simulators who are not simulated.
It's simulations ALL THE WAY DOWN! 🐢 🤣
@@calebfuller4713 what ?
@@Claudius_Ptolemy Not a Terry Pratchet fan I take it? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
it can literally be infinite. our poor human brains can't even grasp that it could literally just never end, ever. there doesn't need to be an original simulator at all and it's a bit irrelevant anyway
@@eVill420 you cannot have an infinite regression. Even if we theoretical lived in a simulation within a simulation (and on and on) if the layers are peeled back enough it'll eventually lead to "true reality"
We do live in a simulation. The brain simulates everything we experience. But the argument that an advanced civilization created the simulation is fucking stupid.
A thing that can't be prove and can't be disprove count under faith.
Biocentrism - "I am conscious and thus the universe exists, when I cease to be conscious the universe will fade away." I like how logical it is, but do think that there are too many coincidence in science, the observer conundrum for instance.
Ufff, such certainty sounds like fundamentalism; that is not a good look.
We're not living in a simulation but better describe as living in the shadow of a shadow
Plato
I personally believe in the simulation theory, not for any philosophical reasons, but to instill hope in me that I can swap our current physics engine with one from a Half-Life game.
could that engine run at (roughly) 3*10^43 fps ?
The graphics are all right but the gameplay seriously needs an update
“What is faith? This is brazen hope. So confident in herself that she considers herself a Bill.”
Transhumanism ins - Victor Pelevin
This is why we do not have HL 3 ! WE ARE IN IT! ...these discussions can be funny, yes.
This made me think. As a simulation hypothesis believer, I am now not so certain. I don't know if I necessarily agree with all of the points you brought up, however, without a doubt, you did bring up some important things that I need to ponder. In my opinion, this was an amazing video about philosophy. It left me with something to think about, and that is a true sign of a great video. Keep up the good work.
Philosophically maybe we could go as far as to separate piece by piece.
You know you're real, you don't know if the neighbors are npcs,,,, well go up to them and ask them if they are, if they say no, which they will, then ask them if their family or friends are npcs. Now you have to do the same and ask your family and friends, your friends have to ask their family members........you can literally trigger a massive existential crisis......because how do you know, you're not an npc? That's why this theory in my opinion is "dull" it just pushes the whole idea into a void of craziness.
@@xingincool9672 Your argument doesn't really make sense to me. The only thing I *know* is that I'm not an "NPC". I think, therefore I am.
This video made a good point that the simulation is not provable. The theory is not superior to other philosophical theories. However, the title isn't really accurate, as it implies it is inferior to other theories, which is wrong.
remember, a simulated apple cannot feed anybody
@@Ajen005 a simulated apple can feed stimulated people
Another big problem with the simulation theory is that if it is constrained to the same laws of physics that our universe is, It seems very unlikely that we could host a virtual universe, describing every atom's motion, properties, energy etc. That would require an incredible amount of computing power that simply seems impossible. Another fallacy would be that once a simulated universe is established from the base universe, that simulated universe could then simulate a universe of its own. However, all of the computations necessary for the second universe and so forth would not really be computed in the first virtual universe, but actually in the base universe. It's one thing to say that one whole universe has enough room to run a simulated one, it's another one to say that those simulated universes could create other simulated universes on many different levels- "increasing our chances of being in one" while they are all being computed in the base reality. [edit: Oh, and if it's not based on the same laws as our universe, then claiming it as science is even more nonsense) It's the biggest problem for it in my view. Also, Quantum computing doesn't fix this problem.
An entertaining book that's somewhat related to this is Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose, it focuses on arguing consciousness is not merely a computable process. If you believe in this argument, the simulation hypothesis is out of the window. Penrose followed this book with another one: Shadows of the Mind. Even if you don't like those ideas, it can be very interesting to read about them and their criticism. Check out wikipedia's article on the Penrose-Lucas argument, there are tons of references in that article for anyone wanting to nerd out on this subject for a while.
Basically they're saying a supreme being created the heavens and the earth.
The issue that can be applied to both sides of the argument is that you’re equating the basis and laws of the current universe as well as the human experience to make an assumption on whether it’s possible/ impossible that we’re living in a simulation. The devices that may simulate our universe may be designed drastically different to modern day computers and may conform to different laws of physics and processes that we may never understand. I mean think about this, we have quantum computers, biological computers, typical computers, etc.
