tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post2961701037872515221..comments2024-03-25T11:49:21.281-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: On Bostrom's Argument That You May Well Be a Computer SimulationEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-17442485040248201142013-12-26T09:51:48.173-08:002013-12-26T09:51:48.173-08:00Yes, funny! I don't think you're right, t...Yes, funny! I don't think you're right, though, that no one has noticed Bostrom's anti-Searlian assumption about the possibility of a computationally instantiated mind. Bostrom flags this assumption under the label of "substrate independence".Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-74427318543768015982013-12-23T15:44:13.727-08:002013-12-23T15:44:13.727-08:00I just posted my response to the Bostrom Argument ...I just posted my response to the Bostrom Argument on my Literary Blog at redheiferpress.com. I find it ironic that after proving (at least to my own satisfaction) that I am not a computer simulation, your blogger is now asking me to prove that I am not a robot.Peter Gimpelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-18387791971107911672013-11-15T16:13:47.791-08:002013-11-15T16:13:47.791-08:00Right, nice point! A lot of different scenarios c...Right, nice point! A lot of different scenarios can be loaded into possibility (2) above.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-63220404273987773632013-11-15T11:22:25.058-08:002013-11-15T11:22:25.058-08:00I would add a possibility: A post-human civilizati...I would add a possibility: A post-human civilization has lots of resource-efficient computing, but it has even more demand for non-ancestor-simulation computing power, so it uses almost none for ancestor simulations.<br /><br />The most plausible scenario of this type is a civilization whose inhabitants are themselves computer programs with a desire to have more runtime for themselves and their copies (and we know they are not us because they must be aware of their civilization). This would quickly drive demand for computing power arbitrarily high, no matter how much there is of it (as long as it is finite). An analogy in our own world would be if every Sim in The Sims needed real food while real people are starving.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-28527311889395217222011-09-03T06:59:20.005-07:002011-09-03T06:59:20.005-07:00Eric
Neat. I go with your anti-Wittgensteinian cr...Eric<br /><br />Neat. I go with your anti-Wittgensteinian crazyism.Richard Marshallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-26364384990390971662011-09-02T08:07:00.090-07:002011-09-02T08:07:00.090-07:00@ Richard: I agree with your first point about nes...@ Richard: I agree with your first point about nested and/or emerging simulated beings. Your second point depends on what you mean by "assume": If you mean something like "spontaneously act as if" then perhaps psychologically it's unavoidable and pragmatically justified (although I'm not sure of that), but if you mean "believe as my best philosophical judgment about what is probably the case" then I would disagree. I think that starting from our existing understanding of the world and pursuing out implications carefully we can find ourselves forced to acknowledge that various bizarre possibilities might well be the case, contra Wittgenstein.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-36360403787303755022011-09-02T08:02:02.757-07:002011-09-02T08:02:02.757-07:00@ Juan: By cosmological crazyism, I mean the view ...@ Juan: By cosmological crazyism, I mean the view that something "crazy" (i.e., both bizarre and insufficiently justified to merit rational belief) must be true about the general structure of the universe. The various bizarre options here derive both from philosophy (with simulationism being one option, idealism another, recent religious creation scenarios another, etc.) and from physical cosmology (with the pluriverse being one option, divinely orchestrated big bang another, etc., crisscrossing with the various bizarre possible interpretations of quantum mechanics and the insufficiently appreciated weirdness of the relativistic account of distance).Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-30499688776714720682011-09-02T05:02:42.791-07:002011-09-02T05:02:42.791-07:00Eric
Great article. I was wondering about the prob...Eric<br />Great article. I was wondering about the problem about assuming a 'we' if it turns out that I am a living computer simulation. If I am then perhaps so is everyone else, in a kind of multi-player scenario. Also, if the Searlean position is refuted by this scenario - I'm not saying I think it is but just supposing he would have to be for Bostrom's idea to work - then why not have sponataneous multi-subjectivities forming within the simulation. Or perhaps a manifestation constraint argument a la Wittgenstein might suggest that even if a solipsism is metaphysically true of the simulation, the vividness of the simuation would require that I assume other minds, infering them ( wrongly in this case) from my limited (false) understanding that the world is not a simulation.Richard Marshallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-34396535062876157022011-09-01T21:57:59.227-07:002011-09-01T21:57:59.227-07:00Hi Eric. At the end of your article you mention th...Hi Eric. At the end of your article you mention that you consider yourself to be a "cosmological skeptic". My question is: what do you mean by that? Does it have something to do with physics, or does it also encompass work done by philosophers i.e. metaphysicians? <br /><br />- JuanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-53345368119717541402011-09-01T08:45:24.257-07:002011-09-01T08:45:24.257-07:00I agree with that, Jernau. I don't mean to as...I agree with that, Jernau. I don't mean to assert that such developments are impossible or even particularly unlikely, simply that we should be cautious about projecting current rates of increase in computational power into the future.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-46313747188605713552011-09-01T08:10:55.210-07:002011-09-01T08:10:55.210-07:00Interesting post. On the point that the sort of ch...Interesting post. On the point that the sort of cheap computation power necessary to create such a simulation could be out of our reach is quite possible. However I'm not sure that its safe to assume that our laws of reality which limit our computational ability and the laws of reality of potential simulation creators are the same. <br /><br />Not to mention that it assumes methods of computation similar to our own computers are used. Using our own laws of reality a living or organic based computational system would be able to mimic the human experience without much difficulty given that we are organic computational systems.Jernauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353859105171868052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-38491114617676998932011-08-30T14:07:48.039-07:002011-08-30T14:07:48.039-07:00Thanks for the generous comment, Nick!Thanks for the generous comment, Nick!Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-69795286171163639652011-08-30T13:51:06.852-07:002011-08-30T13:51:06.852-07:00You were one of the first people I thought of when...You were one of the first people I thought of when I was listening to the Philosophy Bites interview on my run the other day. I was delighted to see in my RSS feeds today that you decided it worthy of writing about. I think your points are important, especially the bits in (C) about making very shaky assumptions about future computing power and consciousness. Thanks for sharing.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10992458507944205149noreply@blogger.com