I mean, it’s the equivalent of building a red-stone computer and red-stone devices in Minecraft, sure some of it is based on real life circuits and stuff we use in our computers but the way it functions in game is drastically different than in the real world. You could even incorporate mine-carts, mobs, etc to make these computational systems if you wanted to which makes comprehension of these systems a lot different of someone who experience the world virtually in Minecraft than in real life.
But minecraft is a game not a simulation.
@@darkreaper300 Any game that perform calculations to generate a virtual space and mechanics is in itself a simulation. Games are simulators in fact theres an entire genre called simulator which is used in games like flight simulator, Forza motorsports and universe sandbox.
Plus it was a analogy to describe the difference in comprehension and laws between a system and reality, it’s not meant to be taken literally.
@@BigJMC OK but I was trying to point out that a game isn't an accurate simulation even universe sandbox 2 has limitations on how accurate it can simulate our universe due to hardware and software. For instance making a simulation of the observable universe accurate down to the atom is currently impossible. Simulating a universe like ours take a lot of information so the machine to process this info for a simulation would have to contain just as much info. In this case info refers to matter and energy and their characteristics. This only holds true if we assume information like matter and energy are conserved in the true reality. If so to simulate our reality would be pointless if done to the highest realism for it would take our whole universe to do so. So if we are a simulation of a higher reality we can't have nearly as much information in our reality as the true reality.
Finally someone took on board the philosophy of mind in order to rebute this simulation theory.
Omg you disproved the simulation hypothesis. You should do a video disproving Santa clause next
It doesn't look like you understand the simulation argument. You are presenting a strawman. The whole video is reminiscent of a high school essay.
Explain then the actual simulation argument please. (I am serious. I would like to read it)
@@user-vu9yd9fn8g here is the original source: ruclips.net/video/nnl6nY8YKHs/видео.html
@@martinkunev9911 Thanks, mate! :)
@@martinkunev9911 I still do not understand what is wrong with this video. Can you explain it for me please?
@@user-vu9yd9fn8g Pretty much everything is wrong.
1:44
P1: there are many civilizations
P2: civilizations build computers that can simulate conscious beings
These are not Bostrom's assumptions, this is a strawman.
2:53
"absolutely no evidence for this"
Actually, there is no evidence against it. All the physical laws we have discovered so far are computable.
4:25
"the man inside the room has no true understanding of chinese"
The confusion comes from treating the person as a separate entity. The room as a whole does understand chinese - by the setup of the experiment, there is no way to distinguish the room from a fluent chinese speaker. The video is anthropomorphizing the meaning of "understand". In a way it's a circular argument with an implicit assumption that one needs to be human-like in order to be capable of understanding.
Same goes for a computer - one needs to consider the hardware and the software together in order to talk about consciousness.
Discussions on the topic of consciousness are still open, but so far there is no reason to think the brain does magic. I wrote some on the topic:
martinkunev.wordpress.com/2021/10/05/artificial-intelligence-and-subjective-experience/
5:00
Mary's room demonstrates that we cannot consider the brain a storage device for facts. Experiencing something with your senses changes your brain and no amount of books would have the same effect. This just indicates that consciousness is not merely a set of facts but also involves dynamic processes.
6:25
"simulating conscious agents is not a straight-forward task"
That's probably the only statement in the video with which I agree. This however refutes in no way the simulation argument (it just suggests the possibility of losing interest in running simulations).
6:52
"this position is pretty much entirely based on faith"
Nothing in the entire analysis demonstrate the role of faith.
i think it's possible we live in a simulation, but it just seems really unlikely it'd be anything like the matrix, where humans or consciousness are the focus of it or matter in anyway. I think the most likely scenario would be we're just a really advanced sandbox game. Like literal sandbox game, like the one where you can drop sand and water and stuff and watch them interact.
I think they would simulate universe with certain conditions and run the simulation. They are most likely extra dimensional and exist outside of time and space. More then we could comprehend
I am utterly surprised that RUclips just for once suggested me this video... As I'm pretty much close to being sure that I'm a simulation. I almost have 100% certainty, only part missing here is actual knowing it. But then again I kind of feel that IF it is the case then we are not to ever be able to tell. Yeah I know I'm crazy, but I really enjoyed your video, srsly thx for quality video - is fun to watch!
very nice video! i know this is two years later, but if it is of your interest, it would be nice to hear your take on people who talk about traditional or alternative medicine. some family members talk about it as if it were medicine that “doesn’t seem to have evidence of working, but actually, it does work, because they way it works just hasn’t really been discovered”
(ofc this has many layers of complexity, and it may be very particular to each case, but nevertheless, they seem to shut their eyes and ears even when confronted with medical trials, and cognitive biases)
Interesting to me as well through my own anecdotal experiences with my family members and medicine. It is interesting that the mechanism of action for many medications are poorly understood, and yet they are still often prescribed. But yes, oftentimes when I have extensively researched into debunking various misconceptions of medical treatment, my family tends to disregard this research. I understand that many communities have an inherent distrust of the medical system (oftentimes warranted; Tuskegee springs to mind as the most obvious) but paradigms in research now differ so much from those of the past. I'd love a deep dive into this topic as well.
The reason this is so likely is simply because of the sheer number of possibilities. Outside of this supposed simulation, the world can literally follow or defy any rule that we've ever heard of, because the argument claims that our simulation is not real, hence making the rules of our existence obsolete. In the end, you end up with the possibilities of us NOT being in a simulation being every possible combinations of events that follow the rules of our world, compared to the possibilities that we ARE in a simulation being literally every combination of anything ever. It's like we've uncovered a potential new "final frontier" which we know nothing about, and may very well never know anything about. There is no way to disprove the theory for certain, and the only way to prove it is to find a flaw in the program which may be impossible. Thank you for listening to my ted talk.
To be fair, you didn’t disprove the theory. You simply attempted to contradict with unproven ideas. For example, to sum up what you said, “it’s not possible to transfer consciousness into a computer system.” With the technological capabilities that we currently posses, you’re right. However 200 years ago we thought going to space was impossible. Look at where we are now. Also you implied that if we truly are in a simulation, we believed there was some sort of after-life? That’s not necessarily true, so alluding that simulation theorists are deluded and “fear death” isn’t factual.
Not to mention you’re implying that this theory is subject to our current scientific/philosophical realities. There may be a multitude of theories that revolve around us being simulated beings, however the most prominent one suggests even the universe itself is simulated, so using our current scientific capabilities as an excuse to underestimate the logic behind the theory is quite absurd in my opinion.
Great video though!
I've never understood the concept of "transferring consciousness". You could model a copy of someone's consciousness (a sort of fixed snapshot of that mind) but you would still die and this photo version of you would be preserved and believe it is you even though it isn't.
@@clintvee The concept is that a consciousness is a file the can be cut, copied, pasted, and edited, so you can have multiple yous out there in digital form as well as the biological you, u could even go back and forth. You would have the choice of going to sleep / losing consciousness and waking up in digital form and then when you're done going back to your biological brain, or you could have digital yous running while you are conscious in your biological form and then you can have your biological memories updated to reflect the memories you gain digitally.
@@clintvee Well that would truly depend on what your definition of “you” is, but I can definitely see where you’re coming from.
No that's not what he said. He said that it is fundamentally impossible for electronic devices to be conscious. That is actually much worse than what you're trying to debunk. Because it ascribes magical supernatural properties to flesh type machines (life forms).
@@medexamtoolsdotcom “He said that it is fundamentally impossible for electronic devices to be conscious”
I said “Using our current scientific capabilities to underestimate the theory is quite absurd in my opinion”.
HAVEN'T YOU HEARD OF THE SIMS??? slaps head.
>rewrite the argument
>attack the phrasing that you wrote yourself in a way that wouldn't work on the original argument
If you can replace every piece of your bioware with hardware bit by bit, perfecting tech of uploading yourself merely becomes an exercise in making the process as fast and convenient as possible
That’s not as simple as it would seem though. We don’t even fully understand how the human brain works, let alone understand how to replicate it. I’m not saying I think it’s impossible but there could be some roadblock we run into in the future. Also we’ve understood how joints and hearts work for a long time but we still are not able to perfectly replicate those.
Bioware 🫵😂
Great video, dude. Is there any chance you will make one on the technological singularity in the future?
Thanks, man! It won't be my next video, but I have been considering making a follow up video to this one at some point, and the singularity is an interesting topic to include in that.
Excellent analysis and I totally agree. Mechanical processing of information bears only the most superficial resemblance to our actual experience of sensory qualities, not to mention the awareness of awareness itself. Even perfect imitation of a personality, capable of carrying on convincing conversation, would no more be the original consciousness than a clanking robot would be the physical person. The whole idea is ludicrous.
that’s what I can never seem to get past, is something like a personality. Like sure you can try to mimic it, to some extent.. but anyone with any sense would see after a while differences, if even subtle. Nonetheless i hear some saying that the human mind is no different than that of the Chinese room. Curious to get your thoughts on that
What makes you so sure that a mechanical processing would be unable of self-awareness? What is so special about a meat brain that its properties couldn't be reproduced with non organic materials? Unless you're granting some magical property to flesh that no other material could have, or assume the existence of a spiritual element such as a soul.
Actually I would say it's not ultimately impossible, but just vastly far beyond anything current technology can achieve. You'd meed a computer the size of the planet Jupiter to rival the complexity of a human brain, considering the fantastic sophistication of even a single cell. It's a difference of many orders of magnitude.
Here is a highly dense reasoning why we are not in the simulation:
We cannot be in the simulation. The reason is roughly this. Suppose Simon is in the simulation, and he entertains the idea that he is in the simulation. And he thinks about the word 'apple'. But since he is always in the simulation, he has never interacted with an actual apple, which the word 'apple' refers to.
Then Simon must think that "if I am in the simulation, then I never interact with an actual apple, and my understanding about the word 'apple' can only be given by the simulator. And this means I never exercise my reason to gain the understanding about the word 'apple', and never exercise my reason to apply the word 'apple'. Consequently, since what I am thinking right now involves the word 'apple', I am not using reason to think what I am thinking."
By denying he is using reason to think, Simon is being incoherent in thinking the preceding thought. To avoid being incoherent, Simon must reject the idea that he is in the simulation.
For the similar reason, if we think we are in the simulation, we are being incoherent. More simply, to think that we are in the simulation is to be incoherent. Therefore we cannot actually think that we are in the simulation. Hence, we are not in the simulation.
'This is not a valid argument. There is absolutely no way for one to disprove why you are in a simulation (every argument against it can be solved by considering a simulation with further granularity).
As a simple counter to your example, the simulator need not be that coarse. The idea of an apple need not be specifically created for you to think of an apple. If they simulate the basic physical laws of our universe, and over the course of our universe, every single interaction to the deepest, most granular detail, the earth with everything on it will emerge in the exact same way as we experience it. The idea of an apple will naturally arise in the mind of Simon as it would were he not in a simulation. The capacity for what we perceive as reason would likewise emerge as in the exact same way as we experience it.
It does not matter whether the simulated apple Simon perceives is specifically designed by the simulator or it comes about through evolution. What is crucial is that Simon makes the assumption that the apple that he perceives is simulated. Then the argument readily applies. And Simon's thinking is subject to being incoherent.
@@abrlim5597 It does not. The idea that we are capable of viewing ourselves (and our arguments) as rational and that we are inside a simulation are not mutually exclusive (as a side note, you really need to define your terms. Incoherent just means something that is unclear/confusing. I am treating it as meaning that the argument is logically sound, as that is how I think you are using it - tell me if this is wrong). This is formally a part of the Dilemma of Determinism (if everything happens as it is solely because of things that come before it, then so too must human thoughts, and therefore we cannot control them). Simon's thought process can be explained as being a result of the preconditioning of human minds (through the simulation, biology, or whatever) towards believing such thoughts to be the exercising of one's reason.
You are making a tacit assumption that we are in fact capable of reason as evidenced by the presence of logical thought (to be clear, I do not think that we are not, but it is important to make logically sound arguments). This is categorically unfalsifiable (there is nothing you can do to prove or disprove this. Any reason can be explained by increasing the sophistication of the simulation, or by a fundamental condition of our brains to think ourselves capable of reason). By using this to try and disprove the fact we are living in a simulation (which again, is unfalsifiable) is just incorrect reasoning, as these are both based on unprovable assumptions which are not necessarily mutually independent.
@@ffc1a28c7 "incoherent", like you said, means unclear or confusing. It definitely cannot means "logically sound". By saying Simon or Simon's thinking is incoherent, the argument above contends that Simon or Simon's thinking is confusing. Obviously, Simon is confusing or incoherent because eventually his thinking ends at the statement that "I am not using reason to think what I am thinking".
What we need to ask is, whether the argument above really succeeds to show that one's contemplation about oneself being in the simulation must result in oneself to think that "I am not using reason to think what I am thinking". If this result is inevitable, then I think we have no choice but must agree with this argument that we are not in the simulation.
I don't think the argument relies on a theory about how our reason came about. Whether the argument is successful is a question independent of the question how reason has evolved, or been generated in the simulated world. And the success of the argument has much less to do with whether the world, be it simulated or real, is deterministic or not.
No matter how reason has been given rise to, the problem is, whether Simon thinks he has ever used reason to gain understanding about the word 'apple'. For me, the argument is convincing in showing that by entertaining the idea of himself being in the simulation, Simon must inevitably be led to think he has never used reason to gain understanding about the word 'apple'. And this is where Simon is being incoherent. And to avoid incoherence, Simon must avoid thinking that he is in the simulation.
There are statements whose truth can be verified simply by thinking alone. The statement that P or not P is true is such a statement. 1+1=2 is another. And the discussion can stop right here when even this consensus cannot be reached. Another such statement should be "I am using reason". I take you to accept this. Otherwise, it is pointless to respond to any automated writings without reason backing up.
By the way, I agree with the argument above also because I have read the paper elaborating it, which I think is very helpful in coming to truly understand it.
The bigger problem with putting your mind on a computer is not whether the mind is a substrate agnostic but that most approaches to this would cause mind duplication, not mind transference. So you still live in a regular human body and then there's another one of you who doesn't. The fact that you have a digital doppelganger equally real as yourself is small comfort when they say "ok, it worked, time to get rid of the original." ☠️
Ha! Ha just watch Blade Runner 2049! When we put out for operation you, who wakes you or a simultion of you as your brain reboots! You will never know!
One can avoid the issue of mind duplication by having the human mind augmented by a machine and developing into a hybrid system. Eventually most of you would live on the inorganic substrate.
Great assessment. To my way of thinking, one only has to consider the fact that a simulation cannot prove or even understand one way or the other that it is a simulation, simply for the fact that it cannot compare itself to an outside point of view as to show the difference between itself, as being a simulation, and that which is not.
In other words, existence cannot be viewed or explained as from an outside point of view. Therefore, even if we are part of a simulation, a simulation cannot view the simulation.
"The question of an afterlife isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problem this really solves."
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
"If there were no eyes in the world, the sun would not be light."
-Alan Watts
Yes, indeed. Also the fact that pi has an infinite number. Such an infinite number cannot (as far as we know) be programmed onto any limited technologies that would enhouse such a simulation.
@@freshtoast3879
The brain conceived of the infinite and yet the brain cannot conceive of the infinite.
@@alterecho8261 quite true. There could be parameters that we are not seeing.
@@freshtoast3879 Nature has no parameters. It exists as a system in which one environment transitions ever so smoothly into another. parameters are only necessary when you want to keep separate or distinguish this from that. But reality is just this.
thanks for this amazing video!
The best part of a simulation is you can't know you're in one. Those variables wouldn't be coded. Subbed
Honestly, I think these people would honestly be better served by spiritual philosophy than scientism. Learning basic critical thinking was actually helpful in understanding that all frameworks of understanding are inherently limited, but switching between them and using them to explore the depths of things I take for granted has freed myself from my ego and unflinching confidence in my worldview
This was really well worded man. Thank you!
Unless the civilization that proceeds us in simulation inception has computational power of a variety outside our comprehension, De Cartes proved that if we are capable of conscious thought we do indeed exist, somewhere, in a reality of some form.
@@thotslayer9914 why do you ask?
I remember listening to Rupert Sheldrake's take on consciousness and wondering if he had ever dropped acid and searching and finding that yes, he had dropped acid.
Terence McKenna 😭